Tell me about being pregnant at 42

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

OP here. I'm really glad you're talkiby about this. Kids of older parents invariably seem to feel this way. Not much we can do now for our son but part of my rationale is to give home a sibling to share that stress with instead of having to weather it solo.

Hey OP, I’m a child of older parents (late 30’s/early 40’s), and I don’t feel this way! I think having young kids in their forties helped my parents stay young. We’ve been really lucky; both of my parents are still healthy, and many of my peers with younger parents have already lost one or both parents. There’s no guarantee, of course, but just wanted to share a different perspective!

Plus, in the DC area the majority of educated, professional working women who have kids do it after 34-ish. So kids with "old" parents in the DC area won't be unusual at all. In my home town 35yo would seem old to have kids, but not in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

This is an interesting perspective, PP.

I had my first at 39 and my second at 41. Different scenario than yours, OP (no RE assistance and both vaginal births, but had gestational diabetes with my second pregnancy). Relatively uneventful pregnancies. The difference with my kids and the PP's experience is probably that many (most?) of the families i know had kids in their late 30s or early 40s, and some older. The families are also very racially and socioeconomically diverse. So, hopefully, they won't feel like the odd one out. Also my second pregnancy felt easier than the first despite the GD. I would go for it, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will be supporting children as you approach your retirement age.

doesn't everyone these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.

It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.

and you will be there to point out that there is no point in stopping smoking at 40 if you didn't stop at 20.

It would be better to quit at 20 than at 40. You’re the one arguing that age doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.

It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.

and you will be there to point out that there is no point in stopping smoking at 40 if you didn't stop at 20.

It would be better to quit at 20 than at 40. You’re the one arguing that age doesn’t matter.

omg you are so dumb, no wonder you had kids at 20.

[Anonymous]

Just report posters that shouldn’t be on this thread to begin with. You don’t need their negative comments.

[Anonymous]

OP has probably left this derailed thread, but just in case, I say go for it. You seem to want another one, and having had my one and only at 40, there won't be much difference between your pregnancy at 40 and 42. Sure we may be on the older side for parents, but there are a ton of us in the DC area. Just wanted to give you some encouragement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP has probably left this derailed thread, but just in case, I say go for it. You seem to want another one, and having had my one and only at 40, there won't be much difference between your pregnancy at 40 and 42. Sure we may be on the older side for parents, but there are a ton of us in the DC area. Just wanted to give you some encouragement!

Thank you!!

[Anonymous]

OP everything negative has been deleted from this thread. So go for it it’s all sunshine and rainbows. But if you want a more accurate picture look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

The 20s old poster wasn't providing accuracy just bias. It makes far more sense to consider the perspective of the women who have successfully delivered later in their 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have 1 5 day genetically screened blast on ice awaiting transfer. We have a 2 year old from the same cycle. I want to transfer but will be 42 in July and am concerned about my ability to pull this off. I have a high stress full time job, am slightly overweight, and have a (controlled) thyroid condition. Emergency C at 35 weeks for bp issues during last pregnancy. Have been waiting and considering giving our son a sibling for almost a year and the longer we wait the more sure I become that I want to do the transfer. RE giving it a 60% success rate. Interested in everyone's thoughts about whether to do it in these circumstances.

This probably is against the rules but: you have several significant issues. My advice would be: dont do it. There is more to parenthood than a pregnancy.
But if the forum rules are support only then : go right ahead.

[Anonymous]

Literally everyone has several significant issues. Go for it, OP!

[Anonymous]

Um, everyone on here has issues- that's why it's the infertility board. If you have a normal blast awaiting transfer, do it. If you don't do it, you'll regret it. At least you will have tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

I was 43 when I had my youngest and I have to say, your attitude sucks. I can understand when you were 15/16 noticing a difference (although teens will find anything to be embarrassed by when it comes to parents. and TBH there are plenty of fat lazy 45 year old parents as well as healthy superfit ones) but as an adult being sad that she was past her prime? That's just rude. I am sure you love your mom but there is no guarantee that anyone gets to spend healthy decades on this earth, we can go at any age. My cousin just died last week at 53 (car accident) and he had two teenagers. They had less time with their parent than you. Resenting your parents for not having you until they were older is something you need to get over. Be glad they were in your life as long as they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.

I was 43 when I had my youngest and I have to say, your attitude sucks. I can understand when you were 15/16 noticing a difference (although teens will find anything to be embarrassed by when it comes to parents. and TBH there are plenty of fat lazy 45 year old parents as well as healthy superfit ones) but as an adult being sad that she was past her prime? That's just rude. I am sure you love your mom but there is no guarantee that anyone gets to spend healthy decades on this earth, we can go at any age. My cousin just died last week at 53 (car accident) and he had two teenagers. They had less time with their parent than you. Resenting your parents for not having you until they were older is something you need to get over. Be glad they were in your life as long as they were.

+1. PP sounds unbelievably self-centered and immature.