Honestly: is 41 too old to have a baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is: Having a baby at 41 is nothing. Having a 10 year old at 51 and a 16 year old at 57 will knock you over

I'm 50 and my son is 8. My daughter is 12.

I run with my daughter. My husband plays BB with my son.

can't say that I'm "knocked over" - still at my college weight, too - And I looked pretty good in my 20s!

I think these generalizations are ridiculous and ignorant. We live in a nice home in a fantastic school cluster on 2 acres. I couldn't have given my children this life 20 years ago. Furthermore, you plan (pension, investments, college fund, long-term health, life insurance).

And as a teacher, I'm home with my kids all summer.

My kids are happy and not entitled. We can raise them well b/c we've been through it all!

Don't pretend to speak for everyone - especially if you're not an older parent.

Trying to sell YOURSELF how great it is?

Instead of attacking me, why don't you attack my points, genius?

I'll add more. My husband is retiring in 5 years, which means he'll be home for our youngest. We all know that the teen years are hard. I'll still be working but with summers off.

This is not a "sales pitch." These are the facts.

If that's hard for you to swallow, then air what specifically is bothering YOU about my life. OP asked if 41 was too old for a baby. For us, it wasn't.

Argument Rule #1 - Avoid Ad Hominem attacks. You look stupid using this technique.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP with three kids who is considering a 4th. Just wanted to say thank you for your insight. So glad you are able to enjoy your children! And it seems like you don't feel "old" which inspires me to remember age is only a number! Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was really hard to get pregnant is your 40's. Is everyone using assistance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

60 is not that old and if my kids are only in their late teens/early 20's why in the hell would I expect them to take care of me? That's my job.

If I had kids 10 years earlier than I did and I get sick in my 50's it would still not be up to my children to take care of me. Again - that is my job.

I personally do not expect my kids to put their own lives on hold to take care of me. No one wants to get sick but this idea that you have kids in order to have free nursing care is for the birds. My children have their own lives and I want them to LIVE them and be happy and have fun. Not be tied to my sick bed while their youth and opportunities slip away...

I have put too much time, energy and love into my kids to lay a load of guilt like that at their feet. My only regret in that situation would be that I could not be there more for them.

My mother died at 63. Glad I wasn't still in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is: Having a baby at 41 is nothing. Having a 10 year old at 51 and a 16 year old at 57 will knock you over

I'm 50 and my son is 8. My daughter is 12.

I run with my daughter. My husband plays BB with my son.

can't say that I'm "knocked over" - still at my college weight, too - And I looked pretty good in my 20s!

I think these generalizations are ridiculous and ignorant. We live in a nice home in a fantastic school cluster on 2 acres. I couldn't have given my children this life 20 years ago. Furthermore, you plan (pension, investments, college fund, long-term health, life insurance).

And as a teacher, I'm home with my kids all summer.

My kids are happy and not entitled. We can raise them well b/c we've been through it all!

Don't pretend to speak for everyone - especially if you're not an older parent.

Trying to sell YOURSELF how great it is?

Instead of attacking me, why don't you attack my points, genius?

I'll add more. My husband is retiring in 5 years, which means he'll be home for our youngest. We all know that the teen years are hard. I'll still be working but with summers off.

This is not a "sales pitch." These are the facts.

If that's hard for you to swallow, then air what specifically is bothering YOU about my life. OP asked if 41 was too old for a baby. For us, it wasn't.

Argument Rule #1 - Avoid Ad Hominem attacks. You look stupid using this technique.

Super modest and friendly, too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

41 + 20 = 61

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

60 is not that old and if my kids are only in their late teens/early 20's why in the hell would I expect them to take care of me? That's my job.

If I had kids 10 years earlier than I did and I get sick in my 50's it would still not be up to my children to take care of me. Again - that is my job.

I personally do not expect my kids to put their own lives on hold to take care of me. No one wants to get sick but this idea that you have kids in order to have free nursing care is for the birds. My children have their own lives and I want them to LIVE them and be happy and have fun. Not be tied to my sick bed while their youth and opportunities slip away...

I have put too much time, energy and love into my kids to lay a load of guilt like that at their feet. My only regret in that situation would be that I could not be there more for them.

My mother died at 63. Glad I wasn't still in college.

63 is young to die. She could have died at 53 or 43 or 33..

With life there is always the potential for death. However, very few people that I know PLAN to die young. But it can happen - whether you have your baby at 20 or 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

41 + 20 = 61

I'll be pushing 60 by the time my youngest is done with college. What should I do? Send him back to the factory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While some women certainly have had children over the age of Forty in the past, it has never been routine.

Personally,,I wouldn't do it, particularly for a first child, but if you are able to conceive and want to, it's your decision.

It's becoming much more common and has not been rare for the last 100 years.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/life/entertainment/story/2013/aug/15/delaying-the-diapers/115841/

...is among a growing number of women in their 40s who are having babies, many for the first time, studies show. According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in American women ages 40 to 44, birthrates have hit their highest point since 1967. Births have also become increasingly common among women in their late 30s.

...

Older motherhood is not a new phenomena. During the 1940s and '50s, when baby boomers were being born, fortysomething motherhood was common, with many women having the last of their three, four or more children well into middle age. But those numbers cratered during the '60s and '70s, when the baby boom ran its course.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/14/babies-over-40/

More women over age 40 are having children, according to a new National Vital Statistics Report from the Centers for Disease Control. Here’s how it breaks down: For women 40 to 44, the birth rate ticked up 2% from 2013 to 2014. And while the stats for those aged to 45 to 49 held steady during that timeframe, more women over 50 had babies in 2014: 743 births, compared to 677 in 2013.

National Vital Statistics Report
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf

Women in their 40s—The birth rate for women aged 40–44 was 10.6 births per 1,000 women in 2014, up 2% from 2013 (10.4) (Tables 4 and 8). The rate for women in this age group generally has risen over the last three decades (Figure 4). The number of births to women in their early 40s was essentially unchanged from 2013 to 2014. The birth rate for women aged 45–49 (which includes births to women aged 50 and over) was 0.8 births per 1,000 women in 2014, unchanged from 2013. The number of births to women aged 45–49 rose 3% from 2013 to 2014

For comparison, births for mothers 40-44 and 45-49
Year Maternal age 40-44 (births per 1000) 2014 10.6 2010 10.2 2000 8.0 1990 5.5 1980 3.9 1970 8.1

There were about 3.7M births in 1970 and about 4M births in 2014. So there were about 30K births to mothers over the age of 40 in 1970 and about 42K births to mothers over the age of 40 in 2014. Hardly rare and I would say that is routine enough.

The numbers are also rising in the UK and Australia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

41 + 20 = 61

PP was the one who said "nearly 60." She was clearly indicating that reaching adulthood in her mind meant age 18. Others think of it as 21. But I guess you just pulled 20 out of your ass, right, oh math genius?

[Anonymous]

It's just plain gross and selfish OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just plain gross and selfish OP

How about having a kid at 36? What about 32? How about having kids at all? Where's the cutoff for acceptable vs. selfish, please explain it to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just plain gross and selfish OP

LOL! What a brilliantly presented opinion!

Hahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is way too old. You have a greater risk of having a Down Syndrome's baby. My dad was 42 when we were born. It was gross having an older dad than everyone else. Too, it is selfish. You won't be around for your grandkids. Why not adopt a child who needs parents and is already here?

Gross?! Selfish? Wtf is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is way too old. You have a greater risk of having a Down Syndrome's baby. My dad was 42 when we were born. It was gross having an older dad than everyone else. Too, it is selfish. You won't be around for your grandkids. Why not adopt a child who needs parents and is already here?

Gross?! Selfish? Wtf is wrong with you?

Quite a bit, judging by "Too, it is selfish."