TTC at 45, two healthy kids at 40 & 42

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just for consideration, back in the day many women did start childbearing younger, but many also kept going for a long time. My grandmother had 6 kids between age 25 and 45. The youngest was in his 40s when she passed away. That is not unnaturally young to lose a parent.

People are overstating the risks as well.

OP you seem genetically well positioned to at least give it a try, but don’t delay further!

Well, they probably also had multigenerational family support - which is something that OP's kids definitely won't have. My parents were "progressive" in the 70s by having children in their 30s, as were my husbands. 3 of four are now dead. The fourth has dementia. "Healthy" people who lived "healthy" lifestyles...risks can't be overstated. But they can be easily ignored by the arrogant and self-interested.

[Anonymous]

Wow, my eldest will be in college when I’m 45. That’s wild!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my eldest will be in college when I’m 45. That’s wild!

I think it's wild to have a child in your 20s when you yourself are in many ways still a child (I know most DHs are!)
I have money, help, space, and importantly lots of time to be with my kids in my 40s. I had none of those in my 20s. I had more energy, true, but that's about it.
To each tehir own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I became a mom at 26 and still find the arguments made to be ridiculous. OP knows she will be an older mom…so what?? And her kids will also have each other later in life.

Congratulations on your BFP, Ms Fertile Myrtle. Lol Out here setting records. Praying this is a sticky one!!

Thank you so much for the supportive message. Unfortunately, I don't think this one is going to stick, but I am not giving up hope yet! Next month is another chance.

PP here, just checking on you.

Thanks. OP here. Had a very strong beta, progesterone etc. at 4 weeks & 3 days, bit miscarried a few days after. Chemical. I expected it at my age, but I am not giving up hope. My RE is awesome and is basically advising me to do natural monitored cycled due to my age. IFV and clomid not productive over a certain age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my eldest will be in college when I’m 45. That’s wild!

I think it's wild to have a child in your 20s when you yourself are in many ways still a child (I know most DHs are!)
I have money, help, space, and importantly lots of time to be with my kids in my 40s. I had none of those in my 20s. I had more energy, true, but that's about it.
To each tehir own.

I’m sorry you felt like a child at 27. Must have been a long adolescence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just so unbelievably arrogant and myopic. A third child at 45 is just a truly dick move to your kids.

I'm certainly not a traditionalist, but the trend of waiting to have children until you are in your 40s is not good. And yes, it is a trend. Reinforced by some kind of weirdly specific competitive streak (There is a running competition in the PAW - princeton alumni weekly - for "oldest mom" in the class notes section) in women and laziness in men.

for one, I'm worried that the genetic material is just subpar. All these ancient eggs and sperm, they just aren't the best. Getting around this issue with PURCHASED generic material - eggs, sperm or womb - is not the solution, it's a second problem.

Then of course....everyone "thinks" they are impervious to aging, illness, dementia, cancer, bad luck - but you aren't. Even something as simple as a bad back or bum knees. Those things are annoying when you have teens or college age kids, but will be a game changer if you have a five year old. Early onset dementia is more common than you'd like to think. And again, a problem when you are retired, but a life-altering complication if you have a teenager at home.

In the end, the real losers in this "trend" are the kids.

You are forgetting that there are older siblings. They can help take care of the aging parents/younger sibling.
But also, women who have fertility late also tend to outlive us all. It's a proven genetic link. I should know since my mom had a baby at 44 and her mom and grandma both lived to late 90s!
Lastly, if one has money, time and love for their kids, I call these kids winners, not losers. Regardless of parental age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so unbelievably arrogant and myopic. A third child at 45 is just a truly dick move to your kids.

for one, I'm worried that the genetic material is just subpar. All these ancient eggs and sperm, they just aren't the best. Getting around this issue with PURCHASED generic material - eggs, sperm or womb - is not the solution, it's a second problem.

My friend had a baby at 43 who just got into Hunter in NYC, a school for gifted children. I personally know the child and she is brilliant, hilarious, social, beautiful and healthy.
So you can keep worrying about inferior genetic material, just know that it's not how it actually works. According to your theory, children of younger mothers should be more successful; in reality, stats point to the exact opposite. Children need time with their parents and parental support in order to thrive, and older parents tend to be more established and present in raising kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, my eldest will be in college when I’m 45. That’s wild!

Was this comment really necessary. Did it make you feel good to say it?

[Anonymous]

OP, enjoy your journey and congratulations on wanting to have another child.

Check this out for a little inspiration and it just might negate some of the negativity you’re experiencing through this thread.

https://news.amomama.com/167889-meet-maude-star-adrienne-barbeaus-grown.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, enjoy your journey and congratulations on wanting to have another child.

Check this out for a little inspiration and it just might negate some of the negativity you’re experiencing through this thread.

https://news.amomama.com/167889-meet-maude-star-adrienne-barbeaus-grown.html

She gave birth to twins at 51 and now the children are post college. And it appears one of them went to Brown University!

[Anonymous]

stop while you are ahead, stop before 36

[Anonymous]

Unless you are wealthy, but even so still selfish

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so unbelievably arrogant and myopic. A third child at 45 is just a truly dick move to your kids.

I'm certainly not a traditionalist, but the trend of waiting to have children until you are in your 40s is not good. And yes, it is a trend. Reinforced by some kind of weirdly specific competitive streak (There is a running competition in the PAW - princeton alumni weekly - for "oldest mom" in the class notes section) in women and laziness in men.

for one, I'm worried that the genetic material is just subpar. All these ancient eggs and sperm, they just aren't the best. Getting around this issue with PURCHASED generic material - eggs, sperm or womb - is not the solution, it's a second problem.

Then of course....everyone "thinks" they are impervious to aging, illness, dementia, cancer, bad luck - but you aren't. Even something as simple as a bad back or bum knees. Those things are annoying when you have teens or college age kids, but will be a game changer if you have a five year old. Early onset dementia is more common than you'd like to think. And again, a problem when you are retired, but a life-altering complication if you have a teenager at home.

In the end, the real losers in this "trend" are the kids.

No need to be nasty.
Naomi Campbell just had a child in her 50s, Brigitte Neilson at 55, Jane Seymour had twins at 50. Do you think these kids regret being alive or have 'rough lives" Pleeeaaasse!!
Also, why do you care?

I care because people like you are holding these celebrity outliers up as examples. You don't even know these people and yet you think they can serve as legitimate examples of positive outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I became a mom at 26 and still find the arguments made to be ridiculous. OP knows she will be an older mom…so what?? And her kids will also have each other later in life.

Congratulations on your BFP, Ms Fertile Myrtle. Lol Out here setting records. Praying this is a sticky one!!

Thank you so much for the supportive message. Unfortunately, I don't think this one is going to stick, but I am not giving up hope yet! Next month is another chance.

PP here, just checking on you.

Thanks. OP here. Had a very strong beta, progesterone etc. at 4 weeks & 3 days, bit miscarried a few days after. Chemical. I expected it at my age, but I am not giving up hope. My RE is awesome and is basically advising me to do natural monitored cycled due to my age. IFV and clomid not productive over a certain age.

OP, I say this with kindness and compassion, but think now about how many chemicals you are willing to go through before calling it quits. It’s very easy to get sucked into the “maybe next time will be it” mentality, but for many of us our egg quality is shot long before our uterus is unable to host an unviable embryo. I let myself go on for far too long and didn’t realize how hard it had been on myself and my relationship with my DH until after the fact. Best to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:stop while you are ahead, stop before 36

I had both of mine after 36 and they are brilliant. Both at the top of their class at a top school, good athletes, good musicians, good at so many things! As far as I am concerned, old eggs are the best eggs because I cannot imagine better children. My RE claims that you either have a chromosomal normal embryo or you don’t. Once that hurdle is cleared, it’s total luck which genes get expressed and that has nothing to do with the parents’s age. She is a top RE in NYC, so I trust her explicitly.