Honestly: is 41 too old to have a baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Adoption cut-off is different everywhere.

re-phrase, adoption cut off varies, but 45 yo is the last straw. so at least one of the parents has to be 45 or younger.

Wrong again. Stop talking. The more you post, the stupider you sound.

TROLL

I'm not sure who is supposed to be the troll here - but 45 is not the cut-off. Each adoption agency has its own limits on what they will accept. And each country which allows Americans to adopt - has their own limits too. I know several folks over 45 who have adopted.

I should add that some agencies do cut-off at 45. The agency I used, for example. But many do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

Why? (honest question... not trying to be snarky)

Plainly, because it's a racket. IVF doctors and clinics are scam artists preying on desperate women. They give false expectations and are all about the exorbitant amount they charge for their services. The cost to insurance companies (if it's covered) is huge with little gurantee of a "return on investment".

The probability of a SN child is high and along with that comes increased healthcare costs associated with having a SN child.

Older woman are more reliant on childcare, because their parents are too old to assist with childcare needs. The increase in demand is what now have folks paying $15+ hour for a babysitter.

Older parents have the responsibility of raising children while also saving for college & retirement. Contrary to what many want you to believe, not all 40+ parents are well to do and financially set. It's a financial juggle for many.

Older parents increase the likelihood that they will die while their children are young(er) and/or have significant health conditions that may become a burden on their children.

So, yeah, while it CAN be done, it really shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Women should not fall for the idea that it's okay to delay parenthood for 20+ years because "there's time". While there are many women who struggle for many years with IF, there are also just as many who started late because they knew IVF was an option.

I just hate the assumption that women "CHOSE" to delay parenting or are somehow oblivious to the statistics. I didn't choose to have kids later. I would've GLADLY had them sooner. I didn't find a partner until later.

Well, then you're obviously not the type of mother referred to in the prior post. It was about women who intentionally delay parenthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

Why? (honest question... not trying to be snarky)

Plainly, because it's a racket. IVF doctors and clinics are scam artists preying on desperate women. They give false expectations and are all about the exorbitant amount they charge for their services. The cost to insurance companies (if it's covered) is huge with little gurantee of a "return on investment".

The probability of a SN child is high and along with that comes increased healthcare costs associated with having a SN child.

Older woman are more reliant on childcare, because their parents are too old to assist with childcare needs. The increase in demand is what now have folks paying $15+ hour for a babysitter.

Older parents have the responsibility of raising children while also saving for college & retirement. Contrary to what many want you to believe, not all 40+ parents are well to do and financially set. It's a financial juggle for many.

Older parents increase the likelihood that they will die while their children are young(er) and/or have significant health conditions that may become a burden on their children.

So, yeah, while it CAN be done, it really shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Women should not fall for the idea that it's okay to delay parenthood for 20+ years because "there's time". While there are many women who struggle for many years with IF, there are also just as many who started late because they knew IVF was an option.

I just hate the assumption that women "CHOSE" to delay parenting or are somehow oblivious to the statistics. I didn't choose to have kids later. I would've GLADLY had them sooner. I didn't find a partner until later.

Well, then you're obviously not the type of mother referred to in the prior post. It was about women who intentionally delay parenthood.

See the thing is - most of the women I know who had kids later - did not intentionally choose later motherhood. I just don't know if there are many people out there who decide to wait 20 years if they don't have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

Why? (honest question... not trying to be snarky)

Plainly, because it's a racket. IVF doctors and clinics are scam artists preying on desperate women. They give false expectations and are all about the exorbitant amount they charge for their services. The cost to insurance companies (if it's covered) is huge with little gurantee of a "return on investment".

The probability of a SN child is high and along with that comes increased healthcare costs associated with having a SN child.

Older woman are more reliant on childcare, because their parents are too old to assist with childcare needs. The increase in demand is what now have folks paying $15+ hour for a babysitter.

Older parents have the responsibility of raising children while also saving for college & retirement. Contrary to what many want you to believe, not all 40+ parents are well to do and financially set. It's a financial juggle for many.

Older parents increase the likelihood that they will die while their children are young(er) and/or have significant health conditions that may become a burden on their children.

So, yeah, while it CAN be done, it really shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Women should not fall for the idea that it's okay to delay parenthood for 20+ years because "there's time". While there are many women who struggle for many years with IF, there are also just as many who started late because they knew IVF was an option.

I just hate the assumption that women "CHOSE" to delay parenting or are somehow oblivious to the statistics. I didn't choose to have kids later. I would've GLADLY had them sooner. I didn't find a partner until later.

Well, then you're obviously not the type of mother referred to in the prior post. It was about women who intentionally delay parenthood.

See the thing is - most of the women I know who had kids later - did not intentionally choose later motherhood. I just don't know if there are many people out there who decide to wait 20 years if they don't have to.

There are plenty. Especially in this area where woman are very career-driven and looking to make a mark in the corporate world.

[Anonymous]

I disagree, I didn't even meet my husband till age 35. The last thing I cared about was mty career, but guess what even that didn't hlep me meet my partner any earlier. I will be 40 this year- I would have killed to have met him 10 or 15 years earlier- but guess what it didn't happen for me (and for a lto of others). I also have family history of people living to late 90s.... so hopefully I will do what is best for my family and the judgy people will keep on judging.

[Anonymous]

Actually, it is a rare choice.
"The number of women giving birth into their 40s and 50s and beyond is at record highs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2007, 105,071 women aged 40-44 gave birth, the highest rate since 1968; the birth rate for women 45 to 54 was 7,349, an increase of 5% in just one year. (health magazine)"

There are 380 million people in the US, 200 million women, 100K births= about .005%. Less than the number of millionares in the US.
The statement above is misleading b/c there are more, but the number is still tiny.

Many of the women posters think are 45-50, sadly are not. They just look old.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately waiting too long does happen for some.
Sometimes it doesn't work out, that's the problem.

http://www.potholesandpantyhose.com/2013/01/a-letter-from-a-childless-wife/

[Anonymous]

In this area, no, it's not too old. In this area, people are just starting families!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Totally agree. So sad for kids to have older parents who won't be around for them when they have their own kids. Some witches here envision they can just snap their fingers and will live to be 90...not going to happen for most.

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

I agree 100*/*

[Anonymous]

OP here. OK so for all you posters who so passionately oppose older moms, what's worse: having an only child at 37, or giving that child a sibling when you are 41?

[Anonymous]

I had my third at 41. i didn't get married until I was 35! I didn't think it mattered when he was first born and into toddler years. But now as he approaches high school i feel a lot older than the other parents. It bums me out. But i don't regret it one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. OK so for all you posters who so passionately oppose older moms, what's worse: having an only child at 37, or giving that child a sibling when you are 41?

Why do you care so much what other people think? Seriously, it's no one else's business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. OK so for all you posters who so passionately oppose older moms, what's worse: having an only child at 37, or giving that child a sibling when you are 41?

Why do you care so much what other people think? Seriously, it's no one else's business.

+1. Own your choices OP. Don't let random internet people tell you how bad to feel about yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. OK so for all you posters who so passionately oppose older moms, what's worse: having an only child at 37, or giving that child a sibling when you are 41?

I'm one of the "don't do it" folks. In this case, honestly, you've already started the "older mom" process so the least you can do is provide a sibling so that your child will not be alone in having to deal with any health, financial, etc issues you may face as you age. I would imagine that unless you are extremely wealthy, this would be quite a burden for one child to handle, especially as it's possible that they will have a young family when you reach the point of possibly needing assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my third at 41. i didn't get married until I was 35! I didn't think it mattered when he was first born and into toddler years. But now as he approaches high school i feel a lot older than the other parents. It bums me out. But i don't regret it one bit.

Why do yo think you notice it more now than in the toddler years?