When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

She is a troll and should be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a troll and should be ignored.

Thanks, I'm the forty-year-old "selfish" person, and so now I'm happy to ignore her too.

Thanks again for the reminder.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI, I am a very healthy person. Never smoked, or did drugs. Exercise regularly, eat right, no abnormal family history etc etc. My husband can be described as the same. We have a child with developmental delays. It was an easy pregnancy with no complications. Full term. Just b/c you are healthy doesn't mean your baby will be neurotypical. All sorts of things can go wrong beyond Downs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI, I am a very healthy person. Never smoked, or did drugs. Exercise regularly, eat right, no abnormal family history etc etc. My husband can be described as the same. We have a child with developmental delays. It was an easy pregnancy with no complications. Full term. Just b/c you are healthy doesn't mean your baby will be neurotypical. All sorts of things can go wrong beyond Downs.

Not sure I understand the point of this post. Oh no!!!!! Developmental delays!!!!! Big deal. Cost me a few thousands bucks for PT, and my gorgeous kid is happy as a clam and now fully caught up. And yes, I can say she is gorgeous, since we couldn't even get up from our tabel at the restaurant Sunday night because everyone kept walking over to tell me how beautiful and well behaved she is. Oh, but having her is such a cross to bear and she is so miserable because she had developmental delays (not!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am the poster. I would have my baby at 40. The risks are not extraordinarily high. I've had two successful pregnancies and no miscarriages. I am very healthy and so is my husband. We have no family history of any sort of disease or birth defects. My Ob says my odds of Downs are way lower than the statistics for my age - so that's probably way lower than the 1 in 100 cited by the March of Dimes. In fact, my Ob is very supportive of me having another baby. His wife had her third child when she was 41.

OP, I don't have an opinion as to what age is too old to have another baby. But I am curious how your doctor could say that your personal odds of having a baby with Down Syndrome are "way" lower than your age would indicate. How can she know that?

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but 46 is too old to start trying to have a biological first child. You would burden him with an older mother and rob him of the chance to have siblings. Yes, it's selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but 46 is too old to start trying to have a biological first child. You would burden him with an older mother and rob him of the chance to have siblings. Yes, it's selfish.

That's just silly. What's wrong with an older mom? How could that possibly be a burden?

[Anonymous]

Yes, and exactly WHO are YOU to pontificate about this anyway?? I had mine (completely naturally) at 41 and 44. I'm now 46 and would love to have a third.

[Anonymous]

OP - I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you are seeking an opinion on - your biological/physical ability to have a child OR the "rigors" of raising a child for the next 18 years?

Are you worried about your health and ability to carry a child - if so, please discuss with your doctor (personal medical history, husband's medical history, statistics, etc. )?

Being "old" is a relative term. Some moms are 40+ old and chase their tots. Other moms are 10 years younger and can hardly keep up. So...it really depends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic: To 10:03 - My #2 is due soon and will be 4 years (almost to the day) apart. How is it going? How was the transition for your first? By the way, I'll be just shy of my 39th birthday and have had no problems, OP.

At first my daughter had a difficult transition - I'd say the first 2 to 3 months. But once her brother became active and developed a personality (and once he was on a schedule - good for me), she really started to enjoy him. She hugs him, makes him laugh, and generally entertains him. And he is fascinated with her.

I've heard the dynamics are different when the first is a girl and the second is a boy. There seems to be more mothering on the girl's part.

Also, what helped was having her in preschool because she has her own special time.

I love having the 4 years in between b/c although you're doing it all over again, your older child is much more independent. So you get a bit of relief in only dealing with one.

Good luck! It's easier the second time around.

[Anonymous]

4:18, I understand that most people would not agree with me but I think it's selfish for a man or a woman closer to 50 than 40 to start trying to have a baby. How will it feel to have parents in their 70s when you are in your 20s? And if they fall ill, how will it feel to have no other siblings to share the burden of their care? Is it a horrendous crime against humanity? Of course not. Is it selfish? To me, yes. Just like the 70-year old who gave birth in India. A lesser selfishness perhaps, but definitely selfish.

[Anonymous]

If it's any consolation, I think the selfishness of having a baby at 46 pales in comparison to the selfishness of using sperm/eggs from an anonymous donor to get pregnant, ensuring that the resulting child will forever be cut off from one half of his or her biological identity. You could get over a parent's death but I cannot imagine the pain of wondering who your biological parent is for your entire life. It constitutes cruel psychological torment (for the child) that I truly believe should be outlawed. Maybe my thoughts would change if I ever heard one person say, "I loved growing up not having a clue who my father was" but I never have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4:18, I understand that most people would not agree with me but I think it's selfish for a man or a woman closer to 50 than 40 to start trying to have a baby. How will it feel to have parents in their 70s when you are in your 20s? And if they fall ill, how will it feel to have no other siblings to share the burden of their care? Is it a horrendous crime against humanity? Of course not. Is it selfish? To me, yes. Just like the 70-year old who gave birth in India. A lesser selfishness perhaps, but definitely selfish.

As a previous poster put it, it is "always" selfish to have a child, regardless of circumstances. No child asks to be born onto this planet. We all do the best we can. No parent is perfect. Not even a 25 year old one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it's any consolation, I think the selfishness of having a baby at 46 pales in comparison to the selfishness of using sperm/eggs from an anonymous donor to get pregnant, ensuring that the resulting child will forever be cut off from one half of his or her biological identity. You could get over a parent's death but I cannot imagine the pain of wondering who your biological parent is for your entire life. It constitutes cruel psychological torment (for the child) that I truly believe should be outlawed. Maybe my thoughts would change if I ever heard one person say, "I loved growing up not having a clue who my father was" but I never have.

Remind me to pop down the street and tell the very happy child of the lesbian couple how sorry I am for her cruel psychological torture, will you? Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Agreed - no parent is perfect. But some choices are more selfish than others. Choosing to smoke or drink during pregnancy, denying your child a parent for eternity, getting pregnant in jail, having a child at an advanced age -- these are all choices. Selfish choices.