42-43 too old for a baby?

[Anonymous]

I have two wonderful kids and absolutely would not. If, on the other hand, I met me husband much later and this was my first opportunity, yes, I would.

[Anonymous]

I would not tempt fate. You have 3 great kids and do far good health. A kid at 43-44 means college costs in your 60s. Your health could be perfect now but in 15 years?

[Anonymous]

You have three healthy kids. At 43 your risk of having complications yourself or a child with special needs is higher. Poor outcomes in either of these areas would change the lives of your existing children possibly for the rest of their lives. I mean it would probably be ok, but I’m not a gambler. You are up, take your chips and walk away from the table while you are still winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old is your youngest?

My youngest is 4. I want to give the youngest a baby sibling.

IMO, this is not a good enough reason to have another baby in your situation. Agree with a PP. Get her a puppy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I had my last child at 40 and 10 years later I just had a truly "out of the blue" health scare. We were really worried and it was not something that runs in my family. All I could think about was how selfish I was to have a baby at 40. Let me be clear- that's me. I am not judging anyone for having a baby past 40. This is the DMV and loads of us have babies later than other areas. When I looked at family genetics, I didn't question my choice.
Also a +1 to all of the PPs posting about perimenopause. Thank goodness mine has hit later- it's horrible. I can't imagine having a very little one while going through this.
Whatever your decision, good luck.

So the logic is if you had died at 50 with a 15 year old it would have been ok but dying at 50 with a 10 year old is a bridge too far?

I don't get it. Dying at 50 would be terrible. The end. I'm glad you're ok.

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

42-43 is too old. Please don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to be the "old" mom. I find it rough on the children. You may think it's great because you waiting but the children are the ones with the burden.

Eh, in a family of big kids this is just not a thing. The "old" mom is the one who has one kid at 42. It used to be quite common in large families to pop out a finale in early 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old is your youngest?

My youngest is 4. I want to give the youngest a baby sibling.

Umm. Do you see how this is kind of a losing mentality? You can't do that for everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to be the "old" mom. I find it rough on the children. You may think it's great because you waiting but the children are the ones with the burden.

I think the mean mom that says shit like this is the roughest on the children. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 42 and have 3 beautiful smart perfect children. I would absolutely go for another if it weren’t for my age. I know plenty of women my age who have/had/want children but most of them married later. I got married at age 29 and had 3 kids during my 30s.

Would you go for a fourth child at age 42?

I did conceive all of my children in the first or second month of trying so I was very fertile.

Yours is (was) a very common situation in the past - a woman gets married young, has several kids in the prime babymaking years, and then gets a surprise late pregnancy that's sort of a swan song. If you are up for it, your finances and health are good, and you can afford some support, go for it. I'd say with three children under your belt already, you probably would be free of the annoying preciousness that affects first-time mothers at 42.

I'm 48 and had my third at almost-45 but we started late. We had a surprise oops a few months ago when we had to think long and hard what to do with, but ultimately decided that at 47, we were too old. At 42, you are not too old. I mean you're on the older side but you are not outrageously old. The fact that you married earlier and have three kids already is a plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 42 and have 3 beautiful smart perfect children. I would absolutely go for another if it weren’t for my age. I know plenty of women my age who have/had/want children but most of them married later. I got married at age 29 and had 3 kids during my 30s.

Would you go for a fourth child at age 42?

I did conceive all of my children in the first or second month of trying so I was very fertile.

Yours is (was) a very common situation in the past - a woman gets married young, has several kids in the prime babymaking years, and then gets a surprise late pregnancy that's sort of a swan song. If you are up for it, your finances and health are good, and you can afford some support, go for it. I'd say with three children under your belt already, you probably would be free of the annoying preciousness that affects first-time mothers at 42.

I'm 48 and had my third at almost-45 but we started late. We had a surprise oops a few months ago when we had to think long and hard what to do with, but ultimately decided that at 47, we were too old. At 42, you are not too old. I mean you're on the older side but you are not outrageously old. The fact that you married earlier and have three kids already is a plus.

wow, I have not heard of that often at 47. Do you think it was viable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:42-43 is too old. Please don't

42-43 is not old but in general it is too old for a newborn. Just because you can does not mean you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I had my last child at 40 and 10 years later I just had a truly "out of the blue" health scare. We were really worried and it was not something that runs in my family. All I could think about was how selfish I was to have a baby at 40. Let me be clear- that's me. I am not judging anyone for having a baby past 40. This is the DMV and loads of us have babies later than other areas. When I looked at family genetics, I didn't question my choice.
Also a +1 to all of the PPs posting about perimenopause. Thank goodness mine has hit later- it's horrible. I can't imagine having a very little one while going through this.
Whatever your decision, good luck.

So the logic is if you had died at 50 with a 15 year old it would have been ok but dying at 50 with a 10 year old is a bridge too far?

I don't get it. Dying at 50 would be terrible. The end. I'm glad you're ok.

It was my reaction. I can’t explain or excuse it. At 40, I never would have imagined this happening.
I appreciate your comment.

[Anonymous]

Yes