When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

People in their 40s are fertile and birth control isn't perfect, so if a 42-year-old woman has sex with her husband and gets pregnant despite precautions, would you call that selfish? What should she do, not have sex between the ages of 35-45?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, she's happy now but how old is she? She will end up in therapy, end up being a lesbian or both.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure all of the people in the "selfish" camp were lucky enough to have children in their 20s and 30s. There are women who desperately want children for whom life circumstances (infertility, lack of stable relationship, etc.) prevented them from having children earlier in life. No doubt that the people proclaiming selfishness would view things very differently had they not been in a position to have children until age 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, she's happy now but how old is she? She will end up in therapy, end up being a lesbian or both.

I see nothing wrong with being in therapy, being a lesbian or both. What do we have - some posters from Liberty University or Bob Jones University on here?

Pack up the kids honey - we mistakenly thought we moved to an urban area, but we must have taken a wrong turn somewhere!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure all of the people in the "selfish" camp were lucky enough to have children in their 20s and 30s. There are women who desperately want children for whom life circumstances (infertility, lack of stable relationship, etc.) prevented them from having children earlier in life. No doubt that the people proclaiming selfishness would view things very differently had they not been in a position to have children until age 40.

I think it's just one person, maybe two, who are so negative. And the first person said she's in her twenties. Personally, I don't think that having a child in your twenties is a great thing. First, you're a child yourself. Second, having a baby really interferes with having a fun and carefree time. I loved dating, being engaged, going out for drinks all the time, spending tons of money on myself, and traveling around the world on a whim - all while I was in my twenties. I also got to concentrate on my career with no distractions - and made great strides there. And third, no matter what, you don't have the wisdom, patience or financial security that you will have later in life. Lastly, everyone I know who got married in their twenties is divorced now - the odds are really against you. Nearly all marriages end in the first ten years. Starting a family so young isn't ideal.

It would have made me bitter too!

[Anonymous]

Someone ACCIDENTALLY getting pregnant in their 40s is totally different than a 46-year old INTENTIONALLY getting pregnant. Let's picture the worst case scenario: she gets pregnant in a few years and gives birth at 48 to a developmentally disabled child. She can't have other children. She and her husband pass away before the child is 35 as the odds are that they will. Will her child suffer while she lives? Unlikely. But who will care for him after they pass away? My 70-year old MIL is consumed with anxiety about what will happen to her special needs daughter who has three siblings and lives in a welfare state with social benefits more generous than any we can begin to imagine. I read about a special needs man in DC who died covered in his own filth and vermin because there was no one to care for him after his mother died. What parent doesn't want the best for his or her child? I cannot imagine intentionally doing anything to increase the chances that this could happen to my child. I married at 28. My mother said, "Don't worry about kids. You have plenty of time." I would have loved to enjoy the glamorous and fun childless life with DH for 10 years before starting to have kids. But then I learned that fertility is less certain and genetic disorders are more likely with age and began trying to conceive right away. I don't want to demonize those who make different choices but I can't pretend their choices have no implications. They are at least a little selfish. Just like the IVF mothers who robbed their daughter of the chance to know her father. Think about it - If two cousins got married and purposely had a biological child who then turned out to have developmental disabilities/genetic disorders, would we just think it another choice or would we condemn them for proceeding despite the increased risks of which they were all too aware? We'd call them selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

No - reckless and selfish are the teens who have made those pregnancy pacts with each other. A grown woman whose health is good is not reckless in making this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm. I did not agree with the poster who said it's selfish to have children at an advanced age. But in the situation one woman just posed where she said she already has 2 healthy kids, I am beginning to think it is sort of selfish to have another when the risks are this high.
Even as the mother of a special needs child, I certainly had strong feelings about Sarah Palin's decision to have a baby at her age when she already had a large family of healthy kids.

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.

So, I don't find my desire for a third child to be selfish at all. I find it amazing that you come to this site and tell other people that they are SELFISH for wanting to have another child! I can think of lots of things that would be selfish, but having a baby is just not one of them.

Nobody said it was selfish to have another child...just selfish to want more at an advanced maternal age...you can be as healthy as you want to be for 41...that's not going to slow down the aging process of your eggs.

People evolve in the physical sense; our bodies are adapting b/c we're living longer. No longer do we need to marry and have kids by 14 b/c 25 was considered middle age. My eggs were - amazingly (!) - healthy for someone in her early 40s, and both pregnancies occurred naturally. So before you try to shoot a woman down by calling her eggs old, look around. You'll see tons of "older" women with young children. We're healthy, educated, and not the least bit resentful that we didn't get a chance to "live" before starting a family. So please don't try to educate us, as I'm sure we are resourceful enough to find accurate information regarding our fertility.

[Anonymous]

From reading these posts, I am actually beginning to think that the posters who are perpetuating ageism (bad, bad women for having children in their 40s!) also have no tolerance for the - for lack of a better term - "non-perfect" child. Again - bad, bad women for having a child with Downs or some other issue!

Don't you think that women in their 40s (whether they are single, married, or lesbians) are smart enough to figure out what they want? and CAPABLE of handling a child who may have issues? And LOVING enough to care for him/her?

What bubble do you live in? Do us a favor and float away.

[Anonymous]

I'm the forty-year-old. I'll add to the two previous posts. You can do simple blood work to determine the quality of your eggs: an FSH test, a clomid challenge test, and several others.

I did this blood work several times, and that is one reason why my Ob is so positive about me getting pregnant.

Then again, being forty is NOT considered any special risk by Obs. I just happened to do the blood work....

[Anonymous]

OP -- don't let your "advanced" age stop you from having more children. My mom had my brother at 41 and he's totally healthy/chromosomally normal, and a blessing to our family. Ironically (to those telling the 40+ mom she's selfish), my older sister, who was born when my mom was only 26, is handicapped as a result of severe prematurity. Point is, all pregnancies have risk. And a young age is no guarantee of a healthy baby.

[Anonymous]

They're not "bad, bad women" for having kids in their late 40s, just selfish as we all are in some way. Capable, caring, loving, selfish people who knowingly create these issues for their kids after swanning through the single years. I'm not mad at them -- I'm the President of the Selfish Women Club. I want things my way at the expense of others too.

[Anonymous]

My parents were both 26 when they had me. They told me to wait until I was older to have kids. They personally feel they missed a lot of opportunities having me when they were young and I agree. My best friend's parents were close to 40 when they had her. They were set in their jobs and had done a lot of fun things when they were younger so they had a lot of experiences to offer to my friend. She travelled alot and did so many fun things and was encouraged to take advantage of opportunities they came her way. My parents were too busy raising me and trying to get their jobs in order. My dad was never around since he was taking classes and working crazy hours trying to get ahead. My mom looks back on her life and wonders how things would be different if she did this or that (but she couldn't because of me).

And by the way - I am an only child and really don't care that I don't have a sibling. Most of my friends are only children and we are all quite normal.

[Anonymous]

This post is very concerning to me. I'm 42 and trying to conceive. For all those women who said having children in the 40s is too old because its selfish to take on a knowing increased risk of developmental problems by getting pregnant so late in life...for goodness sake, there's a 1% chance of a 40 year old woman having a child with serious problems. There is a 3% chance of a 45 year old woman having a child with serious problems. Should we women in our 40's avoid having children because of a 1-3% chance of problems in our child? That means there is a 97-99% chance we womenin our 40's would have a healthy child.
As far as not being alive to care for a special needs child, women who have children in their 40s are far more financially secure to handle that than a woman in her 20's or early 30's.
When I look around at the 20something or 30 something year old women that I know, they put their health at risk with obesity, being overweight, smoking, drinking too much, being unduly harsh with their children because of impatience, they lack financial security, they are less educated and they can't help their child with Algebra or Chemistry or Calculus homework....If a 40-something year old parent dies early, you can bet she has left her son with a good inheritance or trust fund of some kind. And before she died you can bet she was a far more involved and patient parent than a 20 something or early 30 something mom and her child, if he could recognize the difference, would expres gratitude for that. And you can bet that she valued and was more conscientious about her health than younger women are.
I had one young mom tell me 40 something women should not have children because they can't keep up with their kids. That's not true. I am more physically fit and healthy than most 20 year olds. When I go to the park I don't just socialize with other moms there, I actually run around and play chase with my child.
And if 40 something women should consider the possibility of having children with genetic defects I suppose all people with any kind of defects should also reconsider their choice to procreate and this should include 20 or 30 something moms who have low intelligence, poor judgment, lack of a decent paying and stable job, STD's (many many young people have HPV now), etc..
Let people decide for themselves what is best for them without being unduly harsh towards them. Otherwise people will be unduly harsh with you about your judgments in life as well.

[Anonymous]

OP, have the child if you want to. You could argue all mothers are either selfish (for having kids) or selfless (for having kids!), as you can see from this post. In the end, that doesn't matter a bit.

What matters is YOUR life. What works for you and your family. Not what "older women" should do or what the community at large thinks, but what is the right decision for you. You have to love and raise a child, and only you know if you have the spiritual, emotional and physical energy for that.

Every child is a gamble. You never know what life will bring you in terms of health or temperament. For those who say "its a known risk," I say that EVERY child is a risk. And medical science has helped to manage those risks these days.

I am deeply offended by those who are insinuating that children with disabilities, who were born from sperm donors, or are born to gay parents are somehow worse off than other kids or lead lives of lesser value. Those posters are essentially saying those kids are "better off dead" (or never born at all) than to live a life that isn't textbook perfect.

Why don't you ask those beautiful children what they think? Do they wish they had never been born? Calling a mother "selfish" for bringing to life, loving and raising a child is offensive.