Late 30's/40's pregnancies

[Anonymous]

OP, please don't overlook the fact that your fertility will go down significantly as you near your early 40's. As someone who had
a family member get pregnant using IVF, I wouldn't wish the expense and stress and heartache of fertility treatments on anyone.

And any nurse or doctor working on the labor and delivery floor of a hospital will tell you that the AMA patients are the ones
with harder pregnancies and labors. Sure, there are tons of success stories, and personally, I would have had children in my 40's,
if that meant not having them at all, but people should know that from a physical standpoint, you are always better off getting pregnant
and delivering without complications when you have a baby in your 20's and 30's, rather than in your 40's. That's just a fact.

[Anonymous]

I got pregnant and had my first after being told I would never without de. Easy pregnancy easy recovery. Super healthy smart gorgeous 16 month old! Thinking about another one but wishing for more time. Not because I feel old but because I don't want to be pregnant right away.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I was 41. I am 43 now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you new here? They're all 45 year old first time moms.

Seriously, DC is like the GrannyMom capital of the world. And no, the alternative is not having kids at 20. Many, many people have kids in their early 30s before the grannies start going crazy about establishing their financial independence pre-kids.

I was in grad school in my early 30s, then working, traveling, having fun, making $$$. It's wonderful to have kids later in life. I was able to switch to a good paying job with great work - life balance because of the education and experience that I got pre-kids. Honestly, I feel bad for those moms who had kids early on, work in dead end jobs with no flexibility, never got established, cannot afford a nice spa day, gym, derm appointments, vacations, and have to shop at Sams.

LOL you feel sorry for a demographic that isn't here. As I see it the majority of DCUM posters fall into two camps:

1. Much older moms who are financially comfortable
2. Somewhat younger moms who are financially comfortable

Of course there's outliers but very few of us here are truly struggling because we had kids too early. I had mine at 24 and 28. Just went on vacation this week, get my hair done regularly, wear nice clothes, and have a flexible career that allows me to bring in a second income we don't strictly need, bank it, and still puts me home before 5 pm. I'm 31, have had my kids, and have the rest of my adult life to work, travel with them, and lead a pretty nice lifestyle without having to mortgage myself for IVF at age 43. The older mim crowd seems to have this notion that defying basic biology makes them superior people. It doesn't. Glad you like your choices but that doesn't automatically mean the alternative choices suck. [/quote]


Here's the truth, sweetie. There are no guarantees in life. You could be dead tomorrow - either hit by a bus or hit by cancer. My aunt had kids very young and died at 35 when her oldest was 15. just dropped dead at a gathering . . . no traveling with HER kids, right? no time spent with grandchildren, eh? dead in the grave right now

So you vacationed. Was it a tour of Italy or trip to Rehoboth? You got your hair done? marvelous! You can spend $ at The Hair Cuttery or $$$$$ at a salon in some hip area. You're home before 5 and you can bank some of your money. fantastic! But there are PLENTY of people (on the young side) who live on ONE income in a middle of the road 'hood) who can one up you b/c they're HOME with their children, too. And guess what? They vacation on one income. What about teachers? home every summer and home at a decent hour for their children between August and June

You're not special, Larla.

And let's also add this - older parents going through IVF have the MONEY to do so. It's not a hardship once you've established yourself.

You're not special, yet your arrogant tone clearly shines through in your post. You do, however, fail to see the irony in your own post. I highlighted some lines for you in case you slept through English class. nice word choice, btw - suck - couldn't find another one that's more appropriate and that clearly gets your point across w/o being condescending and ignorant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you new here? They're all 45 year old first time moms.

Seriously, DC is like the GrannyMom capital of the world. And no, the alternative is not having kids at 20. Many, many people have kids in their early 30s before the grannies start going crazy about establishing their financial independence pre-kids.

I was in grad school in my early 30s, then working, traveling, having fun, making $$$. It's wonderful to have kids later in life. I was able to switch to a good paying job with great work - life balance because of the education and experience that I got pre-kids. Honestly, I feel bad for those moms who had kids early on, work in dead end jobs with no flexibility, never got established, cannot afford a nice spa day, gym, derm appointments, vacations, and have to shop at Sams.

LOL you feel sorry for a demographic that isn't here. As I see it the majority of DCUM posters fall into two camps:

1. Much older moms who are financially comfortable
2. Somewhat younger moms who are financially comfortable

Of course there's outliers but very few of us here are truly struggling because we had kids too early. I had mine at 24 and 28. Just went on vacation this week, get my hair done regularly, wear nice clothes, and have a flexible career that allows me to bring in a second income we don't strictly need, bank it, and still puts me home before 5 pm. I'm 31, have had my kids, and have the rest of my adult life to work, travel with them, and lead a pretty nice lifestyle without having to mortgage myself for IVF at age 43. The older mim crowd seems to have this notion that defying basic biology makes them superior people. It doesn't. Glad you like your choices but that doesn't automatically mean the alternative choices suck. [/quote]


Here's the truth, sweetie. There are no guarantees in life. You could be dead tomorrow - either hit by a bus or hit by cancer. My aunt had kids very young and died at 35 when her oldest was 15. just dropped dead at a gathering . . . no traveling with HER kids, right? no time spent with grandchildren, eh? dead in the grave right now

So you vacationed. Was it a tour of Italy or trip to Rehoboth? You got your hair done? marvelous! You can spend $ at The Hair Cuttery or $$$$$ at a salon in some hip area. You're home before 5 and you can bank some of your money. fantastic! But there are PLENTY of people (on the young side) who live on ONE income in a middle of the road 'hood) who can one up you b/c they're HOME with their children, too. And guess what? They vacation on one income. What about teachers? home every summer and home at a decent hour for their children between August and June

You're not special, Larla.

And let's also add this - older parents going through IVF have the MONEY to do so. It's not a hardship once you've established yourself.

You're not special, yet your arrogant tone clearly shines through in your post. You do, however, fail to see the irony in your own post. I highlighted some lines for you in case you slept through English class. nice word choice, btw - suck - couldn't find another one that's more appropriate and that clearly gets your point across w/o being condescending and ignorant?

Suck is a perfectly valid word. Sorry your delicate sensibilities cannot tolerate it.

IVF IS a hardship even if you can afford it. It's a financial, mental, physical, emotional drain. Nobody yearns to do IVF.

I have been to Italy. And trekked the Himalayas. And swam in Japan. But I would go to Rehoboth too since I'm not a snob like you.

And thank you for reminding me about teachers. Since I, uh, am one. Currently enjoying the summer off with my kids.

My post wasn't arrogant. It was a response to your assertion that your life is better than those who had kids earlier. Patently, I challenge that that is true across the board. You don't have to feel sorry for people who had kids younger than you did. Most likely, their lives are just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you new here? They're all 45 year old first time moms.

Seriously, DC is like the GrannyMom capital of the world. And no, the alternative is not having kids at 20. Many, many people have kids in their early 30s before the grannies start going crazy about establishing their financial independence pre-kids.

I was in grad school in my early 30s, then working, traveling, having fun, making $$$. It's wonderful to have kids later in life. I was able to switch to a good paying job with great work - life balance because of the education and experience that I got pre-kids. Honestly, I feel bad for those moms who had kids early on, work in dead end jobs with no flexibility, never got established, cannot afford a nice spa day, gym, derm appointments, vacations, and have to shop at Sams.

LOL you feel sorry for a demographic that isn't here. As I see it the majority of DCUM posters fall into two camps:

1. Much older moms who are financially comfortable
2. Somewhat younger moms who are financially comfortable

Of course there's outliers but very few of us here are truly struggling because we had kids too early. I had mine at 24 and 28. Just went on vacation this week, get my hair done regularly, wear nice clothes, and have a flexible career that allows me to bring in a second income we don't strictly need, bank it, and still puts me home before 5 pm. I'm 31, have had my kids, and have the rest of my adult life to work, travel with them, and lead a pretty nice lifestyle without having to mortgage myself for IVF at age 43. The older mim crowd seems to have this notion that defying basic biology makes them superior people. It doesn't. Glad you like your choices but that doesn't automatically mean the alternative choices suck.

I had a child young enough that I was regularly asked if I was the au pair in parks in DC, and one at 38 so I am part of the granny crowd. I don't understand the hostility on either end. Some of my best friends in the city are significantly older (I met them through child one), and I hope I make new friends (Some who will probably be younger) through child two. I do know that as much as I would like yet another baby (I am in my early forties) my biggest worry would be being around for my child as a young adult. I went through so much, and needed my parents so much, when I was a youg adult. My biggest comfort right now is if I'm not around, my kids are close and will have each other. In the meantime, let's support each other--no matter the ages. I also don't see a need to brag PP. Your life sounds nice, but being a young parent isn't that easy for everyone (certainly wasn't for me)--which is OK--I am still grateful for the experience and wouldn't have it any other way. Nor is being an older parent easy for everyone. Again, support.

[Anonymous]

Had mine both before 35. I'm comfortable financially. And so are many others. So there goes that theory.

Telling people they can easily have their first at 45 is giving them false hope. Sure, it happens for some. But for many it either doesn't happen past 40 or the child has developmental issues or other things previously mentioned. I know many post 40 who wanted a second who couldn't have one. So just bc you had one already doesn't automatically mean you will be able to have a second. I have a friend with two kids born post 40 and both diagnosed with special needs. It's tough for her.
Bottom line- don't wait.

[Anonymous]

I had mine at 34 and 36. People seem to make a big fuss about a few years, as though becoming a mom at 40 is somehow hugely different than being one at 35. Once the baby is born, I don't really see how it would be different...After a certain age, life stabilizes a bit, and at that point a few years don't matter.

Personally I didn't choose to delay kids; I went through the breakup of a relationship that was supposed to be forever. And then it took me a while to meet the right person. But in those years I got to do a lot of cool things that wouldn't have been possible as a parent. I have a PhD from MIT and was a professor. Traveled the world, wrote fiction, spent lovely time with my parents. Pursued all my dreams. Met an awesome guy.

So...whatever. There are pros and cons to any age at which motherhood occurs.. No need to judge, or even to care what anyone else is doing.

We think that the older mom is a modern phenomenon, but it really isn't. In my grandmothers' day and place there was no birth control, and women went on having kids until 40 or so.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 32, second and third at 34 and then my last pregnancy at 39, which was a Down Syndrome baby. I'm surprised to be the first to report this complication, which increases with AMA. I suspect those with complications are more reluctant to post.

[Anonymous]

I just had my second at 40, almost 41. Had my first at 37 and a miscarriage at 39. Thought we were going to need ART but turns out we just needed a vacation In an ideal world, I would have had kids in my early 30s but that isn't the way life worked out for me and I feel blessed to have my children.

[Anonymous]

1st at 37, preganant with 2nd at 40, both through IVF. We started trying when I was 34, but I am anovulatory and it took a few years to figure that out. I did have a complication with my 1st - I had placenta previa, which is more common with moms who are AMA and use IVF. It didn't resolve itself, so I had to deliver DS at 35w by CS.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 36, second at 39. Easy pregnancies, both c-sections due to the shape of my uterus, and easy recoveries. Most of my friends are having their kids in their late 30s/early 40s - very common among my peer group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 32, second and third at 34 and then my last pregnancy at 39, which was a Down Syndrome baby. I'm surprised to be the first to report this complication, which increases with AMA. I suspect those with complications are more reluctant to post.

I actually don't think this is as common as people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had mine both before 35. I'm comfortable financially. And so are many others. So there goes that theory.

Telling people they can easily have their first at 45 is giving them false hope. Sure, it happens for some. But for many it either doesn't happen past 40 or the child has developmental issues or other things previously mentioned. I know many post 40 who wanted a second who couldn't have one. So just bc you had one already doesn't automatically mean you will be able to have a second. I have a friend with two kids born post 40 and both diagnosed with special needs. It's tough for her.
Bottom line- don't wait.

45 is a totally different story that late 30s, IMO. I don't know a single person who had a child when she was between 35-41 that has had a child with special needs or developmental issues. In fact, the only person I know that had a Trisomy baby was 27 when she had her daughter.

[Anonymous]

Expecting DC #1 at age 40 (pregnant at 39). Started trying at 37, did 1 IVF that failed at age 39, got pregnant naturally 5 months later. Very easy pregnancy.