42-43 too old for a baby?

[Anonymous]

It's not too old for you but I do think it's riskier for the baby. Yes, you can get very extensive genetic testing but even that won't catch all the mutations that increase in frequency in age.

That said, I have two kids and feel fine without having more. If I didn't have any, my perspective would be different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not too old for you but I do think it's riskier for the baby. Yes, you can get very extensive genetic testing but even that won't catch all the mutations that increase in frequency in age.

That said, I have two kids and feel fine without having more. If I didn't have any, my perspective would be different.

Well, OP already has 3, so.....

[Anonymous]

Too old. Enjoy the kids you have. I say this as a 44 year old with two tweens.i feel like I’ve aged ten years in the past year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well if all three of your kids are beautiful, smart and perfect, the odds will say that eventually the dice will roll something else.
Also, before deciding, you might want to review the many threads from women in their late 40s complaining how crappy they feel. At 42, I was like “why do people complain about 40? Age is a state of mind.” At 48, half the time I feel like I am 100. Not sure I could handle a 5 year old....especially while also handling teenagers.

46 with a five year old and I certainly don’t feel 100. On the go all the time and no issue going on adventures, splashing in water parks, riding roller coasters and jumping off boats. Just depends on the person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well if all three of your kids are beautiful, smart and perfect, the odds will say that eventually the dice will roll something else.
Also, before deciding, you might want to review the many threads from women in their late 40s complaining how crappy they feel. At 42, I was like “why do people complain about 40? Age is a state of mind.” At 48, half the time I feel like I am 100. Not sure I could handle a 5 year old....especially while also handling teenagers.

46 with a five year old and I certainly don’t feel 100. On the go all the time and no issue going on adventures, splashing in water parks, riding roller coasters and jumping off boats. Just depends on the person.

With all due respect, what you haven't yet experienced is that there is a much bigger difference in the way you feel at 56 versus 46, as compared to 36 and 46.

Get back to us in 10 years and you'll see what I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too old. Enjoy the kids you have. I say this as a 44 year old with two tweens.i feel like I’ve aged ten years in the past year.

+100

I can't imagine having to chase a toddler/preschooler/kid around in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+ years from now in my mid-40s....ON top of your subsequent children.

And don't forget peri-menopause will be setting in. That alone is un-fun. Throw in kids, especially your 3rd kid who'd be 4 or 5ish, and ugh.

[Anonymous]

If this were a first or maybe a second child, I would say no, not too old. I think it crazy for a fourth with a five year age gap to the youngest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who knows. We were ridiculously fertile so I wouldn't exclude the possibility. Unlikely though. We didn't wait long enough to find out!

[Anonymous]

For me? Yes (47 and everyone is in college...hallelujah). For you? Maybe not.

[Anonymous]

not too old. if you are healthy and can afford it, go for it.

[Anonymous]

I just really don’t understand your reasons OP. Why would you want a sibling for your 3rd that will be minimum 5 years younger? They will not be playing together (possibly ever). My husband is 6 years older than his brother. They are best friends now, but we’re not close until you get brother was 18...
Your youngest already has 2 siblings!

You are not too old I guess (too old for me), but no that’s not the point. I really don’t understand why you want a 4th child...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well if all three of your kids are beautiful, smart and perfect, the odds will say that eventually the dice will roll something else.
Also, before deciding, you might want to review the many threads from women in their late 40s complaining how crappy they feel. At 42, I was like “why do people complain about 40? Age is a state of mind.” At 48, half the time I feel like I am 100. Not sure I could handle a 5 year old....especially while also handling teenagers.

46 with a five year old and I certainly don’t feel 100. On the go all the time and no issue going on adventures, splashing in water parks, riding roller coasters and jumping off boats. Just depends on the person.

With all due respect, what you haven't yet experienced is that there is a much bigger difference in the way you feel at 56 versus 46, as compared to 36 and 46.

Get back to us in 10 years and you'll see what I mean.

At 56 this hypothetical baby would be a teenager... and OP would have another teenager in the house still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too old. Enjoy the kids you have. I say this as a 44 year old with two tweens.i feel like I’ve aged ten years in the past year.

I’m 41 with 2 tweens and I agree. They take A LOT of energy right now. I can’t imagine also having a baby/toddler too. Someone would get short changed for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too old. Enjoy the kids you have. I say this as a 44 year old with two tweens.i feel like I’ve aged ten years in the past year.

I’m 41 with 2 tweens and I agree. They take A LOT of energy right now. I can’t imagine also having a baby/toddler too. Someone would get short changed for sure.

But you have no idea what that would mean. I would’ve loved less of my moms attention at that age. Also, there is a long life ahead of these kids. My sisters and I and my parents are all still really close at 40-plus. I love having a big family and having them. Sometimes more kids means more love and more fun and the right kind of attention. It’s so individual, personal experiences really have no bearing on it. Is 20 too young to have a baby? For some people, yes indeed. Is 5 too many kids? Not for some people. I mean, these are not rules. In prior generations it was super common to have a right before menopause late baby. Not weird, not strange just a thing. If you want one, have one. We are trying right now for a 3rd at 41 and we have the means, the help, etc. I’m not asking random internet strangers what they think because at the end of the day - who cares?

[Anonymous]

Super old for kids!