Anonymous
02/10/2025 00:17
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anderson Cooper had 2 (two!) kids after 50.
Andy Cohen also had two after 50 - and he is a single dad.
Andy Cohen also had two after 50 - and he is a single dad.
Anonymous
02/02/2025 14:16
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:Partner is 43.
Assume plenty of money on both sides to pay for care- both for the child and for adults. Big ideal obviously but there is no shortage of money
No, it's depriving the kid of a parent. 50 is way too old. 43 is pushing it.
Anonymous
02/02/2025 14:02
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:PP here. They're hoping to make it to when they can run in a Masters (over 40) race together.
Fabulous! If/when they do come back and let us know!
Anonymous
01/31/2025 17:22
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
PP here. They're hoping to make it to when they can run in a Masters (over 40) race together.
Anonymous
01/31/2025 17:21
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:I had twins at 45 (my husband was 42).
My kids are teenagers now, and so far there have been no negatives about being older, other than my concern about how long (and healthily) I'll live to be around for them. I have been able to keep up just fine physically (adventure travel, roller coasters, hiking national parks...). I have also been able to afford a fulltime nanny for the first 12 years of their lives, any activity they want to try out, amazing vacation travel, and the kind of flexibility with my work schedule that only comes later in a career.
So far, so good.
I just need a few more years of robust health to get them fully launched having had a mother with no limitations or health concerns. At this point that seems likely.
And then they're adults and it's a question of when/how I'll decline. Based on statistics, family history, and my current excellent health for my age, I should have at least a decade of reasonably good health. That puts my kids at late twenties, full adults. THey will have been launched with no college debt and tons of highly engaged parenting.
Based on direct family history, I'm likely to have 20 years before I experience significant physical decline. That puts my kids in their mid/late 30s.
And if I'm lucky that my overall healthier lifestyle and healthcare gets me farther than my parents, then I could be around until my kids are in their 40's and maybe I even get to enjoy being a grandparent. I'm certainly working towards that goal.
If I don't make it that long then my kids will inherit sufficient funds to support them in their first home, building a family, true financial security, etc...
Could I feel confident about any of that when I was 45 w/ newborns? No. Am I glad I had them? Absolutely. Do I wish life had turned out in a way that let me have them a few years earlier - sometimes. Though I wouldn't have been positioned financially the way I was - so there are always tradeoffs.
Parenting has huge challenges - but almost none of them have come as a result of my age. Rather, the wealth and stability that comes with age (and a strong marriage, that I didn't have until my 40's) has been hugely beneficial in parenting.
Don't judge your friends - just support them, and their kids.
My mom is 79 and still runs a few miles several days a week. She had her last kid at 41 (my youngest sibling). That sibling is 38 now and they run 5ks together.
Anonymous
01/31/2025 17:13
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I had twins at 45 (my husband was 42).
My kids are teenagers now, and so far there have been no negatives about being older, other than my concern about how long (and healthily) I'll live to be around for them. I have been able to keep up just fine physically (adventure travel, roller coasters, hiking national parks...). I have also been able to afford a fulltime nanny for the first 12 years of their lives, any activity they want to try out, amazing vacation travel, and the kind of flexibility with my work schedule that only comes later in a career.
So far, so good.
I just need a few more years of robust health to get them fully launched having had a mother with no limitations or health concerns. At this point that seems likely.
And then they're adults and it's a question of when/how I'll decline. Based on statistics, family history, and my current excellent health for my age, I should have at least a decade of reasonably good health. That puts my kids at late twenties, full adults. THey will have been launched with no college debt and tons of highly engaged parenting.
Based on direct family history, I'm likely to have 20 years before I experience significant physical decline. That puts my kids in their mid/late 30s.
And if I'm lucky that my overall healthier lifestyle and healthcare gets me farther than my parents, then I could be around until my kids are in their 40's and maybe I even get to enjoy being a grandparent. I'm certainly working towards that goal.
If I don't make it that long then my kids will inherit sufficient funds to support them in their first home, building a family, true financial security, etc...
Could I feel confident about any of that when I was 45 w/ newborns? No. Am I glad I had them? Absolutely. Do I wish life had turned out in a way that let me have them a few years earlier - sometimes. Though I wouldn't have been positioned financially the way I was - so there are always tradeoffs.
Parenting has huge challenges - but almost none of them have come as a result of my age. Rather, the wealth and stability that comes with age (and a strong marriage, that I didn't have until my 40's) has been hugely beneficial in parenting.
Don't judge your friends - just support them, and their kids.
Did you have issues getting pregnant at 45 for the first time? Did you have high FSH or other different levels? Is there anyone you saw for your issues?
I got pregnant at 44, after 3 years of trying, and only through using donor eggs.
Anonymous
01/31/2025 03:28
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:Having recently turned 50 and dealing with my body breaking down, I say no. I've been 100% healthy up to now, never overweight, never smoked, alcohol-free, always exercised, relatives all lived to 80s and 90s, etc. It's just a crapshoot and not one I'd be willing to take with my kid to have to deal with me being sick as they grow up. My kids are in college and very close to independence. The idea of another 20 years of child rearing is risky. By the way, I felt amazing at 43!! Not so much 7 years later.
A body breaking down at 50 is unusual and not the norm. People can have health issues at any age. I am overweight, haven't always exercised, drink, and I am healthy at 50. I wouldn't have a baby now because I don't want one and don't want the next 20 years of my life to be child rearing but if that is what someone wants for themselves, then hey. Many people are now healthy into their 70s.
Anonymous
01/31/2025 03:25
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
I just know a very sad story about an Holywood couple who left their newborn SN baby with the surrogate mother in Ukraine because it did not meet their expectations (it had no "hollywood smile"). A family from Maryland adopted the girl a few years later.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba
Anonymous
01/31/2025 03:08
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:I had twins at 45 (my husband was 42).
My kids are teenagers now, and so far there have been no negatives about being older, other than my concern about how long (and healthily) I'll live to be around for them. I have been able to keep up just fine physically (adventure travel, roller coasters, hiking national parks...). I have also been able to afford a fulltime nanny for the first 12 years of their lives, any activity they want to try out, amazing vacation travel, and the kind of flexibility with my work schedule that only comes later in a career.
So far, so good.
I just need a few more years of robust health to get them fully launched having had a mother with no limitations or health concerns. At this point that seems likely.
And then they're adults and it's a question of when/how I'll decline. Based on statistics, family history, and my current excellent health for my age, I should have at least a decade of reasonably good health. That puts my kids at late twenties, full adults. THey will have been launched with no college debt and tons of highly engaged parenting.
Based on direct family history, I'm likely to have 20 years before I experience significant physical decline. That puts my kids in their mid/late 30s.
And if I'm lucky that my overall healthier lifestyle and healthcare gets me farther than my parents, then I could be around until my kids are in their 40's and maybe I even get to enjoy being a grandparent. I'm certainly working towards that goal.
If I don't make it that long then my kids will inherit sufficient funds to support them in their first home, building a family, true financial security, etc...
Could I feel confident about any of that when I was 45 w/ newborns? No. Am I glad I had them? Absolutely. Do I wish life had turned out in a way that let me have them a few years earlier - sometimes. Though I wouldn't have been positioned financially the way I was - so there are always tradeoffs.
Parenting has huge challenges - but almost none of them have come as a result of my age. Rather, the wealth and stability that comes with age (and a strong marriage, that I didn't have until my 40's) has been hugely beneficial in parenting.
Don't judge your friends - just support them, and their kids.
Did you have issues getting pregnant at 45 for the first time? Did you have high FSH or other different levels? Is there anyone you saw for your issues?
Anonymous
01/29/2025 14:10
Subject: Re:Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
You may not need a surrogate. An egg donor, yes.
I had one at 40 and one just before I turned 45. I'm currently 50. I'm toward the older end of other parents in my kids classes, but there are definitely parents older than I am, so it's not that unusual in the DC area.
If you're in good health, it's doable.
I thought about more (I have frozen embryos). I have multiple family members who lived to 100 and most in their 90s, not that it's a guarantee, but was a factor for me. It's a very personal choice. Certainly, its a very nice choice to have.
I had one at 40 and one just before I turned 45. I'm currently 50. I'm toward the older end of other parents in my kids classes, but there are definitely parents older than I am, so it's not that unusual in the DC area.
If you're in good health, it's doable.
I thought about more (I have frozen embryos). I have multiple family members who lived to 100 and most in their 90s, not that it's a guarantee, but was a factor for me. It's a very personal choice. Certainly, its a very nice choice to have.
Anonymous
01/14/2025 21:49
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
No.
Anonymous
01/14/2025 14:14
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
NO WAY!!!!!!! NOT A CHANCE.
Anonymous
01/14/2025 13:33
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
I had twins at 45 (my husband was 42).
My kids are teenagers now, and so far there have been no negatives about being older, other than my concern about how long (and healthily) I'll live to be around for them. I have been able to keep up just fine physically (adventure travel, roller coasters, hiking national parks...). I have also been able to afford a fulltime nanny for the first 12 years of their lives, any activity they want to try out, amazing vacation travel, and the kind of flexibility with my work schedule that only comes later in a career.
So far, so good.
I just need a few more years of robust health to get them fully launched having had a mother with no limitations or health concerns. At this point that seems likely.
And then they're adults and it's a question of when/how I'll decline. Based on statistics, family history, and my current excellent health for my age, I should have at least a decade of reasonably good health. That puts my kids at late twenties, full adults. THey will have been launched with no college debt and tons of highly engaged parenting.
Based on direct family history, I'm likely to have 20 years before I experience significant physical decline. That puts my kids in their mid/late 30s.
And if I'm lucky that my overall healthier lifestyle and healthcare gets me farther than my parents, then I could be around until my kids are in their 40's and maybe I even get to enjoy being a grandparent. I'm certainly working towards that goal.
If I don't make it that long then my kids will inherit sufficient funds to support them in their first home, building a family, true financial security, etc...
Could I feel confident about any of that when I was 45 w/ newborns? No. Am I glad I had them? Absolutely. Do I wish life had turned out in a way that let me have them a few years earlier - sometimes. Though I wouldn't have been positioned financially the way I was - so there are always tradeoffs.
Parenting has huge challenges - but almost none of them have come as a result of my age. Rather, the wealth and stability that comes with age (and a strong marriage, that I didn't have until my 40's) has been hugely beneficial in parenting.
Don't judge your friends - just support them, and their kids.
My kids are teenagers now, and so far there have been no negatives about being older, other than my concern about how long (and healthily) I'll live to be around for them. I have been able to keep up just fine physically (adventure travel, roller coasters, hiking national parks...). I have also been able to afford a fulltime nanny for the first 12 years of their lives, any activity they want to try out, amazing vacation travel, and the kind of flexibility with my work schedule that only comes later in a career.
So far, so good.
I just need a few more years of robust health to get them fully launched having had a mother with no limitations or health concerns. At this point that seems likely.
And then they're adults and it's a question of when/how I'll decline. Based on statistics, family history, and my current excellent health for my age, I should have at least a decade of reasonably good health. That puts my kids at late twenties, full adults. THey will have been launched with no college debt and tons of highly engaged parenting.
Based on direct family history, I'm likely to have 20 years before I experience significant physical decline. That puts my kids in their mid/late 30s.
And if I'm lucky that my overall healthier lifestyle and healthcare gets me farther than my parents, then I could be around until my kids are in their 40's and maybe I even get to enjoy being a grandparent. I'm certainly working towards that goal.
If I don't make it that long then my kids will inherit sufficient funds to support them in their first home, building a family, true financial security, etc...
Could I feel confident about any of that when I was 45 w/ newborns? No. Am I glad I had them? Absolutely. Do I wish life had turned out in a way that let me have them a few years earlier - sometimes. Though I wouldn't have been positioned financially the way I was - so there are always tradeoffs.
Parenting has huge challenges - but almost none of them have come as a result of my age. Rather, the wealth and stability that comes with age (and a strong marriage, that I didn't have until my 40's) has been hugely beneficial in parenting.
Don't judge your friends - just support them, and their kids.
Anonymous
01/08/2025 15:42
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who is 50? The man or woman?
The woman is 50. She will not carry the child but it is her egg- frozen years ago. And his sperm. He is early 40s.
Yes. A friend of a friend just had healthy twins at 54 (she used her frozen eggs and carried them herself). They have a live-in nanny 8-5/5 days and in the beginning, a night nanny. They have gobs of money and it seems to be working out well except that the twins will set each other off if she doesn't settle one right away. They have already had their fill of traveling and fun and this new chapter suits them.
Anonymous
12/19/2024 20:10
Subject: Would you have a first baby at age 50 or 51? Assume a surrogate and $ but not a lot of
Anonymous wrote:I had two kids, one at 41 and another at 43. I was viewed as geriatric as a parent by literally everyone. It gets tiring having everyone assume you are the grandparent. It’s hard to find mom friends for me. It’s a lonely road! Money helps but doesn’t solve this. Also, your kids need and want YOU, not the nanny. It’s going to be harder than you imagine. That said it’s your life do do what you want, I’m just relaying my experience.
I also had kids in my late 30s and struggle to find mom friends. In my area, women are done by 30, so I’m a decade older. It will be lonely.
Also, this couple needs to consider whether they can change their routines. For example, could they quit traveling for a few years? Babies do not want to travel. I’ve regretted every plane flight I’ve taken with a child under 5. Sure, other people do it, and it’s not a hill to die on, but it’s the principle that life will change drastically. Can they put the baby’s needs first?