Anonymous
12/12/2015 18:27
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
Well then hurry up! I'm guessing it won't work but hoping it will. Good luck!!!!!
I have my first at 41, 2nd at 43, 3rd at 45. No problems, I did marry a younger man, maybe he has strong sperm. Its no big deal if everything still works.
No big deal for you, but you are a statistical anomaly.
+1 don't spread false reassurance PP. you were part of the lucky ones and on top of that you were 41 for your first not 43 which will evolve in 44 by the time they finalize the decision
not saying that to prevent OP from going for it just want her to hurry and not trust the unicorn cases
Anonymous
12/12/2015 18:17
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
I didn't read posts after that as I couldn't not respond to this. I am a NP and you have the wrong 2 groups, I don't think most people here who commented on age thought there was anything "wrong" with having children past 40. It is great, IF YOU CAN. Facts are painful and I say it as someone who had to endure fertility treatments and now the data in and out. A first biological child at age 43 is really not a given.
It doesn't mean OP shouldn't go for it, on the contrary she should rush. But I suggest she looks at the series from Amy Klein in NYtimes mother lode blog. Or goes discussing it in the fertility forum. She needs to understand what is at stake, and think quickly about what she would regarding fertility treatment + donor egg option. The bad scenario? OP takes a year to reach a decision, at 44 she starts, she loses 1 year trying with no success, takes her time considering donor eggs and at 46-47 ends up having trouble staying pregnant even with donor eggs...
OP I wish you well, go for it but open your eyes and start planning
Anonymous
12/12/2015 18:01
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.
"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.
Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?
Look, if it has taken most of your adult life from 25 to 43, you don't really want to spend time raising a family. Be honest about it. You just want the baby as an accessory and an add-on to the picture you think your life should look like.
Wow. Maybe they always wanted kids but were waiting for all the chips to fall into place for them (fall in love, get married, have kids) and it simply never happened. Not at 43 the option is to never have kids or have a child under different circumstances than you ever envisioned.
Did you READ the post? She isn't in "love" with anyone.... the man is gay and they just want a kid to have a kid.... they are NOT a couple they are just friends.
Yes. Maybe they both always wanted to become parents, never met the right person and are now realizing that they have 2 choices: 1) Give up on ever becoming a parent or 2) Having a baby together that they both love and want and raise the child together as friends (not romantic partners). I get that he is gay and I get that these two are not romantically interested in each other. I get that they both might one day fall in love with other people.
But they do KNOW each other fairly well having lived together for 2 years as housemates. They do LIKE each other as friends. They KNOW and they LIKE each other and they AGREE that they would BOTH like to be PARENTS.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 17:45
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
OP, DCUM is the most judgmental place you could ask such a question.
If you have a solid relationship with your friend, and the two of you have carefully planned through everything, why not try it?
If you have a solid relationship with your friend, and the two of you have carefully planned through everything, why not try it?
Anonymous
12/12/2015 16:10
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
another +1000 here
This is titled "I'm 43, I WANT..."
Why would you willingly do this to a child?
You WILL be in your 50's lugging a kid to kindergarten.
You WILL be in your mid- to late- 50's and early 60's lugging a kid (and their necessary equipment) to & from little league or other extracurricular activities. Staying up late doing homework, and teaching life skills.
You WILL be in your 60's when the kid would graduate high school, and mid-60's upon standard aged college graduation. (What was that about saving and retirement?)
And, let's not forget that as you age you're more and more likely to incur lengthy and expensive illnesses which require massive amounts of $$$, time and caregiving.
This entire thread is further notion of how selfish we Americans have become.
You simply fail to realize that those of us who had children in our mid 50s (for a variety of reasons). Invested, saved and bought homes here during a different economic time and prior to having children. Clearly you also come from a family that does not age well if you think people are decrepit in their 50-60s
Anonymous
12/12/2015 15:49
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.
I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.
It's not the children who are "messed up," although I could certainly see how they could become that way. And no one is inferior. I am saying that single mothers who willingly bring children into the world sans a dad in their life, in a married, committed home, are being selfish, yes. And their children are at an extreme disadvantage and will pay the price for that all of their lives. Adopting kids who already exist is another story -- most single women can better the lives of kids who would otherwise end up in more dire situations.
Nonsense. Raising a child is never selfish. Bringing life into the world is never selfish. You just gave a life to someone who would not exist otherwise.
WOW! utter B.S.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 15:46
Subject: Re:I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Totally selfish..... YOU want a kid.... you are not building a family.... you are not doing this out of love.... you are not even starting with a stable committed relationship because he will have his boy friends and you will have your boy friends popping in and out of the kids life.
Women get baby "hungry" some of it is biological.... by your age, while you are still able to have children, my guess is that the height of the biological imperative has significantly diminished. That means that most likely you are wanting a baby for another reason.... some of the reasons I've heard women give are "I want someone to love me," "I want something of myself," "I want someone there for me when I'm old." NONE of these reasons are selfless... they are 100% SELF focused. Kids TAKE they do not GIVE. If the expectation is that the child is going to "complete" you in come way that is delusional. Children are necessarily selfish creatures and only once they are grown doe they (if they are well adjusted) recognize their parents sacrifices and then they MIGHT be some sort of help/support for their aging parents.
You should just get a pet.
Well! You certainly are wildly invested in another woman's choices! They must affect you greatly!
Oh, wait.
Well lets see... in todays world yes... other peoples choices in OUR society affect me (and you). Besides she asked my opinion didn't she.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 15:44
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Here's a thought for people who are noting the problems the OP will have when she is an older parent (implying that the younger parents will have more/better time with their kdis):
My mom had me when she was 26. She died, suddenly and unexpectedly, when she was 50. You don't know how long you have, and anybody's life can be cut short at any time. So OP, start trying now if you want a baby. Who is to say that you won't have more/better time with your child than someone who had their baby when they were younger?
My mom had me when she was 26. She died, suddenly and unexpectedly, when she was 50. You don't know how long you have, and anybody's life can be cut short at any time. So OP, start trying now if you want a baby. Who is to say that you won't have more/better time with your child than someone who had their baby when they were younger?
Anonymous
12/12/2015 15:28
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Not to be mean, but you will ruin the kids life
Anonymous
12/12/2015 14:56
Subject: Re:I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
PP here, sorry sweetie but I'm female. Nice try though. Shhh, your elitism is showing.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 12:50
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
another +1000 here
This is titled "I'm 43, I WANT..."
Why would you willingly do this to a child?
You WILL be in your 50's lugging a kid to kindergarten.
You WILL be in your mid- to late- 50's and early 60's lugging a kid (and their necessary equipment) to & from little league or other extracurricular activities. Staying up late doing homework, and teaching life skills.
You WILL be in your 60's when the kid would graduate high school, and mid-60's upon standard aged college graduation. (What was that about saving and retirement?)
And, let's not forget that as you age you're more and more likely to incur lengthy and expensive illnesses which require massive amounts of $$$, time and caregiving.
This entire thread is further notion of how selfish we Americans have become.
You're describing something millions of men do at that age. Shhh, your sexism is showing.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 12:45
Subject: Re:I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:^ someone struggled with "maff"
Or, is that answer "no" as well?
The only person struggling here, is you. Families/parents come in all shapes and sizes and ages, not just the one you approve of, and half of those are shitty -- have you read the threads on DCUM? -- so why you are insisting they are the only "right" way to do things is beyond me. If OP wants a kid, have it. I'd rather have her kid running the world than yours.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 12:41
Subject: Re:I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
if you want a child as a single mom, by all means have one.
Some of the best moms I know in DC are single-mothers-by-choice (no partner, donor sperm in both cases).
That said, I'll jump on the bandwagon and ditto the others---your chances of conceiving a FIRST baby at 43 are infinitesimally small. They're much smaller than if you were 41 and even smaller than if you were 42.
Sure, there are moms around DC who are having kids at 43, 44, 45. They are either second+ kids or the results of donor eggs. The infertility clinics around here (there at least 5 major ones) are all
cranking out dozens (and some hundreds) of donor egg cycles per year. These are the majority of your older 43 pregnancies that you see in the DC area.
Your general health doesn't matter much when it comes to fertility. You can be in spectacular health and be competely infertile. You can be a 40 year old mal-nourished heroin addict and get pregnant instantly.
Some of the best moms I know in DC are single-mothers-by-choice (no partner, donor sperm in both cases).
That said, I'll jump on the bandwagon and ditto the others---your chances of conceiving a FIRST baby at 43 are infinitesimally small. They're much smaller than if you were 41 and even smaller than if you were 42.
Sure, there are moms around DC who are having kids at 43, 44, 45. They are either second+ kids or the results of donor eggs. The infertility clinics around here (there at least 5 major ones) are all
cranking out dozens (and some hundreds) of donor egg cycles per year. These are the majority of your older 43 pregnancies that you see in the DC area.
Your general health doesn't matter much when it comes to fertility. You can be in spectacular health and be competely infertile. You can be a 40 year old mal-nourished heroin addict and get pregnant instantly.
Anonymous
12/12/2015 12:41
Subject: Re:I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
^ someone struggled with "maff"
Or, is that answer "no" as well?
Or, is that answer "no" as well?
Anonymous
12/12/2015 12:32
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
This is titled "I'm 43, I WANT..."
Why would you willingly do this to a child?
You WILL be in your 50's lugging a kid to kindergarten.
You WILL be in your mid- to late- 50's and early 60's lugging a kid (and their necessary equipment) to & from little league or other extracurricular activities. Staying up late doing homework, and teaching life skills.
You WILL be in your 60's when the kid would graduate high school, and mid-60's upon standard aged college graduation. (What was that about saving and retirement?)
And, let's not forget that as you age you're more and more likely to incur lengthy and expensive illnesses which require massive amounts of $$$, time and caregiving.
This entire thread is further notion of how selfish we Americans have become.
No.