Anonymous wrote:In my experience women get judgmental when they are triggered by jealousy or their own insecurity.

My guess is any woman out there that is upset by a 40+ woman having a baby falls into one of these categories:

1.) Infertile herself
2.) Regrets not having another baby
3.) Had babies much earlier in life and misses having a baby/little kid

Anyone else would be happy for an expecting mom at any age.

You missed one.

4.) had one parent diagnosed with dementia at 65.

No one is in full control of their health, but the risks increase dramatically the older you are.

It pisses me off to hear that parents are bending the rules of nature to have trophy babies in their 40s and 50s, when the risks of leaving that child caring for YOU are so high. Nature doesn't allow this because it's not how it should work. Money doesn't protect you.

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

Lord, get a puppy.

This is the most selfish thing I've ever heard.

People can be so quick to judge. Women should be free to make their own choices. If a women chooses to have a baby at 19, that’s her decision and is absolutely okay. If someone else chooses to have a baby at 47, that’s also fine. Whether a woman wants one child or ten, it’s her life and her choice—and it doesn’t affect anyone else.

And to respond to the OP’s question, people tend to judge older moms because they expect women to stay young and fertile forever. But there’s no real reason for one middle-aged woman to judge another for having a baby. That mindset comes from the harmful belief that once women reach a certain age, they’re somehow no longer valuable to society, so that’s the idea that middle aged women are promoting by judging other middle aged women for having a child.

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

Beautiful! They have the best of both worlds, already have grown kids and now a sweet baby girl. People are haters.

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

The kid is 10 months. Time will tell.

In my experience women get judgmental when they are triggered by jealousy or their own insecurity.

My guess is any woman out there that is upset by a 40+ woman having a baby falls into one of these categories:

1.) Infertile herself
2.) Regrets not having another baby
3.) Had babies much earlier in life and misses having a baby/little kid

Anyone else would be happy for an expecting mom at any age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all due to ageism and ableism.

50 is not old, 65 is not ancient, waiting for your teen to get home at 2am at 65 is not impossible.
Your child having ADHD/anxiety/HFA/learning possibilities that require special Ed support is not the worst thing ever, it's common in children of parents of all ages in 2026.

No. It's not common for parents of all ages; and if not a big deal, then why the need for all the supports and special classes and accommodations?

It isn't all that necessary,actually. I don't really even consider this stuff SN, and I have a kid with ADHD, had her at a young age too..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally every woman we know who had a child around or after 40 has a child with health complications - from allergies to extreme disabilities.

Health issues with the child are nowhere close to the same with the fathers over 40.

You must not be local to northern va? I run into a lot of “older moms” in my tiny social circle. Kids are all fine and rich.

Hard to believe none of those kids have issues requiring special ed support.

I live in northern Virginia in a wealthy area. (We chose the cheapest home in the good school neighborhood). This is not true. They may be rich, but there absolutely are a large number of kids with a range from mild to significant special needs with older moms and it's more so than those with younger. It's not PC to say it, but not only do I see it, but the research on risk would suggest what I see is likely to be accurate. You may know people who used surrogates, adopted, or just got really lucky. It's not that every older mom has a child with special needs. It's that the chances go up significantly.

Anonymous wrote:It's all due to ageism and ableism.

50 is not old, 65 is not ancient, waiting for your teen to get home at 2am at 65 is not impossible.
Your child having ADHD/anxiety/HFA/learning possibilities that require special Ed support is not the worst thing ever, it's common in children of parents of all ages in 2026.

No. It's not common for parents of all ages; and if not a big deal, then why the need for all the supports and special classes and accommodations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

THIS is the arrogance I am talking about.

Somehow, this one individual is immune to the researched and evidenced risks of AMA.

Give. Me. A. Break.

That’s actually my problem with many women who waited until their 40s to have kids. They tend to think they know better than all of us who had kids in our 20s and 30s.

Or they simply didn’t have the same opportunities that you did. Why do women always have to be divided into warring tribes? Stop falling for it.

Well, they probably aren’t the same women getting smug and saying how they’re glad they got to “live a life before they had kids” and “are much better mothers because they waited” there’s no reason to say that to someone who had children decades before you

OMG all of you are such a-holes. More likely those older mothers are defensive because they have been insulted so many times by people like those on this thread. So many assumptions and generalizations. PP is correct, stop feeding into the mommy wars. YOU are part of the problem. Live your life and stop assuming you know why other people make the decisions they do.

As an older mom, I've had numerous women tell me, unsolicited, that they're happy they had their children early and didn't wait like I did.

I will say most of the women who say that look tired, anyway.

They are just sharing some random feelings, no need to take it personal.

Older women can also tell younger moms they are glad to have waited until they are financially well off and can provide all the cool stuff.

What I don't understand is why ANY of you feel that it is appropriate to say any of these things out loud.

Why are so many people such clueless jerks. If you have ever said some of these stupid, judgy things out loud to any other mom, you are a clueless jerk. Just shut your damn mouths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

THIS is the arrogance I am talking about.

Somehow, this one individual is immune to the researched and evidenced risks of AMA.

Give. Me. A. Break.

That’s actually my problem with many women who waited until their 40s to have kids. They tend to think they know better than all of us who had kids in our 20s and 30s.

Or they simply didn’t have the same opportunities that you did. Why do women always have to be divided into warring tribes? Stop falling for it.

Well, they probably aren’t the same women getting smug and saying how they’re glad they got to “live a life before they had kids” and “are much better mothers because they waited” there’s no reason to say that to someone who had children decades before you

OMG all of you are such a-holes. More likely those older mothers are defensive because they have been insulted so many times by people like those on this thread. So many assumptions and generalizations. PP is correct, stop feeding into the mommy wars. YOU are part of the problem. Live your life and stop assuming you know why other people make the decisions they do.

Why are the older moms allowed to be defensive in your scenario but the younger moms are not? I don’t know or care why people make decisions until they make a comment on how I’ve made mine.

No moms should have to be defensive. That was my point. Are you intellectually challenged? Stop feeding into the mommy wars means stop pitting moms against each other. It's all about you, huh? If someone says something stupid, your go-to is to say something stupid back? I just can't with you people.

It's all due to ageism and ableism.

50 is not old, 65 is not ancient, waiting for your teen to get home at 2am at 65 is not impossible.
Your child having ADHD/anxiety/HFA/learning possibilities that require special Ed support is not the worst thing ever, it's common in children of parents of all ages in 2026.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally every woman we know who had a child around or after 40 has a child with health complications - from allergies to extreme disabilities.

Health issues with the child are nowhere close to the same with the fathers over 40.

You must not be local to northern va? I run into a lot of “older moms” in my tiny social circle. Kids are all fine and rich.

Hard to believe none of those kids have issues requiring special ed support.

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

I hope all continues to be well, but AGAIN it's very short-sighted to look at how folks feel when they are 50. They are going to be actively parenting for another almost two decades. Let's check back in after 16 years when they are in their mid-60s and staying up until 2 am waiting for Larla to get home from a party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

How did they get the baby at age 50? Natural conception? Adoption? Surrogacy?

IVF, frozen eggs.