Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 16:01     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
My SIL gave birth to my nephew two weeks after turning 43. They're both perfectly healthy, no complications while pregnant or giving birth. He just turned two.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:56     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
This time last year I would have said 100% yes, go for it.

But then two separate friends (age 42, birthed Aug 2021 and 43 birthed Oct 2021) gave birth to babies with Down Syndrome. The fact that I have 2 friends who both gave birth to these babies with Down Syndrome is crazy to me.

One has older kids and the other is a first time mom after a 14 year marriage to a guy who didn't want kids.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:55     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
How old is your youngest? Are your friends done having babies? How much of your identity is tied up in being a mom of young kids? - be honest with yourself. WHY do you want a baby? Are you using it as an excuse to not go back to work or work full time? Do you need to feel needed and unconditionally loved?

I’m the same age and my youngest is 5. I sleep through the night. I workout 6 days a week. I have friends and hobbies - and a sense of self that does not revolve around motherhood. I don’t pack diapers or a stroller to go on vacation. The thought of starting over sounds awful.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:44     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:43 is too old for a fourth baby, yes.


In your opinion, which yes you were asked for, but this is not a definitive truth.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:43     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:How old are your kids, OP? I’m 45 with a 6 and 3 year old. My DH and I are tired. I mean, really really tired. Interrupted sleep, chasing a toddler, these things are hard. I was 39 when my 6yo was born and I’m surprised how much harder things were with my 3yo, who is otherwise an “easier” kid, but was born when I was 42. For me those years make a big difference. (Of course pandemic stress is also a factor I’m sure. I look like I’ve aged 10 years in the last 2!)

Anyway my point is if you’re removed from the toddler years or if you were already in your late 30s when you had your last child you might be thinking it’s NBD. But it is a big deal.

Also my second thankfully was a healthy pregnancy and I have a healthy toddler, but being pregnant in my 40s was nerve wracking, even compared to my late 30s.

Look, I wouldn’t say don’t do it to anyone, but you have 3 kids and your DH is against it and it Carrie’s more risk than your last pregnancy, whenever that was. Your OP suggests that you may be taking a very emotional approach to this. That’s understandable but maybe not helpful.


Just wait until you're 55 with a 16 and 13 year old. You don't yet know the meaning of the word "tired!"
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:40     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Too old as a general matter.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:38     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
It sounds like your family is complete, op. If you're blessed with abundant energy and the funds for it, you could consider fostering.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:36     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
It’s not. But it seems you and dh don’t see eye to eye on whether to add another child or not into the mix. It really depends how old kids are, and your and dh’s preference. But I definitely would not go ahead without both partners being fully on board.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:33     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
sorry it is absolutely too old.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:19     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Babies born with chromosome anomalies go up a lot with the age of the mom. Based on a quick google search, the graphics show about 1/27 at the age of 45. Also anecdotally, l don’t have a big family but our number is a lot higher than 1/27. On my mom’s side only 6 cousins, mom mid 40’s with the 3rd and she has Down’s syndrome. My husband’s family only 5 cousins, the last one born to an early 40’s mom and only lived a few days, he had trisomy 13.

Given the risks, your DH’s hard no, and the fact that you’re already blessed with 3, ya l think you’re too old.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:16     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:Women have healthy kids at this age but the fact that your DH is not on board is a huge strike against. And there's no way to guarantee you'd have a healthy pregnancy. Despite your history (which does weight in favor of a straightforward pregnancy with minimal complications) you and your fetus will both be considered high risk. Are you prepared to terminate if early tests indicate high chance of a genetic abnormality, for instance? It sounds like your DH would be but you maybe wouldn't, which is a huge problem for both of you.

If you had no children or just one and were thinking of this as your "last chance", I might give other advice. But you have three kids. Your husband does not want more. It might be time to let go of your baby years. We all have to do it eventually! It's hard but universal -- at some point, you will have no more children.

+1 to all of this.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:16     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to add that I'm fairly certain I could still get pregnant. We conceived all of our children on the first or second try. My cycles are very regular. We are both healthy and financially secure.


So just FYI, this doesn't actually mean anything when you're 43. You could have perfectly regular cycles and be ovulating every month, but the problem is that the majority of your eggs (and very possibly all of them) are chromosomally abnormal at this point. Eggs get old. They just do.


Not to mention the odds aren’t just lower for conception, but also for carrying a baby to term.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:15     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
I’m 43 too with 3 healthy kids. I personally wouldn’t risk it and agree with your husband, but then again I don’t want a fourth anyway.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:07     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to add that I'm fairly certain I could still get pregnant. We conceived all of our children on the first or second try. My cycles are very regular. We are both healthy and financially secure.


So just FYI, this doesn't actually mean anything when you're 43. You could have perfectly regular cycles and be ovulating every month, but the problem is that the majority of your eggs (and very possibly all of them) are chromosomally abnormal at this point. Eggs get old. They just do.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 15:01     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
43 is too old for a fourth baby, yes.