Anonymous wrote:For a forum that is about supporting each other in our journey to motherhood, there are a lot of horrid ppl on here trying to shame ppl outside of their narrow definition of what is a "good mom." Its kind of ridiculous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
but OP is one person. she does not have 1000 lives to live so that the law of large number kicks in. she can either have a child or not, right now.
But her child IS statistically more likely to lose a parent while under 18.
so what? the only alternative is that he does not exist at all. I would much rather statistically lose my parents young than not be born at all.
Clearly most people feel that way; otherwise you would see massive suicides among children of older parents. That doesn't exist:
It’s selfish of the parents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
but OP is one person. she does not have 1000 lives to live so that the law of large number kicks in. she can either have a child or not, right now.
But her child IS statistically more likely to lose a parent while under 18.
so what? the only alternative is that he does not exist at all. I would much rather statistically lose my parents young than not be born at all.
Clearly most people feel that way; otherwise you would see massive suicides among children of older parents. That doesn't exist:
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
but OP is one person. she does not have 1000 lives to live so that the law of large number kicks in. she can either have a child or not, right now.
But her child IS statistically more likely to lose a parent while under 18.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
but OP is one person. she does not have 1000 lives to live so that the law of large number kicks in. she can either have a child or not, right now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
It is statistically more likely to lose your parents sooner when they are older.
Next, you will tell us your aunt didn’t smoke and got lung cancer so lung cancer can happen to anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Op being pregnant at 42 is a piece of cake compared to having a 10 year old at 52
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
This is not a reason not to get pregnant. Some people lose their parents when they are 10 years old, you can't plan for this at all.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mom was 43 when she had me. I didn't really like it TBH. Its the other side of the issue this board never shows. When I was 15/16/17 my parents were getting old and really didn't have anything in common with my friends parents. People claim it doesn't matter but it mattered to me. They dressed older, they moved slower, and they started coming down with (manageable) but age related health conditions. They were active, fit, and working but they were active, fit and working 60 year olds. Thats much different than 45 years old as most of my friends parents were. Also when I turned 30 and had my own kids my mom was 73 and definitely past her prime. She didn't die till 83 but my oldest was still only 10 and youngest was 4. I would have loved to have some more active years on that end of the spectrum too.
OP here. I'm really glad you're talkiby about this. Kids of older parents invariably seem to feel this way. Not much we can do now for our son but part of my rationale is to give home a sibling to share that stress with instead of having to weather it solo.