Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 14:10. Sure seemed routine to me growing up. DH's mother was 42 when he was born. Two of my cousins were born when my aunt was 40 and 41. My own grandmother was 40 when my father was born. I can think off the top of my head of three families on our block alone where there were five kids and the mother had to have been either over 40 when the last one was born or certainly pretty close to it. And so on. Yes, this is all anecdotal, but my point was simply that it is not a new thing to ahvve children over 40, yet no one ever thought before that people should not do it, and certainly didn't accuse older parents of selfishness. (BTW, I had my children in my thirties, so I have no personal stake in this issue. I simply don't like mean-spiritedness nor ignorance of social history.)

You could have stopped with this is all anecdoctal, statistics don't support the argument you are trying to make.

14:10 again. You are incorrect and didn't apparently read carefully. I said myself that this is anecdotal. My point was not to claim that lots of women had children later in life. My point was that when they did, they did not face mean-spirited social opprobrium, and it was not considered bizarre or selfish for women with lots of children to have had the latest one or two over 40.

You are talking about a cohort for whom birth control was not available, many of whom believed for religious reasons a mother should continue to have children for as long as fertile. Very different times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

Not pp, but would say that many men have kids when they are too old to fully participate in fatherhood,

And your scientific basis for saying "many" is...?

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 14:10. Sure seemed routine to me growing up. DH's mother was 42 when he was born. Two of my cousins were born when my aunt was 40 and 41. My own grandmother was 40 when my father was born. I can think off the top of my head of three families on our block alone where there were five kids and the mother had to have been either over 40 when the last one was born or certainly pretty close to it. And so on. Yes, this is all anecdotal, but my point was simply that it is not a new thing to ahvve children over 40, yet no one ever thought before that people should not do it, and certainly didn't accuse older parents of selfishness. (BTW, I had my children in my thirties, so I have no personal stake in this issue. I simply don't like mean-spiritedness nor ignorance of social history.)

You could have stopped with this is all anecdoctal, statistics don't support the argument you are trying to make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

Not pp, but would say that many men have kids when they are too old to fully participate in fatherhood,

Anonymous wrote:I'm 14:10. Sure seemed routine to me growing up. DH's mother was 42 when he was born. Two of my cousins were born when my aunt was 40 and 41. My own grandmother was 40 when my father was born. I can think off the top of my head of three families on our block alone where there were five kids and the mother had to have been either over 40 when the last one was born or certainly pretty close to it. And so on. Yes, this is all anecdotal, but my point was simply that it is not a new thing to ahvve children over 40, yet no one ever thought before that people should not do it, and certainly didn't accuse older parents of selfishness. (BTW, I had my children in my thirties, so I have no personal stake in this issue. I simply don't like mean-spiritedness nor ignorance of social history.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

What's wrong with a young adult having a parent in their late 50s? Gazillions of kids have had fathers that age and older. Isn't that what you are really revealing - your sexism? Your double standard?

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

Whenever people self-righteously start up with the "it's selfish to have a baby after 40 and you should have had children earlier and so you made your bed now lie in it" litany, it seems clear that people are just being spiteful about modern women having control over their bodies and lives and over when to have children. Why? Because I'm old enough (45) to know tons of families where mothers routinely had children into their forties--I grew up in a heavily Catholic area and it was COMMON for women to have multiple children with the last one or even two born to older mothers over 40. Yet no one blinked an eye, and certainly no one accused these lovely women of being "selfish" and not thinking of their children. Unless you think entire previous generations of women were horrible selfish people by having children later in life, then the double-standard is obvious.

Anonymous wrote:Yes 41 is too old to have a baby if you are actually thinking about the child and not your own selfish desires. You'll be nearly 60 when that child reaches adulthood. You made the choice to put off having children for whatever reasons (career, traveling, enjoying your life, whatever) and by having a child at 41 you deny your own child that choice. Like it or not, if you have a kid that late, you are dooming them to have to take your care into consideration when they make life choices they should be able to make freely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the child of older parents and hate it. My father died when I was a teenager and my mother is still alive but unfortunately has some age-related conditions. It's overwhelming having to take care of my toddler and my mother.

Ungrateful bitch.