Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 09:57     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:
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!"


+1000 I had twins at 44. Don’t do it.
Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 09:49     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:You say you do now, but what does 5 years from now look like? Just preschool, with 12 more to go then college. About 22 years all in. You will be 65 when they start work full time. Later if they do grad school. What if they stay home first few post college years. Now you're pushing 70


+1. This is why I would never intentionally have a baby in my 40’s.
Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 09:40     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Amazing how many fish a troll can haul in.
Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 09:25     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
I’m the same age as you and I cannot imagine wanting another baby. My body is just soooooooo tired all the time. The idea of carrying another baby and having to do the sleepless nights again is horrifying to me.

If all that appeals to you, and your husband is on board as long as you can have a healthy baby, you can always do IVF with testing. However, at your age, the odds of you getting pregnant even with IVF with your own eggs, is pretty low. It’s like 8%.

I have struggled with infertility in the past and have known the heartache that comes with wanting another child. I hope you find what you need.
Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 08:15     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
How old are your other kids? Are they still fairly young, or would a 4th baby now have a huge impact on what you can do as a family with a huge age spread? I think this is a huge consideration, though your husband saying no pretty much answers your question.
Anonymous
Post 01/29/2022 08:14     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
I am 37 and also have 3 kids between the ages of 8 and 3. We could have another (though we would have to send all 4 to public), but I feel I don’t have enough time to spend with 3 children already. There is not way I could add a fourth. If you work, 3 kids is a lot already. How can you be fully involved with 4 kids? And I have tons of help with a live in nanny and great DH. I can only read with one of the 3 kids at night and DH read with another. This usually means that 8 year old reads on her own. That’s ok because when she was learning to read I read with her for 2 years every night and now it’s her sister’s turn, but still… I wish I had more time for my own 3 kids.

Perhaps your 3 are much older than mine and require less attention… I don’t know. As a mom of 3, I could never manage another
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 22:40     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
It doesn't really matter whether you or anyone else thinks 43 is too old for a baby. Your DH is a "hard no" so it is a no-go.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 21:04     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


LOL

This shows how delusional people are. So much can happen in the first few years of life. To think you’re in the clear just because you haven’t hit any roadblocks yet is incredibly naive. Since we’re trading anectodes, my own nephew developed normally until age 3.5 then just stopped talking and was diagnosed with Autism. His parents are so stressed taking him to therapy after therapy. Another poster with no family history mentioned her daughter was diagnosed with diabetes at age 8. At age 2 you know absolutely nothing.




Do you pour piss in people's cheerios too? Jesus. So people can only share antidotes of people who have lived to their 80s because "you know absolutely nothing?" until someone is dead?
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 21:02     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


NP - did they not do NT scans and early genetic screens? That is highly suspicious to me as a 42 year old soon to be giving birth. By 12 weeks I had two all clears on that front.


Here’s what you’re missing: Some people choose not to terminate the pregnancy. They likely did the scans and knew their child would have autism and decided to continue the pregnancy anyways.



Autism and Downs SYndrome are not the same thing.

I read an article that said in some countries DS is very rare because families terminate those pregnancies.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:55     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
We had our first children (twins) when we were in our 40s. We married in our late 30s and had external reasons why we had to wait. And our twins are healthy 10 year olds, so, no, I don't think it is too late.

That said, the only way it works is if both parents are fully on-board. It is a lot of work and both parents need to be willing to handle the issues of being older parents.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:55     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:If you had an only or no children, I’d say try. With three, I say get a dog.


This made me LOL. And I agree entirely! If it were your last shot to become a mother I would say plow forward, but with 3 kids already no way. Get a puppy.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:31     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
You say you do now, but what does 5 years from now look like? Just preschool, with 12 more to go then college. About 22 years all in. You will be 65 when they start work full time. Later if they do grad school. What if they stay home first few post college years. Now you're pushing 70
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:27     Subject: Re:43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote: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.


LOL

This shows how delusional people are. So much can happen in the first few years of life. To think you’re in the clear just because you haven’t hit any roadblocks yet is incredibly naive. Since we’re trading anectodes, my own nephew developed normally until age 3.5 then just stopped talking and was diagnosed with Autism. His parents are so stressed taking him to therapy after therapy. Another poster with no family history mentioned her daughter was diagnosed with diabetes at age 8. At age 2 you know absolutely nothing.

Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:23     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
OP, I am the same age as you. I also had 3 healthy children all on the first go between 30-36. I thought that I wasn't done, however, around 38 and decided that maybe one more wouldn't hurt. I ended up with 2 subsequent miscarriages with one being pretty rough. Clearly, my body was done. Now, I'm 43 and would never jump back in the ring.

The point is that you can have 3 healthy kids but that is not an indicatory that everything in the future will be as rosy, particularly as you (and your DH's sperm) age.

At 43 myself, I am now just grateful that I have 3 healthy kids. That really is a gift.
Anonymous
Post 01/28/2022 20:15     Subject: 43 is too old for a baby, right?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


NP - did they not do NT scans and early genetic screens? That is highly suspicious to me as a 42 year old soon to be giving birth. By 12 weeks I had two all clears on that front.


Here’s what you’re missing: Some people choose not to terminate the pregnancy. They likely did the scans and knew their child would have autism and decided to continue the pregnancy anyways.