No I would not do it. Do you really want 4 teenagers? There is a reason they are so cute for the first ten+ years. No one is talking about the teen years. It’s awful.

If you do it, don’t just rely on the NIPT and Nuchal translucency test. Get the amnio with microarray to look for genetic abnormalities.

OP, I am not trying to be mean, but that is crazy. Be happy with what you have. Your youngest will be just fine being the youngest. Your children might resent you for giving your attention to the newborn.
Plus, the risk of down syndrome, etc.

Oh, of course it's not too old. Everyone who is exhausted in their 40s needs to see an endocrinologist.

Dude you’ll be 60 before you get your house back. 60!!

I’m 45 and have two friends who’ve had babies recently. No, I would not do it.

Who wants to be the "old" mom. I find it rough on the children. You may think it's great because you waiting but the children are the ones with the burden.

Yes.

I wouldn’t. My fourth, at 33, is a lot harder than my first at 24. I can’t even imagine doing it in my 40s.

I’m going to be the outlier here and say yes, it is too old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old is your youngest?

My youngest is 4. I want to give the youngest a baby sibling.

I have 3, my youngest is 2 and I am 36 (DH 45) and I would not. I work FT and we need my income for private schools. If DH made enough and I could stay at home, maybe we would have one more... though 3 is already a lot of work and trying to keep all of them happy and thriving is a FT job already.

It’s also risky... you have 3 beautiful and healthy kids... I would not push my luck honestly.

This is me (I have 3 youngest is 2 and I am 35, although DH is only 40). I couldn't imagine starting over at 42/43. I am already exhausted!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m older than that and expecting my first. So definitely not too old. In my opinion the question of whether you want a fourth kid is the salient one. I can’t imagine having 4 (but would definitely go for a second if circumstances/finances were more favorable.)

My grandmother had her 3rd at 47 but that was unplanned. And my aunts adopted a 2 yo in their early fifties and were thrilled to be parents.

Also should have a plan if you have trouble getting pregnant. That can be very emotionally taxing and hard.

There's a big difference between being 43 and having your first one and being that age and having a 4th one. Parenting is pretty tiring. You aren't tired yet.

I don’t agree in that at any time in my life 4 kids would have been too much. I remember as a child staying with my mother’s friend who had 4 kids and finding that exhausting. So 4 kids would be exhuasting no matter what age. I am a lot healthier now in my 40s than in my 30s which is a major reason why I didn’t have kids when I was younger. The family I stayed with as a child adopted a 4th that was 5 years younger than than their twins and they did all sorts of fun family stuff together. I recall the twins being really caring towards this child. So definitely can work out in terms of family dynamics and fun.

OP, I had my last child at 40 and 10 years later I just had a truly "out of the blue" health scare. We were really worried and it was not something that runs in my family. All I could think about was how selfish I was to have a baby at 40. Let me be clear- that's me. I am not judging anyone for having a baby past 40. This is the DMV and loads of us have babies later than other areas. When I looked at family genetics, I didn't question my choice.
Also a +1 to all of the PPs posting about perimenopause. Thank goodness mine has hit later- it's horrible. I can't imagine having a very little one while going through this.
Whatever your decision, good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Don’t assume you’re still very fertile and that conceiving will be quick. 40 is a game changer for fertility.

2) I’d worry less about your age and more about the age of your other kids / family dynamic. There’s a blissful sweet spot when your kids are all able to travel or enjoy activities together without diapers and tantrums. It’s so nice.

This. And why do you feel the need to give your third a sibling (more than he/she already has)? No idea of age gaps of your kids, but you said your third kid is 4, so kid will be 5 by the time the baby is born. That's a pretty big age gap. It wil be years before they can play together and even then odds of them playing together a lot are pretty low due to age gap. Your 4th will a caboose child with no siblings close in age and sort of holding the family back (diapers, naps) when everyone else is wanting to out doing stuff.

This is a very good point. Such a big age gap will limit what your family can do. I want to take my older kids skiing because they are 7 and 5; however, I have a 2 year old... so we either split the family or we give up on skiing for 2 years

+1

Kids do not care about having a younger sibling and a 5 yr gap will keep them pretty far apart. The age gap between your youngest and any potential sibling is too large. All my friends who decided to have another kid with the youngest being 5+ yrs younger always sound miserable. They are constantly complaining/mentioning how they can't do x, y and z because of the youngest one or if they do a family activity geared towards the older kids they have to get a sitter for the youngest or one parents has to stay behind. Totally ruins the family dynamic and ability to do much as a family. But some people don't mind that. Really depends on the type of life you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Don’t assume you’re still very fertile and that conceiving will be quick. 40 is a game changer for fertility.

2) I’d worry less about your age and more about the age of your other kids / family dynamic. There’s a blissful sweet spot when your kids are all able to travel or enjoy activities together without diapers and tantrums. It’s so nice.

This. And why do you feel the need to give your third a sibling (more than he/she already has)? No idea of age gaps of your kids, but you said your third kid is 4, so kid will be 5 by the time the baby is born. That's a pretty big age gap. It wil be years before they can play together and even then odds of them playing together a lot are pretty low due to age gap. Your 4th will a caboose child with no siblings close in age and sort of holding the family back (diapers, naps) when everyone else is wanting to out doing stuff.

This is a very good point. Such a big age gap will limit what your family can do. I want to take my older kids skiing because they are 7 and 5; however, I have a 2 year old... so we either split the family or we give up on skiing for 2 years