Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am 34 and my mom was 28 when she had me and 30 when she had my brother. I always thought they were more or less the same age as all other parents. I had mine at 29 and 31 so my parents are VERY young grandparents and very involved. So to the PP that was complaining about her parents being old, she is the one that should have had kids younger if she wanted younger grandparents

So your mom was 57 when she first became a grandparent? I wouldn't consider that "VERY young." Honestly, I wouldn't even consider that "young."

VERY young would be in early 30s (in other words, woman has a baby around age 15-16, and then that child also has their first born around 15-16.) "Young grand parent" to me would be 40s--woman has baby in her early 20s, and then that child has their first born in their early 20s. Anything in the 50s seems pretty standard, and 60s+ is getting to be "older grandparent." In other words, your mom just barely squeaked by in not being an "old grandma."
"

I am the PP you are responding to. Absoloutely right. Neither my parents nor I were young when we became parents/grandparents, but by DC and DCUM we are young. Of all the people we know thatbhave kids, my parents are the only ones that are able to care for my kids (since they were babies) full time without help. They spends weeks alone with them in the summer since my kids were 1 and have a huge part in raising them. If I am not wrong (it has been a while and I don’t remember this thread much) I was responding to a poster who wished her mom had her younger (had her at 31 I think) so that now she would be a younger grandmother. I was telling PP that she was the one having kids at 40 so the reason for her kids having an old grandmother was because she had kids older and not because she was born from an older mom.
Anyway, I totally agree that having the first child at 28-29 is really not young, but in DC is very rare from my experience especially for people like my parents and I that Went to medical school or have a PhD. I think it’s all about priorities. I wanted kids early and gave up on my career a bit. Finished my PhD in 6.5 years instead of 5 and have less work experience. Women that wait until late thirties to have kids probably give their careers a heavier weight than I do. We just all need to accept the consequences of our choices. I know I did and I know I made the right choices for ME.

You should only do it if you really want another child and are prepared to handle whatever issues come up. It sounds like your health already isn't that great and having another baby when you already have a toddler isn't going to help your health any.

For me, your health is much more of an issue than your age.

Anonymous wrote:

I am 34 and my mom was 28 when she had me and 30 when she had my brother. I always thought they were more or less the same age as all other parents. I had mine at 29 and 31 so my parents are VERY young grandparents and very involved. So to the PP that was complaining about her parents being old, she is the one that should have had kids younger if she wanted younger grandparents

So your mom was 57 when she first became a grandparent? I wouldn't consider that "VERY young." Honestly, I wouldn't even consider that "young."

VERY young would be in early 30s (in other words, woman has a baby around age 15-16, and then that child also has their first born around 15-16.) "Young grand parent" to me would be 40s--woman has baby in her early 20s, and then that child has their first born in their early 20s. Anything in the 50s seems pretty standard, and 60s+ is getting to be "older grandparent." In other words, your mom just barely squeaked by in not being an "old grandma."
"

OP you already are the older parent so that’s done. And it sounds like you want another. But
We did this with 2. It would have been much easier with only one. As you get older 50-60s with kids the energy level drops and with one you can afford more things to address that. Like private school, summer camp, travel, private college, your retirement plan. And so on.

I had my second after years of trying at one month away from my 42nd birthday. Pregnancy was fine. A little more
tired but NBD really. I am really fit and eat healthy. I have controlled hypothyroidism. The newborn stage was rough for many reasons, but now that we are out of that, I am so over the moon happy and grateful to have two that I can hardly believe my luck. I say go for it.

I will say my parents were 43 and 45 when they had me. They weren’t in the best of health all along but they are still around. Of course I wish they were healthier, but other than that it wasn’t a big deal to me to have them older. Commit to taking care of your health OP so you can be the best you can be for your kids. That’s all anyone can ask really. There are no guarantees. DH’s parents were younger but his dad died of cancer young. You just never know and can’t plan life around this stuff. 42 is also not really old especially around here.

Ahhh... I wish I could have a third!

Anonymous wrote:We have 1 5 day genetically screened blast on ice awaiting transfer. We have a 2 year old from the same cycle. I want to transfer but will be 42 in July and am concerned about my ability to pull this off. I have a high stress full time job, am slightly overweight, and have a (controlled) thyroid condition. Emergency C at 35 weeks for bp issues during last pregnancy. Have been waiting and considering giving our son a sibling for almost a year and the longer we wait the more sure I become that I want to do the transfer. RE giving it a 60% success rate. Interested in everyone's thoughts about whether to do it in these circumstances.

Hi, my situation is exactly like yours (exactly with first child's birth!). I just transferred the last frozen embryo and am happily BFP 6weeks along with #2 and am 43 years old, will be 44 at birth. eek.

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.

My parents were older when they had me and I hated growing up, having parents that were so much older than other parents but I also know even if they were younger, they will would have been the same people so it's not like them being younger would have changed the essence of who they are (or at least not by much). My dad will be 80 this year and my mom is 71. Do I wish they were younger and more able bodied, absolutely but that's not how life works out. I just turned 40 and am pregnant with my second so if my kids are so lucky to have kids before they are 40, I know how old I'll be and that my time with my grandkids will be shorter than someone else who had kids at a younger age but life didn't work out that way. So OP if you are still reading this, yes your kids might be embarrassed or annoyed that you are older than their friends parents but so what. I say go for it. Good luck!

Your mom was 31 when she had you. How is that old?

+1. WTF? Who are you, PPs calling a 31 yo old? What would you prefer? To have been born to a teenage mom? Watch 16&pregnant.

NP here and as a child of people who are similarly-aged as PP’s parents, it absolutely was considered old to have 31 year old first time parents. Seems crazy now and I certainly had children when I was older, but yes, to have your first kid at 31 was old. My parents had been married for almost 10 years when they had me and they are both from NYC, not middle America, where people had children even younger.

I am 34 and my mom was 28 when she had me and 30 when she had my brother. I always thought they were more or less the same age as all other parents. I had mine at 29 and 31 so my parents are VERY young grandparents and very involved. So to the PP that was complaining about her parents being old, she is the one that should have had kids younger if she wanted younger grandparents

Yes, but 31 is not old to have a baby, generally, and hasn't been for at least the past 100+ years. The gripes on here have been that parents are much older than other parents, and that's just not true for someone who has a kid (first or otherwise) at 31. And it's not true now in most urban areas for people who have kids at 41.

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.

My parents were older when they had me and I hated growing up, having parents that were so much older than other parents but I also know even if they were younger, they will would have been the same people so it's not like them being younger would have changed the essence of who they are (or at least not by much). My dad will be 80 this year and my mom is 71. Do I wish they were younger and more able bodied, absolutely but that's not how life works out. I just turned 40 and am pregnant with my second so if my kids are so lucky to have kids before they are 40, I know how old I'll be and that my time with my grandkids will be shorter than someone else who had kids at a younger age but life didn't work out that way. So OP if you are still reading this, yes your kids might be embarrassed or annoyed that you are older than their friends parents but so what. I say go for it. Good luck!

Your mom was 31 when she had you. How is that old?

+1. WTF? Who are you, PPs calling a 31 yo old? What would you prefer? To have been born to a teenage mom? Watch 16&pregnant.

NP here and as a child of people who are similarly-aged as PP’s parents, it absolutely was considered old to have 31 year old first time parents. Seems crazy now and I certainly had children when I was older, but yes, to have your first kid at 31 was old. My parents had been married for almost 10 years when they had me and they are both from NYC, not middle America, where people had children even younger.

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.

My parents were older when they had me and I hated growing up, having parents that were so much older than other parents but I also know even if they were younger, they will would have been the same people so it's not like them being younger would have changed the essence of who they are (or at least not by much). My dad will be 80 this year and my mom is 71. Do I wish they were younger and more able bodied, absolutely but that's not how life works out. I just turned 40 and am pregnant with my second so if my kids are so lucky to have kids before they are 40, I know how old I'll be and that my time with my grandkids will be shorter than someone else who had kids at a younger age but life didn't work out that way. So OP if you are still reading this, yes your kids might be embarrassed or annoyed that you are older than their friends parents but so what. I say go for it. Good luck!

Your mom was 31 when she had you. How is that old?

+1. WTF? Who are you, PPs calling a 31 yo old? What would you prefer? To have been born to a teenage mom? Watch 16&pregnant.

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.

My parents were older when they had me and I hated growing up, having parents that were so much older than other parents but I also know even if they were younger, they will would have been the same people so it's not like them being younger would have changed the essence of who they are (or at least not by much). My dad will be 80 this year and my mom is 71. Do I wish they were younger and more able bodied, absolutely but that's not how life works out. I just turned 40 and am pregnant with my second so if my kids are so lucky to have kids before they are 40, I know how old I'll be and that my time with my grandkids will be shorter than someone else who had kids at a younger age but life didn't work out that way. So OP if you are still reading this, yes your kids might be embarrassed or annoyed that you are older than their friends parents but so what. I say go for it. Good luck!

Your mom was 31 when she had you. How is that old?

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.

My parents were older when they had me and I hated growing up, having parents that were so much older than other parents but I also know even if they were younger, they will would have been the same people so it's not like them being younger would have changed the essence of who they are (or at least not by much). My dad will be 80 this year and my mom is 71. Do I wish they were younger and more able bodied, absolutely but that's not how life works out. I just turned 40 and am pregnant with my second so if my kids are so lucky to have kids before they are 40, I know how old I'll be and that my time with my grandkids will be shorter than someone else who had kids at a younger age but life didn't work out that way. So OP if you are still reading this, yes your kids might be embarrassed or annoyed that you are older than their friends parents but so what. I say go for it. Good luck!

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.

I was 43 when I had my youngest and I have to say, your attitude sucks. I can understand when you were 15/16 noticing a difference (although teens will find anything to be embarrassed by when it comes to parents. and TBH there are plenty of fat lazy 45 year old parents as well as healthy superfit ones) but as an adult being sad that she was past her prime? That's just rude. I am sure you love your mom but there is no guarantee that anyone gets to spend healthy decades on this earth, we can go at any age. My cousin just died last week at 53 (car accident) and he had two teenagers. They had less time with their parent than you. Resenting your parents for not having you until they were older is something you need to get over. Be glad they were in your life as long as they were.

+1. PP sounds unbelievably self-centered and immature.

+1. This is one of the most narcissistic posts I've read on this board ever. Or else, a troll.

I had my first at 40, easy pregnancy, healthy, beautiful baby! Trying for #2 now. My mom had her oldest at 19, and me, her youngest, at 30. She was dead by the time I was 29. So unless i had kids in my 20s (which wasn't going to happen due to late marriage and postgraduate degrees), they were never going to meet my mother, no matter if I had them at 30 or 43. My Dad had his first heart attack when I was 14. You never know what life will bring. Go for it OP. There are no guarantees in this life. You have to grab happiness when you get the chance.