Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the argument that people should not have kids later in life because they will have to save for college and retirement at the same time. Don’t younger parents save for college and retirement at the same time?

Not only that, but by delaying having kids, you are able to focus solely on your career and will inevitably earn more over your life time. My husband and I married at 30 but did not have our kids until our late 30s/early 40s. By that time, I had been in a lucrative career on Wall Street for 16 years, and he was making enough as a partner to support us if I chose to stay at home. We had lots of savings by then too, and I decided to quit so I could raise our kids, and for all intents and purposes retired at 38. I loved having a successful career, traveling the world over, dining out, going to concerts etc. in my 20s and 30s. I also have loved being home with my kids since their births and spending my 40s and beyond with them. I love my life, and I am so glad that I waited to have kids until I was emotionally and financially ready. I have wisdom, patience and perspective as an older mother too. My mom, who had me in her early 20s, was immature, self-absorbed and not a great mother.

Self-absorbed, eh?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the argument that people should not have kids later in life because they will have to save for college and retirement at the same time. Don’t younger parents save for college and retirement at the same time?

Not only that, but by delaying having kids, you are able to focus solely on your career and will inevitably earn more over your life time. My husband and I married at 30 but did not have our kids until our late 30s/early 40s. By that time, I had been in a lucrative career on Wall Street for 16 years, and he was making enough as a partner to support us if I chose to stay at home. We had lots of savings by then too, and I decided to quit so I could raise our kids, and for all intents and purposes retired at 38. I loved having a successful career, traveling the world over, dining out, going to concerts etc. in my 20s and 30s. I also have loved being home with my kids since their births and spending my 40s and beyond with them. I love my life, and I am so glad that I waited to have kids until I was emotionally and financially ready. I have wisdom, patience and perspective as an older mother too. My mom, who had me in her early 20s, was immature, self-absorbed and not a great mother.

Yes - it is too old, but if your choices are baby at 41 or no baby, then go for it. You can't always plan to perfection.

I worked with a woman who was married for nearly 20 years before having her 2 kids. You don't have kids according to your age, you have kids because you and your partner are *interested* in having kids. They had no interest until they were 40ish.

Had mine at 38 and 43. DH and I were together 10 years before the oldest was born. Other than being down to one grandparent, it's worked out quite well. Both pregnancies went swimmingly.

I think if you say you had your baby at 38 that’s not having a baby at 41

Anonymous wrote:The people who are criticizing OP for being an older parent will likely be divorced soon if they aren't already. So many people I know who got married and had kids before 30 were divorced by 40.

Very True. DC has high rates of infidelity and many people I know who married early got divorced.

The people who are criticizing OP for being an older parent will likely be divorced soon if they aren't already. So many people I know who got married and had kids before 30 were divorced by 40.

I had my kids at 41 and 43, after a long and successful professional career. They are now late teens, and it’s been a wonderful ride so far!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not too old. You can do this if you want.

But, I definitely noticed a big difference between being pregnant in my 40s vs being pregnant in my 30s. Everything about being pregnant seems to be a bit easier when you're younger. But, I got a late start because I went to graduate school, etc., so wasn't the best option for me when I was young. I'm extremely grateful for my kids, though, and would do it all again.

There's never a good time to have kids; there's never a bad time to have kids.

This is always such an odd justification. I graduated from college at 22, worked for a couple of years, started grad school, got married at 26, finished grad school, got a better job thanks to my new degree, and had children at 29 and 31. Also, I grew up UMC in New York and went to top universities so it isn’t like I was some small southern town sorority sister just going to college to get my mrs or something.

NP here. Compared to me and my peers, you married relatively early. Most of my circle didn't meet our spouses until we'd moved to this area after grad school and started our careers.

I went straight from college (age 21) to law school (age 24) to law firm and met my now spouse through friends at age 25. We married when I was 30, after I'd left the firm for a second career. Decided at 33 to have a kid and gave birth at 34, the same age I got my current job. Then some other stuff happened and I'm pregnant with #2 at age 40, almost 41. Two of my good friends are also having babies at 40; one of them had her first kid by accident during grad school.

I had my first child while in law school. Many people were surprised, because obviously that's not a typical path, but it worked out fairly well.

I think back on that time fondly. I was able to arrange my class schedule in a good way and found that taking care of a baby was MUCH harder than law school itself. The baby could not be reasoned with! And honestly, it gave great perspective.

Anyway, I know OP wrote ages ago, but wanted to chime in that there are many non-traditional ways to have a baby and make it work! I know someone who had her first at 46. She had a tough pregnancy, but she and the baby were happy and healthy.

My parents were born in the 30s and did not have their first child until they were 27. My mom was always older than the other kids' moms. I did not have my first until 41.

Women have had babies into their late thirties and early forties throughout history. My parents were born back in the 1940s when my grandmothers were 37 and 42.

It's only a recent phenomenon that they're having their first baby at that age. So yes, not only is 41 not too old, you're probably much better off physically and financially than women who were having their 5th, 7th, 9th kids at that age without an opportunity to earn an income and exercise regularly!

Yes

Anonymous wrote:Even in places like Utah where women have their first kids at 22-23 they usually don't have their last kid until late 30s anyway. So there's usually a huge range of mom ages in a class because there are the "first kid" 20s and the "last kid" 40s.

^^ This is not necessarily the case. I live in Utah and the (unspoken) goal is to have 4 kids by age 30 and be done. I don't see many LDS families having kids past 35.

No I see a lot of later babies, too. I see a of women have the fourth or fifth later—mid to late 30s.

Did OP ever come back to say if she had the baby? Kid would be - what, seven now, if so?