My DH is 45 and is feeling like he’s too old for another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

You've got to be kidding. When your youngest is 20 you'll be 69. When I'm 69 my youngest will be 40 and my oldest 49 -- the same age that you are!

So you got pregnant at 19. I know a former teen mom who was an empty nester by 40. She is very open about how it was not ideal for her or her kids.

I wasn't a teen mom.

You said you are 20 years older than your child. You likely got pregnant at 19 and gave birth at 20. You just barely missed the cut off.

I was a college graduate. Sorry to disappoint.

If you are just 20 years older than your child that is truly nothing to brag about. Disparaging older moms makes you sound uneducated and immature.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

Please report back on their health problems when you can. I assume at a minimum asthma and ADHD?

That’s so mean PP. why would you say that? I am sure her kids are great.

Signed a 36 year old with a 7, 5 and 2 year old

Also, some of us had kids at 24 and our offspring have asthma and ADHD. And for all you know, she could have used a donor egg anyway.

PP here. My kids are healthy with no medical or developmental issues. And they help me take care good care of myself- we ride bikes, play tennis, walk, swim together. There is something to be said for being established in your career before starting your family. I love being with my family and we have the discretionary income to provide more for them than we would have if we started our family earlier. I realize I won't be around forever, but I also know they will be just fine.

It really depends on:

1. Your health, that of your partner, and healthy longevity on both sides of the family. Longevity is partly inheritable, but of course that doesn't count, if your parents lived their lives as vegetables for 20 years because of dementia (as my grandparents did). You never know how much help and support a child will need - they could have special needs - so you need to plan to be active at least through their young adult life.

2. Your finances. Are you able to do this, with college costs increasing quicker than inflation, and manage your retirement?


In my case, I'd love to have a baby at 40+, but I don't fulfill either 1 or 2.

Anonymous wrote:No, it is not. I live in another major metroplotian area now and my kids attend private school where the average age for a last baby is probably 40 for the mom and early 40s for the dad. There are many families with onlies because they started very late... But there are also many families with 3-4 kids where both parents were in their late 40s/early 50s when their youngest started K with ours. One of the many advantages of having children later is that you can afford them: you can afford to stay home and/or have help, activities, pay for excellent education etc. A major downside is the risk for genetic abnormalities, but if you are open to CVS/amnio and termination, you will be able to test for over 200 of the most common abnormalities - still pretty low, even over 40 - incl. all 23 chromosomes for potential duplications and deletions. I did that with all of my pregnancies in my late 30s and early 40s. Zero bleeding, cramping or complications after the procedures.

You left out the most obvious disadvantage: the high risk that you either won't be around to see them or your grandkids grow up, and the real risk that you'll be a serious burden on their young adulthood as you age. There's no sugarcoating it: you're really not meant to have kids so late.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

You've got to be kidding. When your youngest is 20 you'll be 69. When I'm 69 my youngest will be 40 and my oldest 49 -- the same age that you are!

So you got pregnant at 19. I know a former teen mom who was an empty nester by 40. She is very open about how it was not ideal for her or her kids.

I wasn't a teen mom.

You said you are 20 years older than your child. You likely got pregnant at 19 and gave birth at 20. You just barely missed the cut off.

I was a college graduate. Sorry to disappoint.

I, I had my 1 & only a few months shy of 43. He’s kept me young!

41.5 here and struggling with the notion that I might be too old to have another. My DS is 6 and we have a great life. Can afford activities, have time for him, etc. But as the clock ticks ever louder I have a nagging feeling that I should have another. Likely won’t due to husband’s resistance, but feeling it inside.

No, it is not. I live in another major metroplotian area now and my kids attend private school where the average age for a last baby is probably 40 for the mom and early 40s for the dad. There are many families with onlies because they started very late... But there are also many families with 3-4 kids where both parents were in their late 40s/early 50s when their youngest started K with ours. One of the many advantages of having children later is that you can afford them: you can afford to stay home and/or have help, activities, pay for excellent education etc. A major downside is the risk for genetic abnormalities, but if you are open to CVS/amnio and termination, you will be able to test for over 200 of the most common abnormalities - still pretty low, even over 40 - incl. all 23 chromosomes for potential duplications and deletions. I did that with all of my pregnancies in my late 30s and early 40s. Zero bleeding, cramping or complications after the procedures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

You've got to be kidding. When your youngest is 20 you'll be 69. When I'm 69 my youngest will be 40 and my oldest 49 -- the same age that you are!

So you got pregnant at 19. I know a former teen mom who was an empty nester by 40. She is very open about how it was not ideal for her or her kids.

I wasn't a teen mom.

You said you are 20 years older than your child. You likely got pregnant at 19 and gave birth at 20. You just barely missed the cut off.

+1

Anonymous wrote:The OP's kid would be 7 years old by now, if she ever had one . . .

And OP would be 48. I wish she would weigh in now.

I’m 51 with a 10-yr old. I had my other kids in my early 30’s and they are off at college. My “bonus baby” is an absolute joy!

This thread is eight years old. Wonder what OP decided to do. I hope she took the leap. Life is short.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

You've got to be kidding. When your youngest is 20 you'll be 69. When I'm 69 my youngest will be 40 and my oldest 49 -- the same age that you are!

So you got pregnant at 19. I know a former teen mom who was an empty nester by 40. She is very open about how it was not ideal for her or her kids.

I wasn't a teen mom.

You said you are 20 years older than your child. You likely got pregnant at 19 and gave birth at 20. You just barely missed the cut off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to have a second but I just feel that 41 is too old. Maybe not now but I bet I'll really feel it in my mid-50s. To those who have the life experience, what are your thoughts?

43 for my 1st and 49 for my 2nd. Not too old at all.

You've got to be kidding. When your youngest is 20 you'll be 69. When I'm 69 my youngest will be 40 and my oldest 49 -- the same age that you are!

So you got pregnant at 19. I know a former teen mom who was an empty nester by 40. She is very open about how it was not ideal for her or her kids.

I wasn't a teen mom.