Anonymous
12/11/2015 08:30
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is not true. Statistically speaking more women are having kids over 40 and with the right preparation (vitamins, folic acid, healthy) ...they are more successful and better parents then the "younger generation". Women have careers, and are waiting longer. Couples are getting married older and then having healthy kids. Its 2015 people.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
Only 43???? Are you out of your mind?
This whole discussion is probably moot if you're thinking of having biological children.
^^ Where are you from PP? Open your eyes, 43 is hardly unheard of.
Some one is delusional in this thread but not op, it gets increasing harder each year for a woman over 40 to get pregnant and virtually impossible by age 45 with own eggs. And rates of autism and adhd are going up and linked to older parents.
This! Do the PPs think those who are citing statistics (and links!) from reputable sources are making it up?? Sorry you don't like the fact that you have a less than 5% chance of getting pregnant after 40 using your own eggs but that's how it is. Now if the OP wants to discuss using donor eggs, that is a whole different issue. You have a lot more time to decide if you're open to that.
Anonymous
12/11/2015 08:28
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
What craziness? I don't see anything crazy in OP's post or in any single mother.
Anonymous
12/11/2015 04:04
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:If you both show unconditional love for this child, it will grow up well adjusted and have a wonderful life.
Just be honest from the beginning and your kid will turn out fine
Wait, THIS is the secret to raising well adjusted happy kids? Wow, I never knew it was so easy. By golly gee whiz.
Anonymous
12/11/2015 01:31
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:I'm a single parent who had a child at 43, after many rounds of IVF.He seems well-adjusted, according to his teachers and pediatrician. The strident voices suggesting that only upper middle income people in monogamous Christian marriages should have kids would be in for a rude awakening if they tried to purchase health insurance as an older person in a world so sparsely populated.
I would strongly advise you to do donor eggs ASAP, if this is what you want. Your odds of hitting the few goods eggs you have left on any given cycle are low. You are already going to be paying for college at 65. It's a gamble to put it off much longer. With donor eggs, there's a 65% chance of success after two tries. Good luck.
And remember, there are plenty of 65-year old men paying for their offsprings' college.
Anonymous
12/11/2015 00:37
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
I'm a single parent who had a child at 43, after many rounds of IVF.He seems well-adjusted, according to his teachers and pediatrician. The strident voices suggesting that only upper middle income people in monogamous Christian marriages should have kids would be in for a rude awakening if they tried to purchase health insurance as an older person in a world so sparsely populated.
I would strongly advise you to do donor eggs ASAP, if this is what you want. Your odds of hitting the few goods eggs you have left on any given cycle are low. You are already going to be paying for college at 65. It's a gamble to put it off much longer. With donor eggs, there's a 65% chance of success after two tries. Good luck.
I would strongly advise you to do donor eggs ASAP, if this is what you want. Your odds of hitting the few goods eggs you have left on any given cycle are low. You are already going to be paying for college at 65. It's a gamble to put it off much longer. With donor eggs, there's a 65% chance of success after two tries. Good luck.
Anonymous
12/11/2015 00:01
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
I say this with kindness - I think you have unrealistic expectations about how easy this is going to be. I'm not clear if you and the friend will have intercourse or do IUI, but in either case, your odds of having a baby as a person who has never had a child before at 43 are extremely low.
The first thing I would do with your friend is sort through what you're willing to go through to have a baby and see if you even agree on that. IUI? IVF? Donor egg? Would you try with your own egg before donor egg? And none of it is cheap and at your age even these procedures have low chance of working.
This is not necessarily true. If OP were 43 and had been ttc for years, then I would agree, but that's not the case.
OP, go for it, but I vote for anon sperm donor, not friend.
Another option, I know some single women who adopted babies (12 mos. of age or so) from China and seems to have worked out well for all of them.
Most countries due not allow adoption to single women and/or past a certain age...Laws have changed over time...much harder than before...
Yes, I think China went anti-single-women a while ago, and have a long waiting list for everyone.
I adopted a domestic newborn at age 44 as a single woman. Much easier than international.
Anonymous
12/10/2015 23:44
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
I say this with kindness - I think you have unrealistic expectations about how easy this is going to be. I'm not clear if you and the friend will have intercourse or do IUI, but in either case, your odds of having a baby as a person who has never had a child before at 43 are extremely low.
The first thing I would do with your friend is sort through what you're willing to go through to have a baby and see if you even agree on that. IUI? IVF? Donor egg? Would you try with your own egg before donor egg? And none of it is cheap and at your age even these procedures have low chance of working.
This is not necessarily true. If OP were 43 and had been ttc for years, then I would agree, but that's not the case.
OP, go for it, but I vote for anon sperm donor, not friend.
Another option, I know some single women who adopted babies (12 mos. of age or so) from China and seems to have worked out well for all of them.
Most countries due not allow adoption to single women and/or past a certain age...Laws have changed over time...much harder than before...
Anonymous
12/10/2015 23:39
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
I say this with kindness - I think you have unrealistic expectations about how easy this is going to be. I'm not clear if you and the friend will have intercourse or do IUI, but in either case, your odds of having a baby as a person who has never had a child before at 43 are extremely low.
The first thing I would do with your friend is sort through what you're willing to go through to have a baby and see if you even agree on that. IUI? IVF? Donor egg? Would you try with your own egg before donor egg? And none of it is cheap and at your age even these procedures have low chance of working.
plus 1!! As a single woman I tried IVF/IUI from 40-45 years old----always BFN. Fast forward to age 46, and I adopted a healthy and perfect baby girl!! Good luck with whatever path you choose.....
Anonymous
12/10/2015 22:55
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
NP. The only craziness here is you. It scares me what kind of children you might be raising.
OP have your baby and best of luck to you all!
Anonymous
12/10/2015 22:36
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
What exactly is the "craziness" that they are bringing a child into? All the people I just mentioned are well adjusted individuals who can provide and care for their children. And frankly, they are doing a much better job than my dumb ass brother and his immature wife who had a kid "accidentally" in their 20s.
Anonymous
12/10/2015 22:31
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
+1000
Anonymous
12/10/2015 20:52
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.
Anonymous
12/10/2015 20:44
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
Well then hurry up! I'm guessing it won't work but hoping it will. Good luck!!!!!
Anonymous
12/10/2015 20:19
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:
1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!
Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?
Is fostering O.K. to you?
If so, why or why not?
OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.
Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age
This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.
WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?
Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?
Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.
Anonymous
12/10/2015 19:54
Subject: I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.
Anonymous wrote:This is not true. Statistically speaking more women are having kids over 40 and with the right preparation (vitamins, folic acid, healthy) ...they are more successful and better parents then the "younger generation". Women have careers, and are waiting longer. Couples are getting married older and then having healthy kids. Its 2015 people.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?
Only 43???? Are you out of your mind?
This whole discussion is probably moot if you're thinking of having biological children.
^^ Where are you from PP? Open your eyes, 43 is hardly unheard of.
Some one is delusional in this thread but not op, it gets increasing harder each year for a woman over 40 to get pregnant and virtually impossible by age 45 with own eggs. And rates of autism and adhd are going up and linked to older parents.