Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

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.

Well then hurry up! I'm guessing it won't work but hoping it will. Good luck!!!!!

I have my first at 41, 2nd at 43, 3rd at 45. No problems, I did marry a younger man, maybe he has strong sperm. Its no big deal if everything still works.

Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.

I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.

It's not the children who are "messed up," although I could certainly see how they could become that way. And no one is inferior. I am saying that single mothers who willingly bring children into the world sans a dad in their life, in a married, committed home, are being selfish, yes. And their children are at an extreme disadvantage and will pay the price for that all of their lives. Adopting kids who already exist is another story -- most single women can better the lives of kids who would otherwise end up in more dire situations.

Nonsense. Raising a child is never selfish. Bringing life into the world is never selfish. You just gave a life to someone who would not exist otherwise.

Awe, butterflies and flowers! Let me tell you about my mother's decision to bring my youngest brother into the world in obviously terrible circumstances. He thought otherwise; finally managed to kill himself after several attempts.

The naivete on this thread is astounding.

Do, it, but start trying immediately. It will be very, very, very difficult to conceive at your age, and every month counts at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.

I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.

It's not the children who are "messed up," although I could certainly see how they could become that way. And no one is inferior. I am saying that single mothers who willingly bring children into the world sans a dad in their life, in a married, committed home, are being selfish, yes. And their children are at an extreme disadvantage and will pay the price for that all of their lives. Adopting kids who already exist is another story -- most single women can better the lives of kids who would otherwise end up in more dire situations.

No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.

I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.

It's not the children who are "messed up," although I could certainly see how they could become that way. And no one is inferior. I am saying that single mothers who willingly bring children into the world sans a dad in their life, in a married, committed home, are being selfish, yes. And their children are at an extreme disadvantage and will pay the price for that all of their lives. Adopting kids who already exist is another story -- most single women can better the lives of kids who would otherwise end up in more dire situations.

Nonsense. Raising a child is never selfish. Bringing life into the world is never selfish. You just gave a life to someone who would not exist otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.

I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.

It's not the children who are "messed up," although I could certainly see how they could become that way. And no one is inferior. I am saying that single mothers who willingly bring children into the world sans a dad in their life, in a married, committed home, are being selfish, yes. And their children are at an extreme disadvantage and will pay the price for that all of their lives. Adopting kids who already exist is another story -- most single women can better the lives of kids who would otherwise end up in more dire situations.

Go for it

Something to consider -are you, in your unique way, dedicated to each other as a family unit if something unexpected happens?
Such as: Special needs child is born and requires lifelong care. Late term miscarriage. One of you (or child) develops terminal disease and requires care. One of your parents or siblings has a health issue and needs to move in with you for care.

You are creating a family and you need to be dedicated to each other. What you call it and your motivations for doing so don't matter but the dedication does. And then set up legal structures to underpin this dedication.

Also - what happens if one of you falls in love with someone else?

Anonymous wrote:It was a true sperm donor situation, minus the facility. No sex, no relationship other than friendly acquaintanceship. It is legally fine, though that varies a lot from state to state.

Well, without the MD and/or the facility, the court may not agree with you. In many states, as far as the court is concerned (no matter what YOU believe the law should be), unless the sperm is implanted with medical assistance (even IUI), then it's not a legal sperm donation. You can use the same baster/syringe the facility does, but unless the MD is the one handling it, then it doesn't count as a legal donation. It counts as sex. Virginia is one of those states. This was just tested in Kansas a year ago; it hasn't been in court in VA yet, but unless you're volunteering to be the test case, I suggest you not find out. The Kansas statute is slightly less clear than the Virginia one on this, and even so, while it's being appealed, the donor has been losing every round so far.

There are a LOT of people who don't have the money for a bank and for ART, and they think they can just draw up their own side contract and give up parental responsibilities, but those agreements aren't enforceable (and the state can choose to ignore them). I am not a lawyer, but if you think you can just sign a contract and it's all good, then you ought to consult a real lawyer first...or you could wind up on the hook for child support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My childhood BF is doing this now with a friend. (She's newly pregnant.) She's younger but not young--39--and she explicitly wrote up a contract that excuses her friend from any financial or parental responsibility, though, so that's a little different.

I do think that you need to examine whether your friend would make a good parenting partner. I have lots of friends I love dearly with whom I'd never want to parent. And make sure he's as serious about this as you are.

If those things match up, then go for it. I think it's a great solution for some people.

Unless the friend was a true sperm donor, his parental rights and obligations cannot be voided through a contract. He will be on the hook for child support until the child is 18 years old, unless it was a true sperm donor situation.

It was a true sperm donor situation, minus the facility. No sex, no relationship other than friendly acquaintanceship. It is legally fine, though that varies a lot from state to state.

Go for it, OP. Why not? Go for it with open eyes, good legal advice, and maybe a therapist.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why dance around it so much? Just come out and say what you mean: being gay or single makes you self-absorbed and maladjusted and "crazy".

That's what you really mean, just say it.

The children don't suffer any less when their gay parent was forced into a hetero marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

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.

Go to the Infertility Board for a dose of reality. At age 43 you need to be the RARE exception to the rule to be able to just get pregnant and have a baby. You need to be in the single digit percentages of success rates for those who are able to have a baby with their own eggs and significant support in the form of assisted reproductive means (IVF, etc...)

Where the sperm comes from is almost certainly NOT going to the the biggest obstacle for you in having a baby.

Go talk to an RE (reproductive endocrinologist) if you're serious.

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.

Those kids would not exist without their parent's choices. I think anyone would choose a non-traditional family over non-existence. You are saying that children of single.mothers should just not exist. You are saying that they are inherently messed up and inferior.

I hope my kid never dates your kid. Your family's values are a nightmare.