Anonymous wrote:As a 38 year old first time mom, I'm shocked that people care this much how old other people are when they have their kids. I guess this is a taste of the mommy wars people talk about it.

I think it's generally true that everyone makes the best decisions they can to live their life in the best way they know how. Sometimes that leads to having babies in your 20s and sometimes in your 40s. Different things can be right for different people. Obviously.

I'm not sure why this topic makes so many people defensive or heated. I'm honestly perplexed.

No one in real life acts this way--at least, I hope not. DCUM brings out lunatics of every stripe.

First (and I assume only) child at 41, six weeks ago. Wicked easy pregnancy and recovery. My energy level is fine. Fir me, having a child at this stage is working well. I am incredibly relaxed, don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with our time at home and my marriage is well established. I'm sure I would have been a fine mother at any age, but being older has given me a more relaxed perspective.

PP above-oh and my parents are early 70's and still involved, mom alot and dad not as physically (due to parkinsons) but has a great relationship with dd-they are book-reading buddies. MIL remains the same uninvolved grandparent at 70 that she was at 50!

Anonymous wrote:I have several friends who had two kids before 30 (or by their early 30s) and then intentionally had a third when they were in their late 30s or early 40s. When they saw their peers having babies in their late 30s or early 40s, they realized they weren't quite finished. I'm not sure what the mommy wars make of people who do BOTH!

They act like

I had my older kids in my 20's, early 30's. One m/c before the first kid. Then, a dozen years later we were not done and tried again. I had 2 m/c (age 41 then 42) then had my dd at 43. She's 20 months.

The pregnancy was actually textbook and I worked a physical job until literally the day of her birth. Other then being TIRED-won't lie there- it was a simple pregnancy and delivery. My ob commented that I was only high risk because of my age and I was in better shape than some of her 20-something patients!

DD is the light of all our lives! We keep up with her just fine, especially with teen and adult kids to help.

If she had been my first, I absolutely would have tried again, right away. In my case, I think we are actually done this time and I actually just sold and donated the baby stuff yesterday haha. But physically, I think I could have done it.

I had my child at 40. It was fine when he was younger; it's actually tougher now and that I'm in my mid 50s trying to keep up with him. Even walking around the neighborhood is pace is so much faster than mine.

My mom had me at 38 in 1976. Totally natural pregnancy - i was her second. But she and i both had gestational diabetes with our second children, though not overweight. I had mine at 32 and 35. My mom died this year at 78 and had a full life, seeing two grandkids. Good luck to you. Dont postpone joy!

Just had my 2nd at 39. It took 10 months of trying after a miscarriage. Pregnancy was easy, no complications, and baby is healthy and happy.

I have several friends who had two kids before 30 (or by their early 30s) and then intentionally had a third when they were in their late 30s or early 40s. When they saw their peers having babies in their late 30s or early 40s, they realized they weren't quite finished. I'm not sure what the mommy wars make of people who do BOTH!

Anonymous wrote:As a 38 year old first time mom, I'm shocked that people care this much how old other people are when they have their kids. I guess this is a taste of the mommy wars people talk about it.

I think it's generally true that everyone makes the best decisions they can to live their life in the best way they know how. Sometimes that leads to having babies in your 20s and sometimes in your 40s. Different things can be right for different people. Obviously.

I'm not sure why this topic makes so many people defensive or heated. I'm honestly perplexed.

+1. Had all three of mine by 33, simply because that is how my life worked out. It is no better or worse than anyone else's circumstances. I just can't imagine why on earth anyone would care at all how old someone else is when they have their children. Truly baffling. OP, if you want another child, you should have one. Do what suits you and don't listen to all the ridiculously strong opinions and nasty mommy wars.

As a 38 year old first time mom, I'm shocked that people care this much how old other people are when they have their kids. I guess this is a taste of the mommy wars people talk about it.

I think it's generally true that everyone makes the best decisions they can to live their life in the best way they know how. Sometimes that leads to having babies in your 20s and sometimes in your 40s. Different things can be right for different people. Obviously.

I'm not sure why this topic makes so many people defensive or heated. I'm honestly perplexed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you new here? They're all 45 year old first time moms.

Seriously, DC is like the GrannyMom capital of the world. And no, the alternative is not having kids at 20. Many, many people have kids in their early 30s before the grannies start going crazy about establishing their financial independence pre-kids.

I was in grad school in my early 30s, then working, traveling, having fun, making $$$. It's wonderful to have kids later in life. I was able to switch to a good paying job with great work - life balance because of the education and experience that I got pre-kids. Honestly, I feel bad for those moms who had kids early on, work in dead end jobs with no flexibility, never got established, cannot afford a nice spa day, gym, derm appointments, vacations, and have to shop at Sams.

LOL you feel sorry for a demographic that isn't here. As I see it the majority of DCUM posters fall into two camps:

1. Much older moms who are financially comfortable
2. Somewhat younger moms who are financially comfortable

Of course there's outliers but very few of us here are truly struggling because we had kids too early. I had mine at 24 and 28. Just went on vacation this week, get my hair done regularly, wear nice clothes, and have a flexible career that allows me to bring in a second income we don't strictly need, bank it, and still puts me home before 5 pm. I'm 31, have had my kids, and have the rest of my adult life to work, travel with them, and lead a pretty nice lifestyle without having to mortgage myself for IVF at age 43. The older mim crowd seems to have this notion that defying basic biology makes them superior people. It doesn't. Glad you like your choices but that doesn't automatically mean the alternative choices suck.

Wow. Aren't you a sweetheart. Ugh

Anonymous wrote:I had my first and only at 42. Normal, non-complicated pregnancy and got pregnant using the clear blue easy ovulation monitor only. My grandma had my dad at 42 too but he was the last of her five kids.

No one in my social circle had a kid earlier than their mid thirties usually late 30ties or early 40ties. All my friends/acquaintances went to Ivy or equivalent undergrad and have graduate degrees but we lived in Manhattan before moving to DC. Moving back to grannymommyville Manhattan so DS can attend private middle school there.

I cannot think of a worse reason to return to Manhattan and I live here. DC area has some of the best public schools in the nation; why in God's name would you move back to NYC for the privilege of paying $50k+/yr for a comparable education minus all the outdoor space that schools with land have?

I had my first at 36, almost 37 (surprise pregnancy), and now I'm expecting my second, who will be born when I'm 39 (conceived him on our third cycle trying; I had a chemical pregnancy the cycle before). Uncomplicated pregnancies, so far. The first was harder (much worse symptoms) than the second has been.

I know I'm fortunate to have conceived two healthy babies quickly, but I am far from alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had mine both before 35. I'm comfortable financially. And so are many others. So there goes that theory.

Telling people they can easily have their first at 45 is giving them false hope. Sure, it happens for some. But for many it either doesn't happen past 40 or the child has developmental issues or other things previously mentioned. I know many post 40 who wanted a second who couldn't have one. So just bc you had one already doesn't automatically mean you will be able to have a second. I have a friend with two kids born post 40 and both diagnosed with special needs. It's tough for her.
Bottom line- don't wait.

45 is a totally different story that late 30s, IMO. I don't know a single person who had a child when she was between 35-41 that has had a child with special needs or developmental issues. In fact, the only person I know that had a Trisomy baby was 27 when she had her daughter.

People don't talk about the babies they didn't have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you new here? They're all 45 year old first time moms.

Seriously, DC is like the GrannyMom capital of the world. And no, the alternative is not having kids at 20. Many, many people have kids in their early 30s before the grannies start going crazy about establishing their financial independence pre-kids.

I'm glad your husband makes enough money for you to be financially comfortable!!