A VERY quick fill in the blank question for moms

[Sparkle]

39.

 

I think it's great that lots of moms are having babies in their 40's, but I would be an absolute exhausted puddle of goo.

[Starr]

It's not the babies in your 40s so much; it's ten years later when the tireds hit.:lol:

[Guest CarolineUK]

I had my youngest at 43, it was a reasonably easy pregnancy (I always have terrible morning sickness for the first three months) and a very quick, beautiful birth at home (I highly recommend hypnobirthing). Both dh and I would love another, but now at 46 I feel too old. I also think that it would be unfair on my other children as pregnancy and birth does take a lot out of you, more so at this age, and that is time and energy that I could put into enjoying them, especially now that we're homeschooling.

 

Oh, but how I yearn for another little bundle at times!

[justamouse]

38. And I had my last at 34. I just got my tubes tied last week and am planning on having a blast from here on out! :D Plus, Dh is rounding the corner and coming up on 50 and the last thing I want to do is have an over the hill party and baby shower in one year.

 

Why? I can't even imagine starting at my age (I'm 38 now). I'm just too tired. It takes me longer to recover from things, I mean, I have a lot of energy, I take care of myself, take my vitameatavegamine and all, but I had MUCH more energy at 22. LEAVING to go clubbing at 11 pm and staying out until 4-5 was NO problem. Now? Forget it. The only thing I'm going to be doing at 11 pm are things that should be done on mattresses.

 

That said, I may accost a baby or two and sniff the hair right off of them, but staying up, nursing, packing baby bags and lugging car seats? Done. I'm looking forward to downsizing from a 15 passenger van to a Miata and cruzing around with the Dh.

Edited September 24, 2010 by justamouse

[dm379]

28. I had my youngest at 22. I'll be 30 in a few months and am way too old to keep up with a toddler again. But if we were to ever have a surprise, I'd be ecstatic after the shock wore off no matter what age.

[Kalypso]

40 for me. That's when I had my last.

[LazyDazy]

Babies by pregnancy: 35

Babies/children by adoption: 50

(Pregnancy and I never got along very well!)

 

ETA: my boys just asked yesterday if we could adopt two little girls so they could each have their own little sister! ;)

Edited September 24, 2010 by LazyDazy

[Carrie12345]

30.

Please note that I'm 33 and pregnant though!

 

I had my first at 21, and my fourth 3 days after my 30th birthday. It was much easier at 21!!!!

 

If I really did want more kids, I suppose I'd go ahead and do so into my 40's, but I have a feeling I'd be spending 9 months REALLY wishing I were 21 again! My body isn't handling this pregnancy very well at all.

[tricia]

I have 12 right now and over forty. I would have more if I could. It's not like I'm doing anything to prevent babies from coming either. I suppose nature is just doing what nature does!! But, if it happens, I'll be filled with joy.

[ereks mom]

...because of increased risk of birth defects, serious health issues for both baby and mother, and miscarriage at age 35 or older.

 

The risk of miscarriage increases with age:

About 20% at ages 35 to 39

About 35% at ages 40 to 44

More than 50% by age 45

 

A woman’s risk of having a baby with Down's Syndrome is:

At age 35, 1 in 400

At age 40, 1 in 100

At 45, 1 in 30

At 49, 1 in 10

 

Of course, Down's Syndrome is only one type of chromosomal abnormality, and after age 35. The risk for a baby to be born with a chromosomal abnormality (including Down's Syndrome) increases with the age of the mother. At age 35, the risk of a chromosomal abnormality is 1 in 178; by age 40, it is 1 in 63; by age 45, it is 1 in 18.

 

Facts gathered from the March of Dimes website, WebMD, and other online sources

[journeytolily]

I'm an adoptive mom, and I'd say 50. I'm 49 now (!), and since I REALLY want one more, I might have to change that : )

 

Our kids are 8.5, 7, and almost 2. If we are gonna do it, we need to do it NOW!

[Crimson Wife]

40ish for now. But I'm still in my early 30's so it could be a moving target. :D

[SproutMamaK]

43. Seems totally random, but that's my number and I'm stickin' to it. Until I'm 42 and change my mind.

[ma23peas]

43. Seems totally random, but that's my number and I'm stickin' to it. Until I'm 42 and change my mind.

 

I totally agree...I'm 43 (just this month)..and honestly, my hormones have done a number on me wanting another!!! I had three before I was 32...so there would be a 13 year difference if we did it now...then my kids (who really supported having a sibling) made an interesting comment...I'll have a 6 year old when they're all away at college...HUH??? By myself?? Homeschool another 12 years?? so I think 15 years of homeschooling is a good career, and can't wait for the next...

My horses will have to be my babies! :) Oh and the dogs, the cats, the rats in the barn...:D

 

Tara

[Dandelion]

40.

 

I've always had "no kids after 40" stuck in my mind for some reason. Not sure why, since women can and do have kids well beyond 40 with no issues...

 

I'm 39 now, and we decided we were done after DD - no more for us!

[Hypatia.]

40-ish (for now). I'm 35 and we're pretty sure we're done, but we also thought that after #2.

[Gratia271]

I don't have an age in mind, but all of these posts about little ones is making me want to cry (all right I have cried) since DH said "no more" after complications with carrying twins. :crying:

[patchfire]

35 has always been fixed in my mind as an absolute upper limit, but as we contemplate whether or not to have one more, I realize my true comfort level is actually 32. Luckily, if we have another one, I'd be either 31 or 32, depending on the spacing we chose.

[rookie]

42 here and done. I would have more if I did not have to be pregnant though.

[Holly]

As long as I'm able to. ;) I'd love to think that I'll feel energetic and healthy at 40+, but only time will tell.

[cjbeach]

42 here and done. I would have more if I did not have to be pregnant though.

:iagree:This totally, except 40 here and done. It's not the infancy stage but the pregnancy. I had 3 natural births which were relatively problem-free but I could do without the weight gain, the pubic bone seperation with the last 2 pregnancies :001_huh:, and the hemorrhoids. No thank you.

[sgilli3]

Between 40-45.

Though on saying that, I'm pregnant with #4 and baby will be born just shy of my 39th birthday...and I'm struggling.

 

This pregnancy has been harder in the sense that I feel so darn exhausted all the time.

[StephanieZ]

40.

 

My reasons were simply the fear of higher risks of pregnancy complications and/or genetic problems/birth defects. There is obviously no magic age, but the risks do go up as the mother ages. . . and I started at 26 so didn't see a need to extend childbearing past 40. . .

 

(I wanted 4 kids & would have gladly had even more if dh had been enthusiastic. . .)

 

Sadly, though, I turned 40 last month (and have 3 kids).

 

Dh, unfortunately, took my (long stated) deadline too seriously, and jumped at the chance to finalize our family size.

 

So, be careful with your deadlines if you and dh aren't on quite the same page, LOL.

[mhg]

I have 12 right now and over forty. I would have more if I could. It's not like I'm doing anything to prevent babies from coming either. I suppose nature is just doing what nature does!! But, if it happens, I'll be filled with joy.

 

Curious....is this a his kids and my kids family (where you both brought kids into the marriage) or did you carry/birth all 12?

[Tree House Academy]

30. And I am past that *by one year now*.

 

Lots of reasons - the age I was when I had my first child, issues with my body, increase in incidence of birth defects, the fact that my dh is 10 years older than I am...and on and on. I know, most people have kids well into their 30's and I am so glad for them. 30 was a personal choice between my dh and I.

[JFSinIL]

55.

 

Ok, that is not realistic (only because I do not want to be a gray-haired old lady at high school graduation!) I am 51 now and the "baby" is 14......

[Caitilin]

30. I am 32 now, and my ds2 was born 2.5 months before my 30th birthday. I was sad to decide to be done, but I really feel that 6 is enough for us. :)

[coffeefreak]

40

[Sophia]

My last child was born when I was 41.

We would have been happy to have more but it hasn't happened.

I won't choose an age and say "ok, I'm done."

[KuniMom]

40

[Peela]

I am 43 and the longing for another child has waned this last year. Before that, even though dh had had a vasectomy and was clear about not having more kids after our youngest (now 14), I had never really let go of the possibility and desire to have another baby. Now....I seem to have pretty much let go of that season of my life and embraced the beginnings of empty nest syndrome (honestly my kids are out and about socialising so much).

 

If some sort of accident happened and I were pregnant again I would embrace it right up to menopause, I think. I know many women who have had healthy pregnancies well into their 40s- even first children.

 

I do wonder if I have been protected from those long term negative effects of pregnancies, by only having 2 kids. I was 27 and 28 when I had my two and it was a good age. Still....my bladder has never really recovered from pregnancy, and neither have my energy levels. So...chances are another pregnancy would really exhaust me and I am being spared that so I have energy for other things.

[Joker]

I was 26 when I had youngest dd and we tried once more when I was 29 but things didn't work out. At this point I'm so done and happy with what we have. Our worry is how we will get along with most of our friends who are still having babies because we will be at a much different place than they are soon.

[naturegirl7]

I personally wanted to be done by 30ish, but life had other plans for us. 30ish was ideal but anything up till 35ish I can come to terms with. 35 was my cut off, and remains my cut off. I wanted 3, but that seems highly unrealistic now, and honestly I'd be happy with just one more - happy healthy babe. I'd like DS to have a sib, but I want a healthy babe, hopefully without all of his allergy and other health issues...

 

I started at 25, and always thought I'd be done by 30ish. And always knew 35 was my deal breaker. Learning more just cemented these beliefs for me. Too many complications after 30. Quality of eggs takes a dramatic nose dive, as does fertility in general. You are more at risk for gest. diabetes and pre-eclampsia after 30. Birth defects and the severity of the defects all increase after 30, dramatically so after 35. Most women are considered high risk simple for being over 30 and you need to be "cleared" for a home birth. A home birth can be denied simply because you are over 35. And I do not want another hospital birth! And I want to give the next babe a better start in life - minimize the health issues he/she might have. We did it all "right" with DS, but I want to do it even better next time around...

 

Plus I want to have the energy to love on and play with those babes. And have the energy to run after them like a maniac or get down on the floor to play with them. I want both DH and I to be alive for their high school graduation, their college graduation, their wedding, the birth of their children....

[FO4UR]

27 - That's how old I was when my youngest was born. I have figured out that I will be 45 when he turns 18yo. I look forward to beginning a new career at that time.

 

Now that he's 4yo and his little hand dimples are fading, and I've long forgotten the work involved in diapers and such, I could be talked into another... I'm 31. If $ were not a worry (I think I'll HAVE to work at some point in order to retire before I'm 70 and have the $ to visit my grandkids.), I think I'd have babies until menopause.

[mama2cntrykids]

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know, lol. I'm pregnant now with my 4th. I'll be 33 when this babe is born. I think personally, maybe 35, but it's hard for me to put a number on. Ask me again as the pregnancy progresses, lol! Oh wait, I'll probably be on here complaining, lol.

 

My dh, otoh, will be 44 when this babe is born. He would say his cut-off was 40 when our youngest was born, lol...SURPRISE!

[journeytolily]

40.

 

My reasons were simply the fear of higher risks of pregnancy complications and/or genetic problems/birth defects. There is obviously no magic age, but the risks do go up as the mother ages. . . and I started at 26 so didn't see a need to extend childbearing past 40. . .

 

(I wanted 4 kids & would have gladly had even more if dh had been enthusiastic. . .)

 

Sadly, though, I turned 40 last month (and have 3 kids).

 

Dh, unfortunately, took my (long stated) deadline too seriously, and jumped at the chance to finalize our family size.

 

So, be careful with your deadlines if you and dh aren't on quite the same page, LOL.

 

 

LOL! Yeah, I think I made this mistake already! I said, until recently, that I didn't want to be 50 and having (adopting) babies. Whenever the conversation comes up now, about adopting one more, DH jumps right in with "oh, but you will be 50 next April, and we probably won't have a baby home by then. It's too late". Hmph, guess I should have kept my thoughts to myself!

[sagira]

36

 

I had my first at 26, my second at 30, now my third I'm having at 34. This last one I went through a tough first 3-4 months.

 

I'm done, BTW. Really.

[Wildiris]

It's not the babies in your 40s so much; it's ten years later when the tireds hit.:lol:

 

So very true. Last baby at 41-wonderful, joyful, I know she's going to be a handful teen kind of girl. She is going to be a very young auntie. Being a grandmother and a mother to a young one at the same time will be interesting.

 

When is too old? I wouldn't want to be pregnant after the age of 45-50, but that depends on physical well being. If my body could, I didn't have any kids and I were super fit with no health issues and was committed to staying fit and healthy--sure why not have a baby at 50.

[Laurie4b]

Menopause--as long as the pregnancy happened naturally. Iow, I wouldn't put an upper limit on it. Our last was born when I was 42.

[delaney]

42. I had my last just shy of 40 and am TIRED at almost 42 with a toddler. I feel there is a point where you really start to risk the health of the baby and I can't help but wonder if age had to do with my little guys small size and tendency toward bronchial issues. He has had pneumonia once and been on the neb for wheezing several times including right now as his cold has gotten the best of him. I hate to think that an "old egg" is the reason he is not healthy.:confused:

[Rosie_0801]

29. That's how old I was when I had ds :)

 

Nothing would convince us to do pregnancy and the baby stage again. If they could be acquired at age 4, I'd like a few more, but that isn't practical for us either.

 

 

Rosie

[5knights3maidens]

hmmmmm............I think if I were to get pregnant I would be extremely happy. It doesn't seem to be happening! I am 48. I am enjoying being able to go out, go on vacation without baby things; just picking up and going. Youngest just turned 5. :001_smile:

[Pamela H in Texas]

I don't know. I'm only 35 with an 18 and 15yo. I've spent most of the last 15yrs trying to get pregnant to no avail. It is nearly impossible for me to imagine NOT wanting it to some degree. And yet, now that my kids are SO old, starting over (esp with my health) seems tough to consider. But had we had a couple more kids along the way, I can't imagine stopping at a measley 35 either though two of my friends had kids at 35 and make it seem MUCH harder.

 

I would be ESTATIC if it happened, but can you imagine that even at 40, if it happened, I'd have two completely grown kids (in 20s) and a newborn?

 

Because of my health, I say 40 as I'd guess it's near impossible that I'll live beyond 70 (if that). If it weren't for that, I'd never put an age limit on it.

 

HOWEVER, I'm not going to prevent it EVER.