Too old for a baby?

[cherylw]

Ok, I've been wanting a baby for a while now but I do wonder if we are getting too old to technically start all over again. With ds's 9 and 10, it would be like having another family. Plus I'm 36 and Dh is 38. The main reason we haven't had one yet is due to finances and unstableness of DH business (construction) and we are basically broke. The boys ask for a brother or sister all the time, but I do realize that have no idea what their asking. DS 9 would be a big help since he loves little ones but ds 10 would probably be pucking all the time from diapers and spit up....doesn't handle smells well. Also I might add that my family has a history of twins (maternal and paternal!); that with age that also increases that chance is a little scary.

I have always thought 2 isn't enough...but have I waited too late, too many risks, too unstable? On the other hand I know God will provide for us a way if we did. But it is extremely stressful having to worry about money all the time and adding a baby would only worsen the stress.

[Haiku]

But it is extremely stressful having to worry about money all the time and adding a baby would only worsen the stress.

 

Only you can answer your question, really, but think about what you just said. Is that the environment in which you want to raise a new little person?

 

Me, personally, my youngest is 8. I'd never go back to a baby. My sister is 40 and just had her second. Her first is 7. The baby is freakin. adorable. but the thought of diapers, nursing, sleepless nights, chasing toddlers, etc., gives me the heebie jeebies.

 

Tara

[cathmom]

You're not too old, but your other comments make having a baby seem like it may not be the best idea.

 

:grouphug:

[Ann.without.an.e]

It is something only you can answer. I definitely wouldn't unless you and your DH are in full agreement with it. With starting over and the stress of finances, you really need to be united on the decision. If you push for it, but he doesn't want it, you do not want to be the one to blame if the stress gets insane.

 

Starting over is difficult. I have a gap between #3 and #4 (only 7 years) and I had completely forgotten the work involved with a baby/toddler. School has been very difficult. Is he worth it? Absolutely, we adore him, but it is more difficult than I remembered. It is difficult to balance the needs of both big kids and toddlers. Most of my friends have kids the age of my older three and so they tend to plan activities right in the middle of nap time. Many times I need to skip things my older ones really want to do because little guy will just be too tired. I often feel torn between two worlds. Again, I do not regret having him. I didn't have the age issue since I had my first three really young. Being 24 when my 3rd was born and then 31 when my 4th was born - boy, oh boy, there is a difference! I could totally tell I was older. My body really felt the pregnancy more. I am in no way attempting to discourage you, only to get you to think through the differences it will bring.

 

By the way, it is like having two families. I continue to think as my older three as a "set" and then I have this little guy who is sort of independent of the set. I often wonder if I shouldn't have just one more in order to give him a little one close to his age, then I would have two sets :confused:

[Wheres Toto]

I agree that only you can decide if you can handle the stress of more children financially and logistically.

 

That being said, my son was born 11 years after my dd. I was 36 when he was born and a week before my 38 birthday when dd was born. DH was 49 with ds and almost 51 with dd. So, I definitely wouldn't say you are too old. ;)

[*~Tina~*]

My oldest is 22, youngest 2, (grandson is also 2) and we're expecting #5 here in just a few months! Dh and I will both be 40. . .cough. . .cough. . .something when our fifth one arrives. Financially (or in many other regards!) if we had held off on children until all seemed perfect, we might well still be waiting, but God has always provided and each child has been a blessing we've never regretted!

 

I think the heart and prayer are the most important factors :grouphug:

[cathmom]

By the way, it is like having two families. I continue to think as my older three as a "set" and then I have this little guy who is sort of independent of the set. I often wonder if I shouldn't have just one more in order to give him a little one close to his age, then I would have two sets :confused:

 

I have 3 sets LOL. :grouphug:

[DawnM]

Age wise? No.

 

I am 44 and my youngest is 6.

 

My 44 year old best friend had three children under the age of 6! Her youngest is 1.

 

It just depends on you.

[Mejane]

You're not too old, but your other comments make having a baby seem like it may not be the best idea.

 

 

 

:iagree:

[wapiti]

I had my kids at 33, 35, 38, 40 and 41. So no, you're not too old ;)

 

As for whether it's the right decision for your family, only you and your DH can know that. Good luck!!

[ktgrok]

My first was 10 when my second was born, and it has been great!!! I joke that everyone should space them out like this :) And as you know if you wait untill you can afford a baby you will never have one :)

[G5052]

My doctors said that keeping appointments and watching nutrition and exercise were especially important for older mothers, but otherwise they expected a healthy pregnancy and baby for me.

 

And that was the case indeed. I had gestational diabetes each time, but managed fine with diet and exercise to full-term, normal weight babies.

[RahRah]

While it really is only something you can decide yourself, you aren't too old....I had my first at 38 and am cooking baby two at the moment and am 44.

 

The older you are, the higher the "potential" risk, but the majority of older women having babies have healthy babies.

 

My family does have a habit of babies in their 40's also.....my dad's mom was 42 when she had him (#11) and 44 when she had his sister (#12) - then she was done. I have maternal aunts who had children between 40-48, cousins on both sides who've had kids up to 45, and paternal aunts having kids through 44-46 too....so maybe it's genetic too?

 

My pregnancy so far is going swimmingly well - no complaints, no complications and baby is doing well....my only concern, if you can call it that, is going back to the diapers and minimal sleep - but that will pass. DS-6 is totally excited to be a big brother and has asked for many years for a brother or sister - and now it looks like he'll get his baby brother sometime in late January.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I had my number 7 at 44y 9mo. Dh was 47. If you've got energy you're not too old.

[Samiam]

I think that the too-old for baby is a old philosophy, stemming from the days when girls married and had babies in their teens. You know, when medicine deemed age "36" as high-risk pregnancy.

 

I know ALL kinds of women who have babies in their late 30's and into 40's. It is kind of the "norm" these days.

 

As far as the rest of the factors, those are all personal and only your family can make those choices.

[MamaBirdX7]

Nah, not too old. A lot of people don't even START having children until they are your (our) age.

 

I don't think children are expensive (I have 6). I think adult toys are expensive. I think cable is expensive. I think cell phones are expensive. We, society, spend ridiculous amounts on adult junk.

 

How much food does one small child eat? By the time said child is a chow hound, your other children will be grown. Diapers? Cheaper than lattes. Clothes? Since so many people only have a one or two children these days, one day of yard saling and come out with enough like new clothing for 10 kids. Well, up to a certain size, however, by the time your baby is "that" size, your other children will be grown. See how this works?

[RahRah]

I think that the too-old for baby is a old philosophy, stemming from the days when girls married and had babies in their teens. You know, when medicine deemed age "36" as high-risk pregnancy.

 

 

 

The medical profession still considers 35+ high risk.....many OB's however, thankfully, tend to gauge risk by how the mom-to-be is doing and not simply age alone. The OB I have at the moment still has me on the 'low-risk' schedule for visits and such since he feels, even though I'm 44, my pregnancy is progressing like a normal, low-risk pregnancy, so there isn't any need to make me come in weekly, order additional labs, and a host of other things that cause a lot of stress just doing!

 

If, on the other hand, I had increasing BP, indication of GD, endema in my ankles, legs or extremities, baby was growing too quickly or any other red flag things, then he'd see me more often.

 

I just thank God everyday for the ease of this pregnancy!

[Chris in VA]

I think you should let nature take its course. Don't try, don't "not try." See what happens. Every baby is a blessing in my eyes.

[Tarreymere]

My bio kids are 24, 23, 14, 11, 7, and 3. The youngest was born when I was 42. Heck, I would have more if I could (no luck there) and I would love to adopt (no money). If you are healthy, why not?

[CLHCO]

Not too old, and the main criteria in my mind would be more whether or not your dh can agree. Outside of extreme circumstances, I don't let finances decide babies. I have babies on a shoe-string budget and they'd dirt cheap - though that may not be the case with health care so there is an area worth looking at as well. Otherwise, hand-me-down clothing, furniture, nursing, and even cloth diapers if you must, but really all things considered, they don't have to be that expensive. Sometimes they lesson stress with a bit of joy too, not add to it, but only you can decide if this is one of those times.

 

It's the older kids that cost a lot, with curriculum, lessons, activities, and more costly material wants, and no one can forecast your financial situation 10 years into the future. You couldn't with the first two and you wouldn't be able to with any additions.

 

Oh, and twins rock. I wouldn't let twins or no twins decide anything either. ;)

[katemary63]

The money thing is personal and individual. Only you can know how that will look and feel for your family.

 

The age thing is a non-issue. Lots of people have kids at your age and olders. I was 38 with my last.

 

The years between kids is a non-issue for me too. My kids are 25, 24, 19 and 9. I loved having another after so long. It's been heaven!

[RanchGirl]

Age would be an issue for me, just due to less energy as I have aged and pregnancy being harder on me, plus higher rates of birth defects in older mothers -- if money and stress are already factors, a special needs child and/or complicated pregnancy would add even more challenges. These are risks at any age, it just increases as you get older. I think it's definitely a personal decision between you, dh, and God. The kids asking for a sibling is the only non-factor to me, their opinions would not be a factor. ;)

[CLHCO]

Age would be an issue for me, just due to less energy as I have aged and pregnancy being harder on me

 

Pregnancy was definitely harder on me as I got older, but you're missing the beauty of older siblings. They make fantastic toddler fetchers. All my older kids loved to play fetch the toddler. I worked much harder with the first two. ;) In fact, older kids were more help with chores and being sick during pregnancy meant I had to get them more involved in responsibilities, even if it's simply with personal responsibility, which was good for everyone.

 

She's not so old that birth defects should be a dramatic worry yet, if memory serves. Higher? Yes. But not dramatically at 36 by any means.

[Mom in High Heels]

I'm 37 and pregnant with #2. Indy will be just shy of 9 when this one is born. Being pregnant at 37 is WAY different than being than it was when I was 28. It's much harder and I'm much more exhausted. This baby was not planned BTW.

 

The decision to have another one though, if it's something you're talking about, should be mutual.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I had my last child at age 37. Other than me being more tired during pregnancy, everything was great. My shortest labor, too (2 hours.)

 

I have friends who have a large spread between their children and they seem very happy with how things turned out. Oh, and a tip for your "smell-sensitive" child ... Altoids mints in the mouth or vick's vapor rub just under the nose can really help her deal with unpleasant odors. My middle child has strong odor aversions and this is the only way we can go to the zoo.

[RanchGirl]

Pregnancy was definitely harder on me as I got older, but you're missing the beauty of older siblings. They make fantastic toddler fetchers. All my older kids loved to play fetch the toddler. I worked much harder with the first two. ;) In fact, older kids were more help with chores and being sick during pregnancy meant I had to get them more involved in responsibilities, even if it's simply with personal responsibility, which was good for everyone.

 

She's not so old that birth defects should be a dramatic worry yet, if memory serves. Higher? Yes. But not dramatically at 36 by any means.

 

I'm not sure why you're telling me my opinion is wrong? :confused: I was just sharing the things that were concerns for me and my dh, and why we decided not to have more children. Having the older kids to help wouldn't ease the pregnancy concerns or be a mitigating factor in chasing toddlers *for me*. I can't imagine it being a cake-walk! But as I stated, it's definitely a personal decision as far as what's best for each family. Some people do or would love being an older mom with youngsters, and I am so happy for them!! But I would not care for it and I'm glad we decided to stop. That baby-lust has waned and I know we made the right decision for our family.

[OnTheBrink]

I'm 37 and pregnant with #2. Indy will be just shy of 9 when this one is born. Being pregnant at 37 is WAY different than being than it was when I was 28. It's much harder and I'm much more exhausted. This baby was not planned BTW.

 

The decision to have another one though, if it's something you're talking about, should be mutual.

 

I was going to say the same thing. Really, it's like being pregnant for the first time all over again. However, that's not what makes me think you should hold off. First, the stress over $$. That is NOT going to go away with a new baby. Let's say you want to nurse, but for whatever reason, it doesn't work. (Maybe you need to go on some sort of medication, for example). Formula is $$. Diapers are $$, car seats, baby beds, strollers are all expensive. Doctor's visits are expensive.

 

If you and your dh can put the numbers on paper and set up a budget that allows for the extra expenses of babies, then fine. But if you're already financially strapped, a baby is going to add to that.

 

Either way, just make sure you and your dh are on the same page. There is nothing more stressful than money problems AND resentment in marriage.

 

Good luck, whatever you decide! :grouphug:

[CLHCO]

I'm not sure why you're telling me my opinion is wrong? :confused: I was just sharing the things that were concerns for me and my dh, and why we decided not to have more children. Having the older kids to help wouldn't ease the pregnancy concerns or be a mitigating factor in chasing toddlers *for me*. I can't imagine it being a cake-walk! But as I stated, it's definitely a personal decision as far as what's best for each family. Some people do or would love being an older mom with youngsters, and I am so happy for them!! But I would not care for it and I'm glad we decided to stop. That baby-lust has waned and I know we made the right decision for our family.

 

Well, with the wink and the toddler fetching, I thought I was just making fun conversation, giving another side though, assuming you were advising the OP, not simply discussing your own situation. I would never dream to judge your situation. I will use more caution next time.

[extendedforecast]

It is something only you can answer. I definitely wouldn't unless you and your DH are in full agreement with it. With starting over and the stress of finances, you really need to be united on the decision. If you push for it, but he doesn't want it, you do not want to be the one to blame if the stress gets insane.

 

Starting over is difficult. I have a gap between #3 and #4 (only 7 years) and I had completely forgotten the work involved with a baby/toddler. School has been very difficult. Is he worth it? Absolutely, we adore him, but it is more difficult than I remembered. It is difficult to balance the needs of both big kids and toddlers. Most of my friends have kids the age of my older three and so they tend to plan activities right in the middle of nap time. Many times I need to skip things my older ones really want to do because little guy will just be too tired. I often feel torn between two worlds. Again, I do not regret having him. I didn't have the age issue since I had my first three really young. Being 24 when my 3rd was born and then 31 when my 4th was born - boy, oh boy, there is a difference! I could totally tell I was older. My body really felt the pregnancy more. I am in no way attempting to discourage you, only to get you to think through the differences it will bring.

 

By the way, it is like having two families. I continue to think as my older three as a "set" and then I have this little guy who is sort of independent of the set. I often wonder if I shouldn't have just one more in order to give him a little one close to his age, then I would have two sets :confused:

 

:iagree: My family is very much like yours, except that we did go ahead and have another for the same reasons you mentioned. And it is like having two families, and it is bittersweet.

[JFSinIL]

If I had thought 36 too old my now 14-yr-old dd wouldn't be here ;-)

 

Go for it.

 

I'd have another if I could...but at 51 I think it better to anticipate grandkids!

 

Fear not the repeat c-section, either - I had them for the first twin birth, then the two singleton kids. This all after major abdominal surgery to remove a fibroid.

Edited December 8, 2010 by JFSinIL

[journeytolily]

I've heard it said that "children aren't expensive; lifestyles are" and I think this is true to a great extent. There are so many ways to save $$$ on most things a baby needs.

 

It sounds like you REALLY want another child - I would say as long as you and your hubby are in agreement, you should go for it. I don't believe you would ever regret it, but you may very well regret NOT having another baby.

 

Oh, and don't worry about your age, or your older kids. Many women are having children into their 40's, and there are plenty of families where there is a large age-range of siblings - I'm sure your older two would totally dote on their little brother or sister!

 

Veronica

[HomeschoolingMy4]

I agree w/Tina!! If you have that desire, I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with hoping for more!

[ktgrok]

My son is 11 years old and my daughter is 10 months old. They are incredibly close. He is her favorite person in the world, and he adores her. I can't wait to see how the relationship grows.

 

Just wanted to reassure you!

[Alphabetika]

I haven't read this thread beyond the OP, but just want to put in that we had a baby in August 2009, when I was 41 and dh 46, and our other girls were 15 and 11. We were and are thrilled. I suppose in some senses it's like having a "separate family," but I think that could happen circumstantially with kids of any age difference, KWIM? I see it all the time, when kids are involved in vastly different activities, plus spend the days away from each other in school. Homeschooling has been a huge plus in this regard. My older girls have seen what it's like to have a newborn in the house, they've learned so much and are continuing to learn and grow closer to their baby sister. They are already planning how they will help to homeschool her (we'll see if that happens - fine with me either way, but it's fun to hear them talk about it) and my oldest likes to say that when she's married, she'll have her littlest sister over to her home for a weekend. Wouldn't trade this for the WORLD!!:hurray:

[Tohru]

My first was 10 when my second was born, and it has been great!!! I joke that everyone should space them out like this :) And as you know if you wait untill you can afford a baby you will never have one :)

 

Mine too! He used to be her favorite person in the world, but now he is her adversary. It's been fun though. We are definitely trying for more.

Edited December 8, 2010 by jadedone80

[PeterPan]

Well you already got a lot of responses, but I'll just come in and say a 10 year gap is TERRIFIC! Mine are 9 1/2 years apart, and they SO love each other. They're wonderful together (when they're not scrapping, haha). It's not really starting over so much as doing it again. Everything is a bit easier and more familiar than it was the first time. Yes, being broke is a problem. I suggest you start trying to get pregnant now, as it may take a while, and save your money. I've done homebirths, so it was a sliding scale based on income. Basically $100 a month would get you there.

[tricia]

You definitely are not too old. I had babies 10, 11, and 12 between the ages 39 to 45. Also, FYI, I conceived my twins when I was your age. They were numbers 8 and 9. God will provide. After all, you will be having HIS children. Blessings to whatever you decide.

[catalinakel]

My two were born when I was 39 and 41, but then I had four miscarriages. After age 42 odds of having a full term pregnancy go way down, so you can't wait forever, but my two were perfect and I had no complications whatsoever.

[cherylw]

Thank you all for your input, I enjoyed reading them. If we do decide I would want dh completely onboard. I do believe "children are a heritage from God" psalm 127:3. I think the boys would be great big bros! But we will see!:) I nursed, used cloth diapers a lot (which dh would not change btw!) made some of their baby food. There are many things to help but possible medical stuff is still a concern. I had c-sections with them. Ds #2 was almost 10lbs! Oh well, I ALMOST wish we would have an accident to take away the decision:D.

[PeterPan]

10? That's nothing. I had an 11lb1oz at home. Little bit traumatic to the psyche, thought I would die for a moment, but all was well. You might have some options there. A lot has changed in the last 10 years with birthing options.

[LindaOz]

Pregnancy was definitely harder on me as I got older, but you're missing the beauty of older siblings. They make fantastic toddler fetchers. All my older kids loved to play fetch the toddler. I worked much harder with the first two. ;)

 

:iagree:

 

I had #7 in May at the age of 44. It was one of my easiest births. I was amazed at how easily all the 'baby care' came back to me - it was almost as if I hadn't just had a nearly 6 year break.

 

Having older kids is definitely an advantage I've discovered. They help, babysit, cook, babysit, change diapers, babysit, read to the baby, and keep begging for more cuddles with the baby. I sometimes have to fight off the other kids so *I* have time with baby. :tongue_smilie: Definitely it is less work than with the first kids. I'm so glad we had her :001_smile:

 

All the best with your decision.

[katilac]

Money: My two were both rather expensive as babies, due to medical care. Nothing major, but a combination of high deductible insurance with no well baby coverage, and kids who needed frequent doctor visits and prescriptions, did mean we needed a cushion of several hundred dollars per month. Not having the money to pay doctor bills would have been very stressful for me. That's just one example; while it's impossible to plan for every eventuality, it's very reasonable to assume that a baby is quite possibly going to require some cold, hard cash. It's not wrong or unfeeling to take that into consideration.

 

Age (yours): "too old" varies from person to person. Some people are more energetic than others. Some people have a harder time with the physical aspects of pregnancy. I did not want to be pregnant or chasing a toddler at your age, but others that age scarcely seem to notice :D. Yes, I am old, I embrace it!

 

Age span of kids: again, depends on you! I had my two as close together as possible, because I thought it was easiest to get the hard bits over all at once, and never again have to revisit diapers, potty training, and remembering not to put quarters or marbles within easy reach. Others find it far easier to only have one baby in diapers or one toddler racing around the house. It's not right or wrong, just what you prefer.

[katilac]

I think you should let nature take its course. Don't try, don't "not try." See what happens. Every baby is a blessing in my eyes.

 

I've never understood how having sex without using some form of birth control wasn't "trying." If you aren't having sex often enough to hit your fertile days without charting, then you are officially too old and tired to have a baby :D

[LidiyaDawn]

I think that things like "too old" and such are very individual. I've known women who flat out refused to have any more kids after they turned 30, and I've known women who continued having children into their 40s.

 

Our kids are 14 & 12 and we have another on her/his way. I'll be 34 when she/he is born; dh will be 38. A very close friend of mine is in her mid-forties and has three - they're 20, 16, and 9.

 

As for finances - if you wait until things are "perfect", they never will be. Also, things COULD seem 'just right' - great job, few bills, whatever - and BAM, something big & unexpected changes that. Life doesn't come with guarantees. ;)

[Guest justpassingthru]

Definitely not too old , my last bio child was born 3 months before my 46th birthday.

 

 

Blessings,

Lois

wife of dh for 36 years ,

dd 34

and

dsil

and

dgd 2

, and

NEW dgs

born March 9th 2010

d

s 33

,

ddil

,

dgs 4

,

dgd1,

ds 26

dd 14,

ds 13

,

dd 11

 

www.storyofstuff.com

[cathmom]

I've never understood how having sex without using some form of birth control wasn't "trying." If you aren't having sex often enough to hit your fertile days without charting, then you are officially too old and tired to have a baby :D

 

You don't necessarily get pregnant just because you have sex around your fertile days.

[5knights3maidens]

I didn't read your whole post or anyone else's but, I don't think you are too old. If you feel you would like to have more go for it. ;)

I'm 48 and my youngest (#8) is 5. :D

[LazyDazy]

Ok, I've been wanting a baby for a while now but I do wonder if we are getting too old to technically start all over again. With ds's 9 and 10, it would be like having another family. Plus I'm 36 and Dh is 38. The main reason we haven't had one yet is due to finances and unstableness of DH business (construction) and we are basically broke. The boys ask for a brother or sister all the time, but I do realize that have no idea what their asking. DS 9 would be a big help since he loves little ones but ds 10 would probably be pucking all the time from diapers and spit up....doesn't handle smells well. Also I might add that my family has a history of twins (maternal and paternal!); that with age that also increases that chance is a little scary.

I have always thought 2 isn't enough...but have I waited too late, too many risks, too unstable? On the other hand I know God will provide for us a way if we did. But it is extremely stressful having to worry about money all the time and adding a baby would only worsen the stress.

 

I haven't read any of the other posts on this thread. I could have written this word for word. I am the same age with 2 boys the same age as yours (who ask for a baby all the time - actually they want twin girls!), I have a VERY strong family history of twins, we waited to have more due to finances, and considered having more very recently.

 

We ended up deciding not to have more because of how it would effect the freedom that we have as a family because the ages of our boys. We are refocusing on what advantages our family has as it is instead of on what could have been. My hubby has a much younger sister whom he hardly knows because of the age gap. I have 2 siblings close in age and 2 much older which creates a strange dynamic that I didn't want for my kids. We actually did a list of pros and cons to help us decide! Weird, I know. But it made us realize we may only have 10 years or so before grandbabies could start showing up!

 

To answer your post, you aren't too old for more kids at all! Just thought you'd like to hear from someone who has btdt. Hope it helps you. Good luck!

[Cinder]

Haven't read all the replies yet, but just wanted to add my story. I had dd just a few weeks before I turned 40. My boys were 10 and 7 when she was born. And my older one, like yours, didn't handle the icky parts (smells, feedings) well but he clearly loved her and played with her.

 

I felt like 40 was old to have a baby, but my OB assured me that it was not. His mother was 40 when she had him, and he was already in his 60's.

 

Admittedly it was my most difficult pregnancy. I had morning sickness, which I never had with the boys. And then I developed vertigo about halfway through, but this wasn't related to my pregnancy. Dd didn't turn until the last minute, so there was concern of her being breech or sunny-side up--her shoulders got stuck on the way out. But other than that I had a healthy pregnancy.

 

We had not been trying for another child, just not preventing it. Dd has been a surprise blessing, and now we can't imagine our family without her.

 

Cinder

[Unicorn.]

I had my kids at 33, 35, 38, 40 and 41. So no, you're not too old ;)

 

As for whether it's the right decision for your family, only you and your DH can know that. Good luck!!

 

:iagree: Talk it over w/ dh, and decide together.