IMO-yes i think that having a baby at 45 is too old. There are simply too many risks, physical, emotional and lifestyle factors to consider for you and the child.
Sadly, many of the women on boards like this one will encourage you to "go ahead and do it!" but what you have to consider that many women giving you this piece of advice either-
1. Never had kids in their 40s
2. Are women in their 20's themselves giving you advice though they know NOTHING about what it takes to be a parent cause they are not parents themselves.
3. Never had complicated pregnancies, miscarriages or a child with disabilities, despite their age, so how would they know about the huge risk you are taking?
4. Never went through a divorce as a result of the strain of trying to conceive or the strain of parenthood in their 40s.
So-once you sift through all of the above you will find a much much smaller number of women who conceived in their mid to late 40's, can give you a "true picture" of new baby parenthood-financial, social, emotional, physical in their mid 40s.
Believe me when i say--it is not all roses and champagne.
I am 46 years old and have a 19 year old child which i gave birth to at 26 and an 8 year old (which i adopted when he was 2 and i was 38). I love both my kids to death, and would not trade anything i have to say that there was a HUGE difference in parenting a baby, toddler , young child at 26 VS going through the stages again at 46.
Suffice it to say that my EX couldn't handle the toddler, preschool years very well the second time around. Faced with the reality of his own body's limitations (eventhough he's active its never the same as someone in their 20s) he sought comfort in the arms of a woman young enough to be his daughter as a way of "feeling young" again.
So at 46 i am now a single parent of an almost 19 year old and a soon to be 9 year old. ( I divorced him 4 years ago and his 20 something "mistress" took off with another man when my ex declared bankruptcy 2 years ago).
And if you think they are "grown" by the time they are 18 think again. MOST 18-24 year olds in this country are not ready to be on their own these days.
The economy is lousy and decent jobs for those coming out of high school are a rarity. Supporting oneself on minimum wage is out of the questions with how expensive things are. Even my neighbor has a kid that is 24 years old and still living at home because all he can find is minimum wage.
So my oldest is living at home (with me do to his dad's behavior) while going to college for the next few years in hopes of the economic situation changing.
While i try very hard to be a good parent with my youngest and engage in school and social activities that he is interested in--it is often very HARD to find the physical reserves and interest at times to go through all the activities i already went through so many years ago with my oldest when he was this age. I have to constantly push myself, but even so, there are more times that i'd like to admit when i have to say "no" because i am simply too exhausted. Parenting is hard and even harder in your 40's-50's if you have a very young child. Don't let anyone kid you.
The "high energy levels" you thought you had before the child came along will no longer be there a few years in.
Now when all is said and done, and in spite of everything i have been through in the last few years (to include divorce, financial struggles and starting a new career from scratch) i would not trade my two kids for anything in the world.
Would i have a baby now- at 46- if i suddenly found myself pregnant again-knowing all the risks involved, financial, emotional and physical considerations?--
The resounding answer is NO!
Do i believe women should fight nature in their mid 40s and beyond by going through the painful toll of IVF treatments and parenthood at such a late stage? NO!
Do I believe women are being foolish and ignorant when they compare themselves and other women to multimillionaire celebrities who conceived in their 40s? YES!
(most of those celebs not only conceived with "donor eggs" but have, well, millions of dollars at their disposable to not only get the best possible pregnancy care BUT also to ensure that their children, whether disabled or not, get the best possible upbringing).
if you're going to compare yourself or other women to "celebs" then less compare apples to apples shall we?
So unless you are wealthy beyond all means with millions of dollars at your disposal in the eventuality of something going wrong
And you have a large family that can and is willing to support you and take care of your child in the eventuality that something goes wrong
I strongly recommend against having a baby in your mid 40's and beyond.
Now if all of the above sounds harsh--GOOD! It is meant to be.
That's why they call it a "reality check".
Like my grandmother always said "don't pussyfoot around and deliver hard news on a bed a roses, that doesn't help anyone see the way things really are, the only thing it does is give someone a false sense of security".
Comment Reply
IMO-yes i think that having a baby at 45 is too old. There are simply too many risks, physical, emotional and lifestyle factors to consider for you and the child.
Sadly, many of the women on boards like this one will encourage you to "go ahead and do it!" but what you have to consider that many women giving you this piece of advice either-
1. Never had kids in their 40s
2. Are women in their 20's themselves giving you advice though they know NOTHING about what it takes to be a parent cause they are not parents themselves.
3. Never had complicated pregnancies, miscarriages or a child with disabilities, despite their age, so how would they know about the huge risk you are taking?
4. Never went through a divorce as a result of the strain of trying to conceive or the strain of parenthood in their 40s.
So-once you sift through all of the above you will find a much much smaller number of women who conceived in their mid to late 40's, can give you a "true picture" of new baby parenthood-financial, social, emotional, physical in their mid 40s.
Believe me when i say--it is not all roses and champagne.
September 29, 2011 - 2:21pmI am 46 years old and have a 19 year old child which i gave birth to at 26 and an 8 year old (which i adopted when he was 2 and i was 38). I love both my kids to death, and would not trade anything i have to say that there was a HUGE difference in parenting a baby, toddler , young child at 26 VS going through the stages again at 46.
Suffice it to say that my EX couldn't handle the toddler, preschool years very well the second time around. Faced with the reality of his own body's limitations (eventhough he's active its never the same as someone in their 20s) he sought comfort in the arms of a woman young enough to be his daughter as a way of "feeling young" again.
So at 46 i am now a single parent of an almost 19 year old and a soon to be 9 year old. ( I divorced him 4 years ago and his 20 something "mistress" took off with another man when my ex declared bankruptcy 2 years ago).
And if you think they are "grown" by the time they are 18 think again. MOST 18-24 year olds in this country are not ready to be on their own these days.
The economy is lousy and decent jobs for those coming out of high school are a rarity. Supporting oneself on minimum wage is out of the questions with how expensive things are. Even my neighbor has a kid that is 24 years old and still living at home because all he can find is minimum wage.
So my oldest is living at home (with me do to his dad's behavior) while going to college for the next few years in hopes of the economic situation changing.
While i try very hard to be a good parent with my youngest and engage in school and social activities that he is interested in--it is often very HARD to find the physical reserves and interest at times to go through all the activities i already went through so many years ago with my oldest when he was this age. I have to constantly push myself, but even so, there are more times that i'd like to admit when i have to say "no" because i am simply too exhausted. Parenting is hard and even harder in your 40's-50's if you have a very young child. Don't let anyone kid you.
The "high energy levels" you thought you had before the child came along will no longer be there a few years in.
Now when all is said and done, and in spite of everything i have been through in the last few years (to include divorce, financial struggles and starting a new career from scratch) i would not trade my two kids for anything in the world.
Would i have a baby now- at 46- if i suddenly found myself pregnant again-knowing all the risks involved, financial, emotional and physical considerations?--
The resounding answer is NO!
Do i believe women should fight nature in their mid 40s and beyond by going through the painful toll of IVF treatments and parenthood at such a late stage? NO!
Do I believe women are being foolish and ignorant when they compare themselves and other women to multimillionaire celebrities who conceived in their 40s? YES!
(most of those celebs not only conceived with "donor eggs" but have, well, millions of dollars at their disposable to not only get the best possible pregnancy care BUT also to ensure that their children, whether disabled or not, get the best possible upbringing).
if you're going to compare yourself or other women to "celebs" then less compare apples to apples shall we?
So unless you are wealthy beyond all means with millions of dollars at your disposal in the eventuality of something going wrong
And you have a large family that can and is willing to support you and take care of your child in the eventuality that something goes wrong
I strongly recommend against having a baby in your mid 40's and beyond.
Now if all of the above sounds harsh--GOOD! It is meant to be.
That's why they call it a "reality check".
Like my grandmother always said "don't pussyfoot around and deliver hard news on a bed a roses, that doesn't help anyone see the way things really are, the only thing it does is give someone a false sense of security".
This Comment
Reply