I have four children and I can tell you that though all the pregnancies were easy, keeping up with the last one has been more of a challenge than the first one! I was 27 with #1 and 37 with #4. I'm not sure if he's just more wild or I'm just not as young and energetic?? lol. I keep up but I will tell you I'm ready for bed when the time comes. I'm also a little concerned about the generation gap when he's a teenager. I have a young attitude now and I can relate to my 13 year old but will I be able to when I'm 53 and the baby is 13?? I hope so! I guess time will tell.
2007-11-19 09:42:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd say 50 (obviously via IVF) is acceptable but really after that its pushing it. Your body is made to make babies before 40 but that doesnt mean to say there arent some really great older parents out there. My mum had her 6th baby at 42, and she is struggling a bit phsically as they are quite demanding (she has a 4 and a 3 yr old) but her grandma had her last when she was 46 and I think she coped resonably well considering there were 18 of them!!! I guess going through a pregnancy when you are older puts you at a very high risk of complications in every area ie, birth defects, high blood pressure and gestational diabetes during the pregnancy, birth complications, also as your own parents are aging (if you have them) you wont have as reliable support from them as you would like. If you feel that you are phsically capable of pregnancy, birth and a new baby and then a toddler and so forth, and you have the right aupport network then by all means go for it. Older mothers generally are more patient and laid back and tend to have calmer children as a result. Just follow you gut and go for it...
2007-11-19 16:53:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
My daughter was born a few weeks before my 40th birthday. I had an easy pregnancy and a healthy child. As an older parent, I'm a lot wiser and more patient that I was in my 20s, I'm financially secure, and my career has reached the point where I can focus more on my child and less on work.
I know quite a few people who have become first time parents in their 40s, and who have happy, healthy children.
2007-11-19 17:14:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by daa 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
my were 34 and 35 when i was born, that was plenty old. My dad is weeks away from being 60..and in the hospital from a heart problem. I am only 24 years old, and i know many have lost their parents younger, but i have had a close call this week with mine.
Not to mention, my parents were 10 years older then my friends parents, so i knew how to talk to my parents but i never figured out how to talk to my friends parents, as they weren't as old fashioned. Not to mention i liked that they were more "cool". I love my parents but they were always behind the times of things and made me feel out of place. Yet not sure that there were good parenting skills in general. Anyhow, I still thought they were our of the times and never understood me, i never felt that i could go to them, it was just harder to be open with someone so much older. Meaning i hid more and tried to get them not to find out. Never wanted to be myself. I think it was just the personalities of my parents as well...as both my brother and sister had kids over the age of 30 and are cool. Yet they worked on being responsible and staying young at the same time.
2007-11-19 18:21:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Julie W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
My parents were much older than all of my friends' parents, 35 and 46 when I was born, and I always resented that they were "too old" to play with me, totally out of touch with popular culture, completely ignorant of what is important to younger people, and a constant source of worry that they would die soon. But that was 35 years ago . . . now those ages don't sound abnormal at all, people are staying healthier longer, and if it's important to you to keep up with modern times, obviously you can at any age. The greater risk of birth defects is real though, and doubles for a lot of them at 35 I believe.
2007-11-19 18:16:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by R H 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first answer is actually correct 35 or older your automatically as high risk as if you were 18 or younger. The health complications are just greater. But its not to say ever person who has children over 35 are going to have Down syndrome babies either.
2007-11-19 18:45:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
A friend of mines mother was 46 when she had him, yep she was too old...his dad died when he was 6 and his mom never did anything with him, except read but there was no balance in his life what so ever. Her experience was so out dated she truely didn't notice when her son devloped a huge drug problem, or hes son's embarrasment that everyone thought his mom was his grandmother. Not to mention his son has one granny that is 59 and one that is 90.
I had my own children young and I had lots of fun following them on the play ground and teaching them how to do cart wheels. I don't think I would have the stamina for it now.
2007-11-19 17:18:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Holly 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
As long as you can why not? and as for down syndrome just as many young moms have children with downs, my mom was only 30 when she had my sister and most of the other people we know with downs were born to even younger mothers.
2007-11-19 19:18:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by liv t 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
My mother was 42 and my father was 52 when I ws born.
David Letterman just had a child a year or two ago. So what is too old? As long as you can conceive.
2007-11-19 16:48:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Squat1 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Babies born to mothers over the age of 35 statistically have more health problems, like Down Syndrome.
2007-11-19 16:46:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Emily E 6
·
4⤊
2⤋