AIBU to consider having another baby?

[Bishopsbuddy]

I have 4 gorgeous children. Aged 4 up to 16. I'm 41. Am I too old to have an other baby. My husband and I are seriously talking about another. He is 45. Are wee too old?

[affogato]

Obviously it's up to you OP. I'm a bit younger than you and have 4. I'd love another tiny newborn. But in my heart I know I'm already spread too thinly with my 4 - they don't always get everything they need or in the way I'd like to - I can get short tempered because there's so bloody much to do and organise. Another baby would make that worse. As much as I'd love another, we as a family are at a limit what's sensible for us, so for me, that's the answer.

[juneau]

Assuming that your fertility is still the same at 41 as it was five years ago when you conceived your last DC isn't a good idea. You may still be fertile, but equally you may not.

As for a fifth DC at 41, well I wouldn't, but then two DC is plenty for me. Plus, your DH will be in his late 60s when this potential fifth DC is still at uni - does he really want to be working (or at least paying for education, etc), at that age? That's what would put me off most of all. My DM is 67 and the thought of being her age and having a 21-year-old isn't really that appealing.

[Shesinfashion]

Isn't 4 enough? Are you trying for a girl/boy after 4 of one sex? I don't have a broody bone in my body and and despite being late to motherhood, having a 5th at 41 sounds mental to me.

[Birdsgottafly]

My Mum had me at 40, I'm now 47, she only died last year, still fairly mobile and 'all there', she worked until she was 80, as did my Nan and babysat my children, even overnight, in her 70's.

I think it is fair to take into account of how long people tend to live in your family and any health issues.

I'd hate to have a young child, my youngest is 18 and I've got loads planned. The sort of, lack of responsibility, is exciting, its different from when you are younger, because you have the confidence to do what you want and not care about inconsequential stuff.

I love the relationship that I've had with my older and now adult children, another younger child would have set that back.

I don't know your circumstances, but I enjoyed (for want of a better word) the last months that I spent with my Mum, taking her out etc.

It's a very personal decision.

[Bishopsbuddy]

My children are expected to live their lives to the full. They are all well rounded and well mannered and very caring children. They are not expected or relied on to babysit and help with the younger kids because that is not what I want them
To do! All the kids love each other and they all play and indeed fight as normal siblings do. I object to them being referred to as selfish just because I don't rely on them to help me parent!

[Katenka]

If you want to raise selfish kids who never help anyone else, thats up to you. I'd rather have well rounded, kind, generous, loving children who are more than happy to help to care of their younger siblings.

absolute rubbish. I have never baby sat a relatives baby as a child/teen. Neither have my kids. Non of us are selfish.

I haven't said they shouldn't help. But it shouldn't be expected. I am sorry this seems to have offended you. But I don't think any can assume they relatives will help out. Even if try want to things can happen that mean it's not possible.

My mum isn't in the best health so can't baby sit very often anymore. That's fine, her help was a bonus.

Assuming kids that don't help out will grow up selfish, is ridiculous tbh. Are all youngest children selfish?

[teatowel]

You can do so many lovely things together now without all the paraphernalia of equipment and organisation that is associated with tiny babies and toddlers. I would rather make the most of that if I already had four children- but each to their own!

[KatieT12]

OP's

[KatieT12]

It's not about having kids who will grow up to be selfish/not selfish. Just because I don't have younger siblings, doesn't mean I'm selfish - I think that's a poor way to look at it.

He eldest child is 16, he/she is old enough now to be living life independently and doing stuff they want to, not helping out with their younger siblings - they'll decide to have children when they're prepared to do all that themselves.

It doesn't mean they won't help, but you just can't assume they will...

[ZiggyFartdust]

ziggy just because you and your kids have been happy with this doesn't mean everyone else would be

And everyone else I know. But its the principle, the idea of "don't ever expect any help from anyone with anything, not even your own children". If you want to raise selfish kids who never help anyone else, thats up to you. I'd rather have well rounded, kind, generous, loving children who are more than happy to help to care of their younger siblings.

[shutupandshop]

I have 4, had last one at 34. Its your life. helpful

[KatieT12]

Ziggy - no one is saying there's a 'problem' with the older kids helping out. The oldest isn't going to walk over to the baby, pick it up and someone runs over telling them to put it down because it isn't their duty.

The point was is that you shouldn't assume the will help out, so you shouldn't take the help they'll provide into the equation when deciding to have another one. That was the point.

[Katenka]

ziggy just because you and your kids have been happy with this doesn't mean everyone else would be.

My parents love baby sitting. I don't think everyone's parents should feel obliged to.

If you have kids, they are yours. If people enjoy helping out that great. It shouldn't be expected.

[ZiggyFartdust]

It is unreasonable to take the older DC into the equation as babysitters etc when deciding to have another baby

I hate this notion. I looked after my younger siblings. My older ones look after the little ones. It's part of being a family, we are all very happy to look after each other. It's the same with every family I know, and I find it a very mn idea (and a sad and rather selfish one at that) that there is something wrong with families working together and being close and looking after their siblings/other family members.

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

Personally I'd rather shit in my hands and clap. But everyone's different. If you've got the money and it's what you both want then why not? You're not too old.

[Bishopsbuddy]

I completely agree with pp's who say older children should not be relied on for babysitting. I must state very clearly that my two older children never and I mean never babysit or even help the younger two. All the children are exactly that. Children! I remember a friend saying my older kids are getting great experience with the babies. I thought Are you kidding? My older two are so busy playing sport and socialising they have no time to babysit!

[Suzietwo]

I don't think broodyness passes for some people and there's probably a reason you've got 4 kids which isn't a million miles away from that

Someone a few posts up puts it best. Isn't the prospect of the new free time and new family experiences without a baby more exciting than going through all the baby crap again? If not then maybe have another. I'm pregnant with number 4 atm. I definitely don't regret it but I'm also looking forward to life not being about babies once this one has got past the early stages.

[cagsd]

As previous posters have said, it's an entirely personal choice: nobody can tell you that you are being unreasonable or should / should not have another.

For me personally (I'm 42) I would never consider having a baby this late in life. Simply because of my own experience: my mum was 41 when she had me, and I always felt self conscious growing up with the oldest mum out of all my friends. I grew out of that when I was about 18 and spent a good few years having a great relationship with her, but now she is in her 80s and her health is failing. She is extremely demanding and I find myself torn in my loyalties as I also have 3 kids of 16, 12 and 9. I find myself feeling a bit jealous of friends around my age who have mums in their 60s/70s who go shopping with them, or who have the kids to stay overnight etc.

I've heard people in my situation referred to as "the sandwich generation" - looking after elderly parents while also looking after a young family! Not something I would ever wish on my kids, but like I say that is due to my own experience.

One thing I would say is that it's a lot more common these days to have a baby over 40, so kids born to older mums probably don't feel that unusual - but I grew up feeling like I had 2 heads, as kids would comment "wow your mum is OLD" etc!!

not trying to put you off - it's entirely up to you - but this is why I would never do it!

[dolkapots]

I wouldn't. I have 4 roughly the same age as yours OP and apart from the fact my eldest would leave home would be mortified if I was to get pregnant I am so busy trying to meet their needs as it is, without adding another into the mix. So much of my life is taxi-ing around to clubs and sports (the youngest hasn't really started any yet!) that a new baby would grow up in the car.

My husband's father was 47 when DH was born. He hated having what everyone thought was his grandfather picking him up at school and as a result did not want to have any over 40.

Just my own personal reasons; nothing to stop you OP!

[Trills]

But it seems to me that your life (as a family) is about to move into an exciting new phase with no pre-schoolers in the mix, and you are going to delay that (again?) by having a new baby.

This is a more important consideration than whether you are "too old".

Do you want to stay in that stage of life?

[LettingAgentNightmare]

I wouldn't. Surely 4 is enough?

[Jw35]

Go for it!

[BathtimeFunkster]

I wouldn't.

What would a baby add to family life?

You'd have to go through the whole baby and toddler stage again, which will tie you up.

I don't know... when you already have four children and the eldest is only a couple of years off flying the nest, I just can't see why you'd add a new baby into the mix.

You're not too old, and if you had no kids and this was your chance to be a mother I'd get it.

But it seems to me that your life (as a family) is about to move into an exciting new phase with no pre-schoolers in the mix, and you are going to delay that (again?) by having a new baby.

Delay it past the point you can ever have it, because your eldest will be gone by the time any new baby is 4.

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

It's too old for me.

It's very personal though.

[HeteronormativeHaybales]

Absolutely what wannabe and Katenka said. I have just had no. 3 with a 10- and 8-year gap to the older ones and I will not be using them as babysitters. We may offer them the opportunity to babysit - for money, of course - when they are old enough, but there will be no assumption that that is their responsibility. I also really do not want my children caring for me in my old age - I would rather be in a care home and know they are off living their lives.

I'm 38 and this one is my last; 3 is my personal limit. You are older than I'd like to be having my last baby, tbh, and you will have to take into account the increased risk of miscarriage, genetic issues and complications, but it's a very personal decision.