"It's not fair on your kids if you get pregnant in your 40s"

[ElspethFlashman]

Can I just say this annoys me a lot?

I hear it in every conversation about older parents. There are actually 2 sides to this argument - that having older parents mean you are free of certain responsibilities at a younger age.

I had older parents. They just met late. They were in their 50s before I went to secondary school. Back then that was highly unusual.

I spent most of my 20s and 30s taking care of them and in and out of hospital. They died in my mid & late thirties. It wasn't easy - god no. It was a terrible burden. One I'm glad is behind me. I started a family and my parents will never know their grandchildren. It's sad of course.

But would that burden have been any less when I was 55? Or even 65? No.

I would just have been older and more shattered. And perhaps more resentful. My neighbour was taking care of "Mummy" up to her 60s. Filling in the gaps of the home helps and Meals on Wheels. All the hospital/GP appointments. All the maintenance on the mums home. She was exhausted. And Mummy was as demanding as old people are.

AIBU to think that if you are going to be saddled with the burden of care for older parents, then maybe there is something to be said for being free of that burden at a younger age?

Yes there are plenty who put their parents in a nursing home - but that's not easy either. The visits and the worry and the emotional pressure. It's never enough.

So AIBU to please stop using this as a stick to beat those who get pregnant later in life? "Your kids won't thank you for it". It's far too simplistic.

I'm grateful that the only people I have to worry about for the rest of my life are my kids. Sometimes I look at friends my age (40s) whose parents are showing the very first signs of not actually being immortal, and I wouldn't swap places with them for anything.

If you're an older mum you're wrong
If you're a young mum you're wrong
If you're a single mum you're wrong
If you're a working mum you're wrong
If you're a sahm you're wrong
If you have many children you're wrong

It's funny my mums been all of these she had me and my elder brother in her early 20's then became a single working mum when she and my dad split. Then started again when she remarried my step dad and had my youngest brother and sister at 40 and 42. My youngest sister had the benefit of having a SAHM cos mum gave up work at 50.

but there's also a changing in attitudes. When my mum was a working mum pretty much 70% of my brothers and mines school friends had SAHMs. Mum could definately feel the judgement, she'd married and had us young as was expected but my father is a manipative dick head and we're all happier for our parents not being together. but a lot of my friends parents were the same age, perhaps even younger I remember my best friends mum being 36 to my mums 42 when we're 14 or so.
But then by the time my youngest sister went to nursary and school a lot of her friends parents were only about 5 years younger than my mum with my sisters friends being their first. So where as in my era parents had there first between 18 and 25 mums in my sisters age were g having their first till 32-40.

Echt

I'm so sorry for your loss

What set me off was the thread this morning by the mum asking if she was unreasonable to have a child at 47.

Now there were plenty of objections from folks pointing out the health risks/abnormality risks etc and fair enough.

But what was disheartening was that there seemed to be a plethora of posters objecting to it on the grounds that her kids would be X age when she was Y age.

So the attitude is alive and well unfortunately.

Was it just that, or was it that their children would (probably) in the middle of raising families themselves at a point when they would (probably) be needing more care? I can kind of see it from both sides - MIL is mid 80s, my dad is mid 70s, both are for and healthy but aging iykwim? Fortunately the worst of our child rearing days are behind us in our late forties/early fifties so we aren't being pulled between the 2 generations.

Nor sure if I'm explaining myself very well

My husbands father married and became a dad in his 20s. He died in his 20s as well. There are no guarantees. Charlie Chaplin was 73 when his youngest child was born and died 15 years later so that worked out better than it did for my husband.

When I had my youngest child at almost 40 the doctor looked at my notes and said "Well you had one family when you were too young and now you have had another when you are too old." I was a teenager with first. If I average it out I think he would have been happy if I was 27 and a half.

sirchen grandchildren at 47 is not far too young! I had mine at 18 & 20. My DM was 38 & 40yrs when they came along. She's now 49. Enjoying her grandchildren. She had me at 20. I'm 29.

Grandchildren at 46 seems far too young when you start having kids at 40 obviously. But if you had your kid at 20, then they have theirs at 20....then obviously 46 is not far too young!

Nothing wrong with having dc in your forties off course not. However Yabu for calling caring for your parents a " burden".

I'm 47 - all my friends are in the mid/late 40s, still raising children and still working. Our elder children are in their late teens and early twenties, at uni, travelling, getting started in careers. The idea of being a granny at this age (to me) is bizarre , probably because I don't know any

AndNow a duty can be burdensome and still be carried out with love. I don't think you understand that.

I had my two dcs in my 40s. It is so common place no one has felt the need to comment or pass judgement. That went against my expectations given the number of times this issue comes up for debate on-line. Goes to show there is the internet, and then there is real life.

No as a carer for my two disabled dc I don't understand that.

Well aren't you so much more superior. Ok then. Thanks for putting me back in my box.

Hmmm.... I can see it from both sides to be honest. My partner is 32, his dad is 72. Whilst trying to look after our own 3 yo DD we are now caring for a 72 year old man who had menieres, insulin dependant type 2 diabetes, a heart condition and decreasing mobility. He's not at the point of needing home care but cannot manage on his own. Although he can afford one, he is refusing to pay for a cleaner because he expects us to do it. But at the weekend after both working 40+ hours a week we are knackered. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't change him for the world and love my FIL to bits, but I don't think it occurred to him how difficult his child's life would be in their 30s by deciding to have children so late. My daughter has a grandad that can barely bend down to tie up his own shoes let alone play with her. It makes me feel a bit sad.

So whilst it may be better for the parent to be older when they start a family, I'm not sure it's better for their children?

46 is not too young to be grandparents my dad became a grandpa at 40 I was just turning 18 when I had my son he was 22 when he had me , who cares what age the parent/grandparent is ? Aslong as the child is loved fed and provided for I don't see an issue

Everyone gets shit for something these days.
I get told constantly, even by people I've only just met, that I've wasted my youth by getting married at 19 and will have 2 babies by the time I'm 22
My cousin gets shit from family members for only having one child.
Another cousin gets shit from everyone for having five children.
My aunt (in her mid-40's) gets shit for having had round after round of IVF and remortgaging her house several times in order to pay for it.

Whatever you do, someone will always have a problem with it, so just crack on, and sod everyone else is what I say!! As long as your kids are loved, and properly taken care of, all the rest is irrelevant.

Eek I'm nearly 40 i can't imagine being a grandparent. My little one is just starting school!

However I live in an area where uni is less common and having kids young is. Friends nearby had kids at 20 which seems young to me but they're stable, house etc so gets the kid stage over and done with by my age!

Each to his own. I would hate to have more children now I am in my 40s - far too exhausting, and at exactly the point my own parents are in their 70s and 80s. Given that family members have precedent for living up to 100, I think having very young children at the same time would be atrocious. If I hadn't had children already, though, and wanted to have children, I would probably still go for it and reassure myself that other people have managed it.... Nobody really knows what parenthood will turn out like until it's too late, anyway.

Let's face it...there is no right or wrong here. Personally I've had children in my teens and children in my 30s. I found the 30s the hardest even though financially I was not best placed in my teens.
I'm 48 now and my mum is 67. I know that with my chikdren grown I am going to find it easier to look after mum when the time comes (and hopefully my kids moral support too)
I couldn't begin to imagine caring for young children and elderly parents at the same time.

No not superior at all. I just think it's very sad to describe caring for your loved ones as a " burden" . Yes it's hard being a carer but if it's a burden you should leave the caring to someone else.

Who?

Actually forget it. No point.

My parents (DF in particular are older). He's falling to bits and I feel so sad. They are great parents but i wish i could keep them for longer. My DC are 4 and 2. The 'timing' is horrible.

I know people can die 'at any age'. But it's a bit more likely when you're in your 80's.

Someone being a burden has nothing whatsoever to do with the love you feel for them. Elspeth is right.