Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

To TTC number 5 at my age

98 replies

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 12:31

Hello everyone. Looking for some advice as I am so confused, and have been for about a year now!

I will try to keep this short. I have 4 lovely children, aged 9 down to 2 and a half. Very blessed to have conceived them all easily with no miscarriages in between.

DH and I were unsure about number 5, mainly due to logistics (how to fit them all in the car!!). But we decided to go for it and spent most of last year trying.

Unfortunately, we were quite aware of my age (I turned 40 last year) and kept setting ourselves deadlines - like another 3 months, or must give birth by age 41, or end of year, etc - which I can see now was probably a bit silly as it was too much pressure.

Anyway, we did manage to conceive in November, but then I suffered my first ever miscarriage. It was very early on, thankfully, but heartbreaking nonetheless as you get ahead of yourself and imagine the little one joining the family.

Since then I have been torn. I still have this lingering yearning for number 5, but I am also terrified of something going wrong. I will be 41 in May and I know the odds of something bad happening increase as you age. The logistics side of things bothers me less now and I know my kids will all get enough attention, but I am just so afraid of a later miscarriage or worse. If I had a crystal ball and could see the pregnancy would be trouble-free, I would go for it without hesitation. If only!

So, AIBU to be too afraid to try again and to think it's time to say our family is complete?

Thanks for reading.

OP posts:

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 14:57

quit whilst ahead not qulit whilst ahead!

OP posts:

yeOldeTrout · 11/02/2017 15:00

"I am wondering if the risks at my age outweigh the benefits. "

You sound like you really don't want those risks, OP. You read like you have a very real grasp on what all the risks are.

Maybe those risks would be fine for someone else, but those risks really bother you. Since it's your life to live, I think you have your answer.

Ellisandra · 11/02/2017 15:02

Could be 5 is a dilemma and 6 is easy because 5 is the decision in hand. 6 is entirely theoretical.

I think it's perfectly possibly that when you settle in to having 5, then 6 becomes the dilemma.

I still think 4 is enough.
I'm biased though - there was never enough attention to go round our 5. One more "easy" child and 5 is just as manageable and only a bit less attention for each. But if any of your children (existing or 5th) need more support from you, that's a huge strain.

My sister had 5 (less bothered by her own experience! - though that was as the indulged youngest!). 18 years down the line now, 3 with ASD and one with quite involved health problems. She says she wouldn't be without any of course - but that she wishes she'd had less and been able to give more time to their needs. I think people don't always feel able to be that honest.

My own experience as one of five - it's just too many.

tiredofhavingtothinkofnewnames · 11/02/2017 15:03

there are plenty of families who have no children/one child, so us having 4 or 5 makes no difference and at least they are all caring and considerate kids who will make a positive impact on the world.

And lots who have more because they have no choice due to poverty, that doesn't mean that everyone should.

at least they are all caring and considerate kids who will make a positive impact on the world.

You cant possibly know that. They range from age 9 to 2.5.

shivermytimbers · 11/02/2017 15:03

I can obviously only speak for myself but I've recently had DC3 at the age of 43 and it's been the best thing ever! Straight forward pregnancy, easiest birth and recovery of all of them and I feel like I've got more energy, patience and experience with this one. We didn't set any deadlines or goals on the basis that we thought we would just know if it was time to stop trying. All the way from ttc to delivery we expected the worst but hoped for the best and things worked out brilliantly. I think if you are aware of the risks and have thought out all the "what if" scenarios you can think of and are still of a mind to try, then go for it!

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:12

You cant possibly know that. They range from age 9 to 2.5.

I know that because we are bringing them up to be caring conscientious human beings, rather than louts who chuck litter all over the place and don't give a damn about environmental issues.

OP posts:

madmoon · 11/02/2017 15:12

Hi sorry to hear about your lost , I have 6 children I didn't have an issue being pregnant with the 5th or 6th .
I do understand your fear though as I did fall pregnant with number 7 and lost our baby too.
For me it's only dependant on wether having that extra child and pregnancy is going cause stress /strain to ur marriage and life's.
I would be Ttc our number 8 if I was in a better place mentally , but my lost wreaked my world ,
I think if ur in the best possibly health and you really think your family you , your oh and dc) can deal with wombat ever arises then go for it.
As for the 4 is enough comment , clearly not for everyone !

haveacupoftea · 11/02/2017 15:12

Well to all the 4 is enough people, surely 1 is enough? Its about whats right for the person in question not your personal opinion.

Ellisandra · 11/02/2017 15:13

Now you just sound naïve.

You're doing the best you can, and that's great.

But you honestly think behind every litter chucking teen there's a shit parent?

Ellisandra · 11/02/2017 15:21

No, I do think 4 is enough.

(although it would be too many for me personally - I think 3 would have been lovely if fate and physiology had agreed with me)

When I say 4 is enough, I'm not saying 4 is ideal, that 4 is optimum, that 5,6,7 etc is outright wrong.

But 4 is enough to make you a "big family", if that's your thing. 4 is enough to give a variety of sibling relationships. 4 is enough that if one dies or moves far away or simply doesn't end up too interested in family life - there's still a good number left.

But 4 is also enough (little enough) that if one (or two) need more attention at times in their lives - that can be managed.

I am sure that plenty of people with 7 or 8 have huge happy broods with plenty of attention to go round.

I am not saying that families I don't know are good and happy families.

But I'm saying the risks just get too high, for me personally.

Not to the environment - people are entitled to their views, but that is not a debate the OP asked for.

IMO, the health risks are increased with age, but also the likelihood of trouble ahead with 5 is greater than with 4. And that's a risk I wouldn't take. Health, financial - and simply giving enough attention. Personally think the risk is too high after 3, but OP didn't, her call.

But that's my view: 4 is enough children to have a wonderful happy family, and I'd lay my cards some now and enjoy what I had.

Ellisandra · 11/02/2017 15:22

*aren't good and happy

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:29

madmoon - sorry for your loss too. Can I ask if you were my sort of age when that happened? Was it your first loss? No need to answer if it hurts too much to talk about it.

As for my litter comment, sorry, I was feeling fed up as we have just been talking about conservation issues a lot and all of the litter on the beaches/in the hedgerows has got my goat! What I meant to say is that we are parenting them as best as we can so I hope they will make a positive contribution to the world.

OP posts:

kel1234 · 11/02/2017 15:29

It's up to you really. But my mum has 3, with 10 years between each of us, and 20 between me (eldest) and the youngest. She was 43 when she had her last.

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 11/02/2017 15:30

Nobody asked for your opinion on whether 4 is enough.

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:30

"4 is enough that if one dies or moves far away or simply doesn't end up too interested in family life - there's still a good number left."

I'm sorry, but I find this really offensive. Just because I have 4, that doesn't mean they are somehow disposable and I would care any less if one died/moved away. I would be devastated in the first case, and very sad in the second.

OP posts:

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 11/02/2017 15:33

I didn't even see that, that is a shocking thing to say!! Really offensive.

madmoon · 11/02/2017 15:36

First loss otherwise 6 almost perfectly easy pregnancy , actually number 5 I had placenta Previa which is a risk after a few pregnancies apparently .
I was 39 when I lost number 7 , I had test on the baby , which come back as inconclusive.
My dr told me 1-6 pregnancy can result in miscarriage didn't help at the time.
I really wanted to have another ( even after I lost number 7 ) I think though the more I thought about it, the bigger the fear got.

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:39

Thanks, madmoon. Sorry for you again. It's hard having a mc when you already have a big family. People have a tendency to think "Ah well, at least you have a lovely big brood already", which of course is true and I know it would be harder to mc if you were ttc number 1, but it doesn't stop it from hurting nonetheless.

OP posts:

Ellisandra · 11/02/2017 15:41

Of course I don't mean that any are disposable
Perhaps you have to be like me and only have one not through choice to feel the same fragility of parenthood.
Losing my child would be no worse than someone losing one of 20.
But when I realised there was only one for me, I had tears and cold sweats of panic that losing my one would wipe out my entire family.

Why do you say the OP didn't ask for my opinion?

The OP asked if she was unreasonable to be scared of the risks of having more. I have shared what my personal opinion is of those risks - and for me, they are too high.

Nowhere have I said OP shouldn't have more. I have shared my thinking on why I think the risks are too high.

babyapril · 11/02/2017 15:45

Right now, your eldest is only nine. You haven't even had a sniff of a teenager in your home. Personally, l love my teens- but l have only three children altogether. With quite big age gaps. You will have a large group of teens in your home- not for the faint hearted.
It really is your choice- however you need to listen to your body and your common sense. I think it is trying to tell you something! :)
Good luck...

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 11/02/2017 15:45

Perhaps you have to be like me and only have one not through choice to feel the same fragility of parenthood

You're still digging with this.

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:46

ellisandra, I think the thing is that you have said several times that 4 is enough and got into things like whether there is enough attention to go around. That was never up for debate. I am simply worried about losing the baby/having a child with special needs and wondering how others have made the decision to TTC past the age of 40 if they already have 2+ kids.

OP posts:

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:47

"It really is your choice- however you need to listen to your body and your common sense. I think it is trying to tell you something!"

Am finding it hard to distinguish between common sense and fear!

OP posts:

Original poster

number5isalive · 11/02/2017 15:49

I do feel the fragility of parenthood. It's in no way diminished because I have 4 rather than 1.

OP posts:

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 11/02/2017 15:49

Why do you say the OP didn't ask for my opinion?The OP asked if she was unreasonable to be scared of the risks of having more.

Exactly. She asked about the risks, not about your opinion on what family size is big enough and whether her children are disposable.

Flip

1 2 3 4