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

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

The best age to start a family is 34

61 replies

Tinker · 24/04/2005 21:15

It says here

What do you think?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 08:49

I had my first at 34 so for that reason I wholeheartedly agree with the article. However if the article had come up with 26 or 36 I would have been obliged to dismiss it as a pile of poop

KVG · 25/04/2005 14:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tarantula · 25/04/2005 15:06

what planet is Linda Jones on? What does she mean by having 'There's also the peace of mind of having finances sorted'? cos mine cerainly aint not by any stretch. I sooo wish [sigh]

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

heffalump · 25/04/2005 15:20

I had my dd (my first child) at 34, not by choice. I'm glad it turned out this way because, like mancmum, we did a bit of travelling etc before we had her. Now I am completely blown away by being a mum and I don't miss my old life at all (well-maybe sometimes). I do hear my biological clock ticking really loudly now though. I would really like a second child but I don't want to leave it too long because of the associated risks. I also worry about having two young babies to care for if I have another one soon - what if I can't cope? Anyone else in the same predicament?

crunchie · 25/04/2005 15:21

That article is really strange. I mean it says have a baby at 34, but that fertility declines dramatically from 35, so you'll end up having dificulties having a 2nd!! Also at the end there, how stupid can you be. I have to say my db (a pediatrician) used to say the older and more edcuated the mother - the worse it was!! What he meant was that the older mother had far more expectations about motherhood, children and more information (internet) etc that they infact made the worst most neurotic mothers, always panicing about everything Now I have to say this is one persons viewpoint, but I do know where he is coming from to a point. If you have delayed and delayed having a baby in SOME ways there is more invested in that child - please don't flame me here - and expectations/assumptions are higher. This can lead to a higher level of post natal depression when things are not perfect/planned etc. Of course it is not just age related. I had my first at 29 and had a very sick baby, I just got on with it, whereas I saw a lot of older mothers far more worried/stressed and upset. The younger the mother the more 'gung ho' the attitude IMHO.

However now I am talking utter balls, I hope you knwo what I mean I am not trying to insult older educated mothers at all

dinosaur · 25/04/2005 15:22

I had my first at 34, second at 36 and third at 39.

beansmum · 25/04/2005 15:25

I'm just sitting here trying to imagine not having ds and having 10 years to wait until I have children, very strange. I don't think there is a perfect age to have children but I wouldn't like to wait until I'm in my 30's to have more kids. I'd be worried that I would find it hard to conceive and since I've decided I'm only going to marry a much older man my husband would be ancient by then!

dinosaur · 25/04/2005 15:28

I think the declining fertility bit is overstated tbh.

beansmum · 25/04/2005 15:31

I suppose it depends how many kids you want, but if you want more than 1 or 2 and you want a reasonable break between each one you might start having trouble. but then again you might not.

scotlou · 25/04/2005 15:31

Had my first when I was 34 and my second when I was 37. However, we started trying when I was 30!Coincidently, my 2 best friends from school also had their first children when they were 34. when

handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 15:31

I think so too dinosaur. Conceived dd at first attempt (born when I was 34), concieved ds at first attempt (conceived at 35 born at 36)

handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 15:33

Dinosaur, have noticed I am almost mirroring you (first at 34, 2nd at 36 and was sort of planning 3rd at 39)

Azure · 25/04/2005 15:34

I had my first at 34 and am expecting my second at 38. Articles like this are such rot - it completely depends on the individual and the circumstances. I also get irritated by the idea of "career" women putting motherhood on hold - it assumes we've all met the love of our lives in our early twenties. I didn't start going out with the person I wanted to spend my life with until I was 30. As it happens I have a career and did a lot of travelling in my twenties that I wouldn't have wanted to miss, but it might all have been different if I had met someone earlier.

Original poster

Tinker · 25/04/2005 15:34

Agree that the declining fertility bit is overstated but, if wanted more then one with 2 to 3 year age gap, don't think I would choose to wait until 34 to start trying. First time got pregnant at 31 which, I think, is the perfect age

OP posts:

heffalump · 25/04/2005 15:35

Handlemecarefully-it's so encouraging to hear someone talk positively about having two children so close together at our age. I am 35 next month and I think I will try to talk my dh into trying for baby number two in the summer!

motherinferior · 25/04/2005 15:38

Total rubbish that everyone's fertility nose-dives at 35. Utterly. Most of us stay pretty darn fertile till around 40, and plenty of us stay fertile beyond that too. Sure, if I wanted a third I'd probably have to get moving (so to speak) but I've managed two at an advanced age without trying particularly hard at all.

I do see what you mean, Crunchie - although personally I'd say any mother who planned her children tends to worry more

Fennel · 25/04/2005 15:42

trouble is you don't KNOW if you're fertile til you start trying. if I'd known we'd conceive easily we could have started later.

HMC - am amused to hear a 3rd child is back on the cards - you know you want to....

motherinferior · 25/04/2005 15:46

Oh yes, F, I know I gloss over the issue of infertility because it didn't happen to me; but I do think (a) that infertility is quite individual, not necessarily age-related (b) that there is a huge cultural investment in telling any woman over 35 that she's totally past-it, and 'justifying' this on the basis that she is also a burntout infertile husk.

Actually I would have 'gone for a baby' earlier but only met DP at 36. DD1 was born 14 months later

FLUM · 25/04/2005 15:46

mmmmmm

i always thought it was 19, for physical health solely.

what annoys me about these things is they always say 'women are choosing to wait to have children'

maybe its just me but among my friends they are not choosing to wait it is more likely to be lack of an established relationship and willingness of the partner. I think men are more cautious so less likely to propose and women are quite rightly scared to start a family with someone who has not made a permanent commitment.

handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 15:51

I definitely chose to delay until later (rather than circumstances conspiring against). But do agree that for many it might be a situation forced upon them.

Heffalump - go for it; hard work but worth it.

Fennel, I know! I'm hopeless....

FLUM · 25/04/2005 15:54

MI. my dd was a 'first flushes' baby too. All the family call her our 'love child'. Dunno what the next will be: 'boring old couple' child

Pinotmum · 25/04/2005 15:55

Had my first 1 month off being 35 so just made it

heffalump · 25/04/2005 16:03

I agree that us older mums are sometimes more neurotic, but I think it is because we have more life experience and just want everything to be okay.It isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means you care and have plenty of time to devote to your children and their wellbeing.

FLUM · 25/04/2005 16:08

And broadsheet journalists and their friends - who they interview for their articles are likely to be financially secure.

why is 34 year old in tune with a baby!!

,y dad is 54 and v. in tune with my baby but doesn't mean shouldn't have a baby until 54 blah blah blah.

I think maybe Linda wotsit was going a bit senile as she called her baby Summer!!

psychomum5 · 25/04/2005 16:19

The perfect age to be a mum is when the women herself is ready for it. Be that 21 (in my case) or 34 (in my SIL).

We were both as stable as each other money wise, both had been in a relationship for as long and yes, she had had a career and more life experiences but I can do that with my children looking on and use my experiences as a mum to my advantage.
The one difference was that she would NOT allow anyone to touch her baby, let alone pick him up, where-as my daughter got passed to everyone and only handed back when she cried, which was rare. In contrast her son screamed constantly and where she allowed no-one contact therefore had no break and became depressed (altho admittedly she could have been like that in her twenties).

Like I said above.....it is perfect when you are ready.

Flame is saying, and I agree, that had she waited she would have been a nightmare......she was broody for three years before being ready. Mind you, her daughter still came earlier than planned as she decided that she was falling pregnant at xmas and she was actually 6mths by then!!!!
Should she now decide to wait till the 'so-called' perfect age for the second, I may just have to shoot her as even now she is bouncing about how many days it is till she starts TTC

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread