Are we too old at 43 and 50 to have B2?

[holsareacoming]

Im 43 and dh is 50 have one 5 yr old DD - just want to know your thoughts on the age thing

I had dd at 44; there is a 7 year age gap between her and ds. It is incredibly hard going back to sleepless nights and nappies, and the restricted lifestyle / holidays, etc, but we wouldn't be without her!! Her brother is besotted and I'm really glad that they'll have each other growing up and afterwards.

I don't think you are too old per se. Your body may have another view of course and there are increased risks to you and the baby because of your age. If you can brace yourself for that and cope with the fact that it may not work then go ahead. There are lots of parents of your age. However it won't be easy and you shouldn't go ahead unless you are sure that another child is something you both really want (obviously that applies at any age!) If you actually think things are ok as they are but you should want another child - well i would forget it.

I say no you are not too old, but that is purely because I had second child at very nearly 41 with no problems whatsoever and no regrets either.

I had DD (my 5th) at 2 months short of 44. I had no problems except I was more tired than in my earlier pregnancies (in my twenties). For us it was a big deal because our next youngest was 15 but with a 5 year gap you'll still be fairly up to date with everything baby.

If you're fit and well you already know what the demands of a baby are. Your DH is older but no doubt that brings increased financial security.
My DH was 49 when DS2 was born and it's never been a problem. In fact DH is now retired and so has plenty of time for the children.
I'd say the hardest part is the 5 year age gap. It's just my opinion but I do think 5 years is the worst gap.
I've seen so many people struggle with a baby and the needs of a 5yo. Apart from getting everyone up for the school run you end up never able to please both children. Family activities end up being centered around either one child ot the other but seldom both.

Well people will not be happy with my opinion.

My mother had me when she was 39 and my father was 41. My father died when I was 7 (Ischemic heart disease - could not be predicted) and mother died when I was 21 (cancer). I had to look after my dying mother, when I was bearly past teenage years. I know not everyone dies as young as my parents did, but the older you get the more likely you are to die when your children are still young. I now have my own children, but they have no grandparents, and I have no parents to ask for advice!

Your DH will be 60 when your child is only 10. Early onset Alzheimer's disease can start at 55 yrs old. I don't know your medical history obviously, but you can't necessarily assume you will both be healthy in 10 years time.

That said, if all 4 'grandparents' are alive and well (ie. you and your husbands parents) and your family history (brothers, sisters etc) have lived to the ripe old age of 90+, perhaps the risk would be well worth it!!

We all tend to think we are invincible, but the fact is we are not! It's not pleasant to think about, but something to consider, because one of you may end up raising both children due to the death of the other.

Nothing to add on the age side but just wanted to disagree with inthesticks entirely and say that I thought 5 years was a wonderful gap. DD was an excellent helper and mature enough not to be jealous. I could spend as much time with the baby as I did with her as a baby. I then went on to have another DC with a 2.7 gap- now that is one I wouldn't recommend.

My friend had her first when her and DH were 40 and 50. Might show her this as she is considering another at nearly 43 and 53.

DH is 51 and DD2 will be born a few weeks short of my 40th birthday. DH also has a 19 year old DS. One of the reasons we decided to try for another baby is so that DD1 (2.5) will have someone her own age when she is growing up as everyone else in her generation is DSS's age or older. I have a friend who had her first child last year at 44. Her DP is 54.

I totally get the point that Suze81 is making about the probability of older parents dying sooner (and it is so sad that you lost your parents at such a young age - 48 and 60 are a terribly young age to die). However, in a way I think that's even more reason to give your first child a sibling, if you can. Also, DH's father died of a heart attack at 34 years old, leaving 5 children between the ages of 4 - 9.

Just at this late stage of pregnancy (33 weeks) I sometimes wish I was 10 years younger!

Oh no Suwoo! Please don't say that about a 2.7 year age gap - that's going to be exactly the gap between DD1 and DD2!!

If you want to and can do it - then go ahead!

But it might not be that easy any more, sadly. Luckily I don't want any more kids as I have prem menopause at 39. It does happen. If you want to go ahead, then I would do it as soon as you can to maximise your chances.

Ooh Rindercella, you will have your work cut out! It didn't help though that DS1 is a pain in the arse high needs. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

I'm sure it will be fine.

I have one child, and would have another if my body would cooperate.

Given your age (43), biology is rapidly working against you so make up your mind quickly. It is statistically much harder to get pregnant and bring a pregnancy to term once a woman is past 42. You don't have much time - unless you are very fertile/lucky.

I wouldn't worry about the age gap.

Rinders - fear not! I had a 2.8 age gap between my two (and I was 40 when I had my second) and found it a breeze . Well, sort of a breeze. Infact I've just been raving about my lovely dc and how brilliant they are together on Carri's "Whose eldest child is a girl?" thread this very morning.

My MIL had my SIL 2 days before her 44th birthday. SIL is nearly 19 now and both PIL are in great health (they are 63 and nearly 63 now).

As far as gaps go I think all gaps have advantages and disadvantages.

Too old for what?

To try and conceive?

To carry a baby to term?

To look after a baby and cope with sleepless nights, smelly nappies and oodles of cuddles?

Or to deal with silly people making comments?

If you both want another baby, try, why not?

Much better to provide a sibling than be alone to cope with potentially elderly parents.

come join us here at 40 towers!!

I agree with what others have said about the importance of siblings when your child is older.

Although not old by today's standards my parents were older than the norm. My mum was 51 when she died (I was 20) and my father died two years later at 61. Up until then being an only child had been fab but having to deal with my father's ill health alone and then becoming an orphan at 22 and having to deal with all the legal and practical stuff alone, aside from the emotional upset wasn't much fun.

Agree that a sibling is often helpful for both kids and then adults. Sorry for your situation ThehouseofMirth.
If it makes you feel any better, I have a brother who is 2 years older and he was NO HELP WHATSOEVER in caring for our sick parents (or since then).
He is a loverly person, but has mild disabilities and makes funny decisions. I asked him to come home to help me with Mum and he brought 2 friends with him (from inter-state) and I ended up with 4 people to look after instead of one! I ended up telling him that his friends had to go, and he went too!
He didn't help me clear out the house after their deaths and hasn't helped me in selling it or renovations either. In fact he lives 14hr drive from me, because "God told him to."
Definately nice to have a sibling, but they are not all helpful, and if they are born with disabilities (the chance of this increases with age too) then they can be a further burden.
Once again, doesn't happen to everyone. And doesn't only happen to older parents or their children, but can happen.
But some parents are older, some are young, doesn't make them better or worse parents! You can be a horrible person at any age!! hahaha

I agree with FAB, it depends what you are asking exactly. It is what people will think when they see you down the street?

I had ds at 40 , there is an 11 yr gap between him and dd. Nothing we could do about it and I would have had them closer if I could.
I wish we could have had another one but I had pre-eclampsia with ds and a fairly scary time so we didn't want to risk another pregnancy.

I think if you are both healthy and of healthy stock then you should go ahead.

I'm 47, and let me tell you, I am too old to have a 4 years old and a 19 months old.

By the way, I am eating a very nice soup from the Leon cookbook while looking at Mumsnet and trying to ignore the my DD screaming at DW, who is sitting at my side, for some boob.

My fil was nearly 50 when dh was born, and dh is a quite bitter about it. FIL died when dh was 26 and it upsets dh greatly that his dad didnt really get to see our kids, dd was only a few months old when he died. Dh obv choose to have children earlyish as he didnt agree with his parents decision.

FIL was also retired for most of dhs childhood, more ill health than financial stablilty i suppose but it has affected (imo) his and my bils 'work ethic' in varying ways as they grew up without seeing their parents go out to work.

Obv parents can die leaving their children at any age but dh def feels that it was more a concious decision to have children late/a risk his parents took and is very sad about the consequences that it has had for him, he never got to have an adult convo with his dad about being a father for example.

My views are go for it - we are older parents and I do worry that ds is alone. Ideally I'd have another but can't.

However, I would also say is that my step mum and df were 45 and 55 respectively when they had a child - the child is now 17 (and dad almost 72) and since the age of 11 ie secondary school - has pretty much cut off from our df - I think she's ashamed when people assume he's her grandfather. He's also deaf now and looks his age and she looks pained anytime she's around him.

I personally don't think you are too old at all -you know whether you have the energy for it.