When is it time to give up having kids?

Kashkai

This could be an emotive one but that's not my intention. My wife and I have recently had our 4th baby, a girl, to add to our other 2 daughters and one son. Now I'll show my own hand here and admit that I'd like another boy to help my son in the forthcoming battle of the sexes in our house (some would say its already started and my poor son is outnumbered and outclassed in the screeching wars:D)

However, my wife and I are at/slightly above the 40 mark and general consensus that we've received from family and friends (unasked for mind) is that we've had our last child. The one point of view that we did take notice of was that during my wife's last pregnancy, the doctors kept on remarking on her age, and if she wanted tests done to see if their were any abnormalites. In addition there were 2 threatened miscarriages.

So should we leave it at 4 healthy happy children or try for number 5 which my wife wants and I wouldn't have too many objections to, if her health was up to it after a fairly difficult last pregnancy.

Nevyn

I would say it is up to the both of you.
If you can provide for and love another child and the health issues have been taken into consideration then why not.
I am the eldest of 5 myself but I was happy to stop with two kid.

Ludo

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

So should we leave it at 4 healthy happy children or try for number 5 which my wife wants and I wouldn't have too many objections to, if her health was up to it after a fairly difficult last pregnancy.

Don't think anyone can really advise you or sway your decision on this one as you are well aware of all the factors at play.

Your last sentence started with a question but seemed to answer it also by the end of the sentence.

Quality

Its absolutely your choice...

And if it is meant to be, it wont pass you.

If you really want another baby, I would go for it..

Best of luck.

lostinnappies

There is a higher possability that as you age you are more likely to have a child with downs or some other disability. If you have taken this into account and you are both willing and healthy enough the decision is yours.

80% of Downs children are born to wemon under the age of 35 however so i dont know how realistic the stats are. "wickedpdia"

littlebug

lostinnappies wrote: »

80% of Downs children are born to wemon under the age of 35 however so i dont know how realistic the stats are. "wickedpdia"

L-i-n I imagine that figure is in proportion to the total number of women having babies in that age group. Fewer women over 40 have babies at all but proportionally more babies with DS are born to those women. Am I making sense:p

PD we decided to stop at 2 and though there were a number of factors involved in the decison those that you mentioned were certainly among them but wouldn't have been the deciding factor.

lostinnappies

littlebug wrote: »

L-i-n I imagine that figure is in proportion to the total number of women having babies in that age group. Fewer women over 40 have babies at all but proportionally more babies with DS are born to those women. Am I making sense:p

.

ah see now that makes more sence of the stats,lol. thicko here or what

bazwaldo

Fair play PD. We have 4 too with 3-1 to the boys so I see where you are coming from.

My mam was 47 having me and as far as I know (some may say otherwise), I turned out alright. Although I was number 8! I thought that being over 40 wasn't too risky if you have had children already. I would search around for stats if this is playing heavily on your mind.

As others have said, its you and the mrs decision (the mrs decision, lets be honest), and its a very big decison. If you are both happy to go again, then why not. Bear in mind you could make it 4-1

Crea

What if it's another girl???
Do you keep going? My mother did this and had 7 children and as much as she loves the younger 3 she will admit she was foolish.

deisemum

Crea wrote: »

What if it's another girl???
Do you keep going? My mother did this and had 7 children and as much as she loves the younger 3 she will admit she was foolish.

My mother did this as well, 2 girls then a boy but she wanted a second boy but had 6 more girls.


OP no matter how many children you have there will always be those that comment, you just wont please everyone so do what your wife and yourself decides is right for ye.

If you have one child you get the "aren't you going to have a little brother or sister for no. 1" and if you only stick with one it's seen as selfish as no. 1 won't have a sibling

If you have a boy and a girl "your family is complete"

2 girls or 2 boys aren't you going to try for the opposite sex

3 or more "did you get caught out?"

Ignore the lot of them.

From a child's point of view me being the eldest in my family I think if parents want to have a large family then it's up to the parents to raise the children themeselves and not leave the older ones take up the slack as obviously with more children comes more work and it's difficult to keep on top of the housework, laundry, schooling etc.

Not saying that's what you'd do but it's something I believe from talking to anyone from a large family that seems to happen. I resent not having a childhood.

As already mentioned ye could very well have another baby girl, all those hormones in years to come :eek:

I wouldn't worry about your son being an only son, believe me it has it's advantages especially as he gets older. I know my brother enjoyed his sisters having their friends round and he didn't lack opportunities to chat up girls

Kashkai

Some great replies there guys - thanks.

Yes the most obvious thing that bothering me is that there is an increased risk of Downs at our age and that we would be pushing our luck having another child now.

HOWEVER, speaking as a guy who never wanted children and who now cannot think why I ever thought that way (I love all my little monsters ), I'm sorry that we didn't have more kids earlier but that was down to pure chance. There was a 5 1/2 year gap between our first girl and our twins and then just 2 years to our new baby. We had thought for a long time that we'd only have the one and now that we have four, we appear to be getting greedy. I'd like another boy but just so he'd be a little brother to my son. I was the eldest of three boys and it was nice having brothers to beat up, eh I mean play with and my son is a little too rough and tumble with his sisters sometimes decapitating their dolls or lying the dolls on the train track and running them over with Thomas the Tank engine (I'm sure he'll grow out of it )

Ok we could have another girl but thats just one more to take care of dear old Dad in his old age:rolleyes:.

So to sum up, is 40+ to old to have a baby bearing in mind the health risks and the fact that we'll be in our 60's when baby hits their 20's and will the generational gap be too large at that stage. My own parents are just 21 years older than me and I'd be twice that gap over a new baby. Decisions, decisions.

Nevyn

Both my grand mothers had 3 children between the ages of 40 and 50 and all 6 of my aunts and uncles were healthy.

As for your boy well being a boy it was the same with my brother, I would honestly suggest getting him a dog.

littlebug

Patricia Mc Kenna (green party MEP or ex MEP:o) had twins a few years ago at the age of 47 or 48... all perfectly healthy and well.
The risk of DS does increase massively with age. If I remember correctly from one of my books it actually increases to 1 in 25 after the age of 45 :eek: which I'll be honest would be way too much of a risk for me but there again that's 24/ 25 chances of having a perfectly healthy baby (plus I know your wife isn't 45).
How does your wife feel about it?

I know what you mean by wishing you'd started younger. In some ways I'd love to have had more but but then I did have to wait for the right man:)

Lizzykins

I think 4 is nearly the max you can have in this day and age given that kids cost so much. I have 2 boys and 2 girls but the youngest-a girl-is 10 years younger than number 3 so she's like an only child in some ways. I was 41 having her and though I never worried too much about Down's etc you have to consider it. I wouldn't have chanced it again. The GP told me that the Down's rate for over 40s is about 2 in 100. My Grandmother had her oldest at 45 and she was fine but I suppose there was no choice in those days. Once you got pregnant that was it.

littlebitdull

It is a very personal decision to make. I would have loved another son - I have one son and two daughters, but at the end of the day I knew I did not want another child on its own merit - now saying that if someone could have give me a cast iron guarantee that it would be a boy - even now I would go for it!!

Health wise it is still riskier to have your children as an older mother, but then again we are certainly healthier than our parents and we have better screening and prenatal care so you have to take all that into consideration.

It sounds to me from what you have written here that you would like to have another - but at the end of the day it would have to be your decision.

Kashkai

Yes to be honest we would like another but the DS risk, coupled with a lot of scares during the last pregnancy is putting me off more than my wife.

She has given up work to stay at home and mind the kids (which is a sore point with me as I wanted that job as its a lot more fun and rewarding than the desk duty I HAVE HERE IN BRAINDEAD LAND:(). So childcare costs won't be an issue if we have a fifth.

I'd also worry that I would be more of a grandad to a new baby than a father as I'd be 40 when he/she is born which is close to the age at which my parents became grandparents for the first time.

But on the plus side, we've done ok as parents so far with the 4 kids we have who all appear to be happy well adjusted kids so I have no doubt that we could look after a fifth just as well. We would also get to finally fill that 7th seat in the familymobile so my eldest wouldn't feel so lonely in the rear all by herself.:)

bazwaldo

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I'd also worry that I would be more of a grandad to a new baby than a father as I'd be 40 when he/she is born which is close to the age at which my parents became grandparents for the first time.

Don't ye know that 40 is the new 30.:D

Unless you behave like a grandad and sit there with pipe and slippers, I wouldn't worry about that. And going on what you have said already, you're a good PARENT and thats not going to change because of your chronological age.

Deadevil129

Okay I'm not a parent so who knows what I'm doing on this board but I'd love to point out my parents were 41 and 44 when they had me. My Dad is now 63 and to be quite honest it's not even an issue. You wont be a grandfather to you're son or daughter if you choose to have them, you'll be a parent. There is more of a generation gap between my parents and myself then there would be between some of my friends and their parents but nothing I wouldn't have wanted to be born over :rolleyes:

SarahMc

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I'd also worry that I would be more of a grandad to a new baby than a father as I'd be 40 when he/she is born which is close to the age at which my parents became grandparents for the first time.

But that was a generation ago. People are having children older now, I know many still busy procreating at the 40 mark.

Its a very personal decision, and you will need discussion with Mrs Dave about whether to have the tests, what happens if high risk result etc.

I had older parents, as a result am quite a young "orphan", but this is compensated by the generous amount of siblings I have.

Ludo

My father was 45 when I was born and it was never an issue at all for me. Took me until secondary school to even realise that my parents were that much older than the other parents but it didn't matter at all. If you are fit, healthy and willing, I wouldn't let that be a major factor in the decision. My father turned 80 last year and got a whole new lease of life when our twins were born.

There is also an 8 year gap between myself and my older brother and that WAS an issue. We never got on at all until I was well into my twenties. I'm led to believe that I was a bit of a crier and that ticked him off a bit

Kashkai

My wife says I try to be more like a teenager than a close on 40 year old as I have my PS3, 46inch LCD and home theatre set up to play all my games, sci fi and war movies. I also seem to play more with my kids toys than they do! So I suppose I do have a young enough outlook on life which I hope never changes.

Its heartening to read that a lot of people had kids in the 40's or were born to parents of that age. Maybe I'd better get over the mindset that just cause my parents married young (20 & 21) and thus are closer to my age than my own kids are, thats the natural order of the world. Looking back, I don't think I'd have changed how I did things, i.e. travelled a lot, partied a lot and experienced a lot in my 20's before I finally settled down at the 30 mark. I don't now feel that I might have missed out on something and so am very happy with this new phase of my life, i.e. children and watching them grow and develop. So whats one more then - someone new to keep me young. Right decision made - thanks:)

kmick

What if you got another girl? Then you would be screwed cause you might still want a boy. Cue baby 6. Then that turns out to be a girl too. Do you see where I am going?

maniac101

Since it was mentioned above a couple of times, I thought I'd post this Down Syndrome risk calculator here for anyone interested.
http://www.imff.ie/down-syndrome-risk-calculator.cfm
The risk of a woman aged 40 giving birth to a child with DS is 77/1, apparently, but it increases considerably with age from there. Health professionals might discourage 40-year-old women from having children because from a public health point of view 77/1 could be considered a high risk, but from a personal health perspective it isn't really.

When talking to public health representatives, sometimes we've got to decide whether advice is given in the interests of our own familys' health or in what they percieve to be the interests of society as a whole.