....

knithappens

My mum was 43 when she had me, and i would not have had it any other way, there are benefits to being an older parent, as i am experiencing myself now, dont worry about the other kids, my daughter was not so happy at 1st ( 13 year age gap) but she turned around to me the other day and said , i just cant ever imagine life without, it is liek she has always been here.

grossbeak

Surely if a person can afford to have a large family, they should have as many children as they want. And if they are doing their bit with regard to the planet, I don't see where the issue of size of families comes into it.

I know many "no children" coiuples that do not have any regard to our environment whatsoever. Couples without children may have different priorities, and I know saving the planet certainly wasn't one of mine before I married and had kids.

And sadly that is exactly why we are all heading for hell in a handcart. It's not the planet that will suffer....there have been far worse natural disasters and climatic adjustments in its long history....it's OUR funeral. Population pressures will lead to a very depressing future for the human race if we don't take control of ourselves soon.

izzydogsam

I think you both need a bit of time to think about it all and decide what you both want to do. I expect your OH is in shock too! Only advice I can give is to take a little bit of time to think about what you both want before you rush into anything. My fabulous mum was 42 (almost 43) when she had me, and I wouldn't swap her for the world. Quite a few of my friends have had babies in their late 30s and early 40s - you are not alone if you go ahead with your pregnancy! Hugs to you, and hope you are both able to make the decision that is right for you as a family. xxx

Fly_Baby

izzydogsam wrote: »

I think you both need a bit of time to think about it all and decide what you both want to do. I expect your OH is in shock too! Only advice I can give is to take a little bit of time to think about what you both want before you rush into anything. My fabulous mum was 42 (almost 43) when she had me, and I wouldn't swap her for the world. Quite a few of my friends have had babies in their late 30s and early 40s - you are not alone if you go ahead with your pregnancy! Hugs to you, and hope you are both able to make the decision that is right for you as a family. xxx

It sounds very sensible - but there is another side to "taking a bit of time to think". The more OP thinks about her pregnancy, the more she tries to "fit in" this baby in her life and gets more used to the idea of having another baby - the harder it will be to decide on termination. You just get more involved the more you think about it. I didn't see a desire to have this child in the OP's post - the only "pro" mentioned is that she wouldn't have to go to hell if she keeps the baby.

And another very important aspect - the longer she leaves it the more medically dangerous and emotionally burdened abortion becomes.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to have a 6th child when you are 42.

OP wishing you luck whatever you decide - it probably sounds lame, but honestly, stop thinking about your OH, your children and the hell and think of yourself.

MileySmiley_2

grossbeak wrote: »

I'm going to be shot down in flames here, BUT there is another aspect to this. No one has mentioned that there are already far too many people in the world as it is. You already have five children. We are all made to feel guilty if we don't recycle or stop flying or turn down the thermostat, but I don't hear many people saying the main reason we are running out of resources is that there are just too many of us. I can't understand why limiting the number of children we have is such an emotive issue, it's just common sense. If we are told that we can all make a difference if we do small things like turning off the tap when we brush our teeth, then surely deciding not to bring yet another human being into the world should be pretty high on the agenda? It's just plain irresponsible to claim it is someone's 'right' to have as many children as they want.

'Ducks and runs for cover'.

This doesn't really help OP what so ever, I respect your opinion and I'm resisting the urge to shoot you down in flames..... Do you think we should be more like China?:rolleyes:

Jei70

My mum was 42 when she had me and my dad 48. They already had a girl of 20 and a boy of 16, but still they decided to keep the baby - me - and I'm very happy about it!

My sister and brother adored having a baby in the family to play with and spoil, and my parents often said how with my birth they got a new lease of life, as parents of a young child again.

Just an experience from a different point of view!

Tigsteroonie

You are definitely only as old as you feel - Marley & I just had our first child, and we're both 40! We're looking forward to Andrew keeping us young.

candlegirl

I have been where you are now.

I had 3 kids from 1st marriage and my hubbie had 3 kids from his, when we got together we decided we had enough kids, but someone somewhere had other plans and I became pregnant while on the pill!

I was 39, our kids were 15,14,13,10,7,& 4.

I was worried that my youngest would suffer and also his kids as they didn't live with us full-time only at the weekend and didn't want them to feel left out or pushed out.

I never ever thought of getting rid of it, for me that was just not an option, however I did have lots of worries like you are having age, etc. Money however was and still is a major issue with us, as my hubbie decided to be a stay at home dad this time and loved it, but we do struggle daily financially, but we get there!

From the start we included all the children - as this would be a brother/sister for them all, at first some of them were unsure, but when he was born every single one has taken to him, because we have allowed them all theie own space & time with him and this really has brought us all together much more.

Good luck with your decisions, but you do need to sit down with your hubbie and TALK!

fernliebee

grossbeak wrote: »

I'm going to be shot down in flames here, BUT there is another aspect to this. No one has mentioned that there are already far too many people in the world as it is. You already have five children. We are all made to feel guilty if we don't recycle or stop flying or turn down the thermostat, but I don't hear many people saying the main reason we are running out of resources is that there are just too many of us. I can't understand why limiting the number of children we have is such an emotive issue, it's just common sense. If we are told that we can all make a difference if we do small things like turning off the tap when we brush our teeth, then surely deciding not to bring yet another human being into the world should be pretty high on the agenda? It's just plain irresponsible to claim it is someone's 'right' to have as many children as they want.

'Ducks and runs for cover'.

It's not the having babies that is a problem (people in the western world tend to have less children now, than they did 100 years ago) the problem is we get old, and stay alive. So if you think we should stop having children would you be willing to start a trend of 'environmental euthenasia' to stop all these old people clogging up our society

BTW for anyone who thinks I am serious this is tongue in cheek, I don't support this suggested model at all, I just wanted to highlight a post that I interpret as complete hogwash, by posting some ludicrous idea's of my own!

OP personally I would have the baby as although I fully support a woman's choice, I could never have a termination myself.

What I would do is entirely irrelevant though. You need to firstly decide what you want, then come to a decision with you OH then tell the kids what you have decided. It may come as a shock at first but they will get over it, probably quicker than your OH

Good luck whatever you decide and congratulations!

kegg_2

grossbeak wrote: »

I'm going to be shot down in flames here, BUT there is another aspect to this. No one has mentioned that there are already far too many people in the world as it is. You already have five children. We are all made to feel guilty if we don't recycle or stop flying or turn down the thermostat, but I don't hear many people saying the main reason we are running out of resources is that there are just too many of us. I can't understand why limiting the number of children we have is such an emotive issue, it's just common sense. If we are told that we can all make a difference if we do small things like turning off the tap when we brush our teeth, then surely deciding not to bring yet another human being into the world should be pretty high on the agenda? It's just plain irresponsible to claim it is someone's 'right' to have as many children as they want.

'Ducks and runs for cover'.

This arguement is fine preconception but when a child has already been conceived you are then talking about ending a possible life and if you are going down this route where does it end?

One child policy as per china?
Lets not use our medical knowlege to extend the lives of the ill or old as afterall the worlds over populated so we dont "need" these people and they just drain resources.