MoMonkey MoMonkey: Old & Decrepit? I Think Not.

« Book Recommendation | Main | Grocery Shopping Adventures »

October 17, 2005

Old & Decrepit? I Think Not.

Mo is on her way to the big "2" and I've been thinking about baby #2. The hubs and I always wanted at least 2 kids, but since it took us 8 years for the first kid to come along - the idea of having 2 faded away. For those of you who know us, you know we had completely given up on having kids after years of struggling with infertility. In fact, we not only had given up on the idea; we grew so accustomed to life without kids that it no longer appealed to us to have any. Then surprise, surprise... Mo came along.

Now that we have one child, I definitely want another. But I don't want another until Mo is at least 4-5 years old and getting ready to start kindergarten. That way when the kids are older, we only have to pay for one college education at a time!

Here's the problem... I became pregnant at 30 and gave birth to Mo at age 31. The hubs is exactly one year older than me and he thinks we were way too old to just be starting our family. So to have a second child at ages 34-35 appears to be out of the question to him.

I, however, have a very different view on this. I don't think our age is a problem at all. In fact, I think it's an extremely positive thing because we're at an age where we're mature (I only speak for myself here!!) and financially stable. In our mid 20's, we wouldn't have been able to afford a child at all.

So feel free to chime into our debate. Do you think we're too old to consider having a second child in the next 3-4 years?

Posted by monkeygirl at October 17, 2005 08:03 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Soliciting advice from the internet? You are a brave soul. I am going to vote on starting to try now considering you don't know how long it will take to get pregnant. If you wait and start at 35-36 and it took another 8 years.... well, you know the math. So, I vote to start now, but you really have to do what you are comfortable with!

Posted by: JL Dropout at October 17, 2005 08:29 PM

Yeah, there's nothing like putting our personal disagreement on the internet for the whole wide world to see!!

Posted by: monkeygirl at October 17, 2005 08:31 PM

I say go for it now. I am one who is all for kiddos being close in age and since it took awhile for Mo to come, if you start now, then you might be alright. And no you aren't too old. My SIL is preggo with #2 and she is almost 39!

Posted by: Jane at October 17, 2005 09:20 PM

I don't think you are too old. But I can see the argument for starting to try now too. My sister in law and hubby tried for several years for their first as well...she finally did get pregnant and was 33 when she gave birth to their son. She is now preg with their second and due any day now, at the "old age" of 36!

Also, wanted to say you are not alone in the dilemma...I was 33 when I had Brandon and here he is at 19 months and I still do not feel ready to have another. So IF we do have #2 I will be over 35 when it happens!!

Posted by: carolyn at October 17, 2005 09:39 PM

Okay since I am the OLD LADY of you all, I will give you my advice. I had Jack when I was 36, a month before my 37th birthday. Like you, I had the same problems. I do believe that pregnancy is harder on your body at older ages, but there is no reason whatsoever you should not try for another. Oh my gosh you are just a baby! You have many many years left for having babies.

In fact, we are trying to have our #2 and I am going to be 39 in April! I figure why not!

Posted by: Dawn at October 17, 2005 10:32 PM

Okay here goes. I had my first child Andrew when I was 18yrs old. In many ways just a child myself. But having him at that age made me and my husband grow up in a hurry! We wanted to have another child when Andrew was around 4 but try as we might Danielle didn't come along until we were 32 and Andrew was 12!! Having said all that I had much much more of a better understanding and alot more patience being a mom at 32 than a mom at 18. I wasn't a bad mom at the younger age but parenting is alot different when your done growing up first. And as for that financial part I truly believe that your never really financially ready to have children. I think what it boils down to is that your just finacially ready to stop being a child yourself!!

Posted by: Kim at October 17, 2005 11:28 PM

Too old? I doubt it. My sister-in-law's sister just gave birth to twins 2 weeks ago. I was a mother at 19, had my 2nd at 23 and my 3rd at 31 and I think, for me anyway, it's physically more difficult now than it was. My 3rd pregnancy was horrible...I think a lot had to do with the fact that I was older. No, 31 isn't ancient to be having a baby but compare having one at 23 and having one at 31...BIG DIFFERENCE. Then, on the other hand, it's so nice to watch your children grow up together and form their bonds and relationships with each other. I think a child should have a sibling...
Of course, you also have the issue that one of you wants another and one of you doesn't...can't help you with that! lol
Good luck!

Posted by: kta at October 18, 2005 08:42 AM

Sorry, never said how old the sil's sister was...40 - TWINS!!! :-)

Posted by: kta at October 18, 2005 08:44 AM

Absolutely not! I was 34 and my husband 37 when we had our first. And we're not stopping there!

Posted by: Mo at October 18, 2005 09:06 AM

Alright, here is my 2 cents on the matter.

I feel that at this point in time having another child is doable, but not respectful to the child.

Mo was born when I was 32. When she graduates from High School I'll be 50. If a second child comes around 5 years later, I'll be 55 when that child graduates. In 10 years I'll be thinking of retirement. That's pretty monumental.

Where is the relativity between child and parent? It's like two different worlds that shall never meet.

Having a child now is the easy part. The hardest part is what happens further on down the road. That is where I'm having issues. I think it's nice to be able to grow old with your parents, not having to worry about one of them busting a hip because you asked them to play catch in the yard.

Posted by: Daddy at October 18, 2005 10:19 AM

I had dd#1 when I was turning 31. I had dd#2 just before I turned 37.(hubby is 3 yrs older than I am.) Not too old at all and I LOVE the age gap between the girls. I find I got to enjoy each in their Baby years instead of juggling two very small children.
You need to do what's best for you and hubby.I would suggest waiting until potty training is done! Morning sickness and potty time with toddler wouldn't be my kind of fun!

Posted by: liesl at October 18, 2005 01:14 PM

I register my vote for start trying now... for the same reasons everyone else said. You just don't know how long it will take.

I have another, more selfish reason for my vote too though. ;) We're trying for #2 and it'd be fun to have another blogger to be pregnant with. ;)

Posted by: Erin at October 18, 2005 04:58 PM

The second child issue is a difficult one. Age is a part of the consideration. I know that I did not want another child after I was 31. Why? Because I knew that after I raised my children I wanted to pursue other things and I planned my life in such a way that would make it possible for me to do so. Being financially able to have a child is important but you also need to ensure that you are still able financially to do the things you enjoy.

The most important part is that both of you need to agree on the decision.

Posted by: Wendy at October 18, 2005 05:54 PM

So you want the second baby when MO's five and he wants to try now. Why don't you guys compromise and give it a go when she's like three?

Posted by: denise at October 18, 2005 10:49 PM

I second what everybody else says on two fronts -- one, obviously it's up to what you and the hubs decide is best for your family (and if the hubs ain't up for it, then, well, best of luck to you and your negotiation powers). Two, since you asked, I also concur with others that you never know how long it's going to take you to conceive. If you guys had trouble before, you may have trouble again...or you may not. Michael and I set out to conceive #2 giving ourselves a 6-month period as a goal (meaning we really would have preferred to conceive around Christmas this year), and we just happened to get lucky the very first month, which was obviously a good thing but also a not-so-good thing timing-wise. As you well know, these things are, literally, impossible to plan.

Posted by: Claire at October 19, 2005 10:12 PM

Believe it or not, I know of a woman who had two children after the age of forty. Her first daughter at 41 and the second daughter at 46.
They are two of the brightest and energetic child,you would ever want to meet.

Posted by: Gram at October 20, 2005 12:38 PM

Oh! I hope not! It took us 2 years to conceive with Teaghan and I gave birth at 35. TeaghansDaddy is 41!! And we are trying, trying trying for Number 2... then 3, I hope!! Old is just a number!!

Posted by: keira at October 20, 2005 06:08 PM

In Utah it is not uncommon for woman to have kids well into their forties. So you having a child in your 30's is not weird. I think your plan sounds great! I say go for it.
For me I wanted to be done having kids so that John and I could have them out of the house while we are still young enough to enjoy life. But that is because we only had 2 years together before Gavin was born. So we feel like we didn't get our fair share of alone time yet.

Posted by: Rachael at October 20, 2005 11:49 PM