Am i too old to have a baby?

Course she can, shes just less likely to (at any age).

Seeing as you have asked, YES 43 is too old to have a baby for sooooooooooo many reasons. I know - when you're coming to the end of your fertile years/perimenopause, you get weird cravings to have a baby, (I did,) but they passed, thank GOD, because no way in HELL would I have wanted a 8-9 year old now in my mid 50s!

My 2 left 7-8 years ago - went to uni, and never came back home, (though they're only 20 miles away,) and me and DH have no responsibilities now. And it's awesome. I remember thinking at 50 when my 2 were at uni, 'OMG imagine having a 5-6 year old now, who I'd be responsible for potentially until I was 65! Nooooooooooooooo.

Don't do it @rmonroe8

A 40something year old man can have a baby and then realise that he's actually too knackered, too old, too unwell to parent the kid and can opt out and walk away.

A women can't.

How is a man walking away, age relevant? That can happen to anyone at any age.

I am that age and although I some times wish I had a 3rd, I know for me this age feels too old. I’m peri and for me it has been brutal.
if you have 2 older children and your partner already has a child I wouldn’t have another one if I was you. Now is your time to enjoy your life, not put yourself back to sleepless nights etc. Also you need to consider the potential child’s future. When they are the age you are now you would be 86/87.

I had my kids at 37, 39 and 42. Like others say, it's a very individual thing.

Of course they are. They are all factors that carry more weight for women than for men, showing why late age pregancy can be considerably more risky and taxing for women than for men of equal age.

Absolutely

Sure, but is that not up to women to make informed decisions about for themselves?

But half the things you listed aren’t even relevant to age…

No not at all. But they dont carry the child, breast feed or go thru a more risky birth. Its commonplace that they dont reduce their work as the female does for childcare reasons.

Thanks for telling me (, my mother, other female relations and friends) we were too old.

When I had my DD at 43 I was asked by the midwives in hospital when I was having my next one. Since twins run in my family my response was "never".

Its absolutely dependant on the person. But age comes with risk... to you and the baby. Im 43 and honestly I cant think of anything worse than doing the baby stage/paying nursery fees again. Im so tired working and with my two. I honestly just couldn't do it. Plus as mine get older im needing to increase my hours/days in work to actually have some kind of pension and i wouldnt be in a position to.
At 60 id like to retire or at least drop to part time. I doubt i could do that with a 16 year old at home sitting important exams.

@Naunet I didn't say a man's age is entirely irrelevant, I said that it is less relevant than the woman's age. Which is true both biologically and socially.

I have a 17 year old, 9 year old, 8 year old and have just had a new baby at 41.

I didn’t ask whether anyone thought I should or not coz it’s none of anyone else’s business. DH and I wanted another kid so another kid we had. I can take my baby to work with me though so I guess I don’t have childcare to worry about. As far as age goes, I’ve had kids in my 20s, 30s and 40s and it’s got easier if anything. I’ve definitely got endless patience now.

So we ignore the quality of sperm declines and can be the cause of miscarriages and disabilities, despite the fact that it’s women who will be the ones left to cope with most of this if the man walks away?

Personally for me, yes I think 43 is too old. Then again I had both of my DC in my 20s. But it's totally your choice and it's not unheard of to have a baby at that age. MIL had her youngest at 41 and all was well.

Exactly. Biologically, I could’ve had a baby at 11 years old. It’s the same for a woman in her late 30s and 40s. There are risks for very young mums and old mums.

My friend’s parents were 40 when they had her. We’re in our mid 20s and she’s worried about her parents whereas I’m not (my parents were early 20s). I know people die at anytime, but statistically you're more likely to die in your 70s/80s. When my friend is 30, her parents will be 70. Meanwhile, my parents will still be in their early 50s.

Excuse me? You seem to have jumped to conclusions based on a few words.

I married my DH when I was 43 and he was 40. He did not have as my children. I had 3. 2 almost grown at 19 and almost 17 and my youngest of 8. We thought long and hard and then decided to foster a child. He has now lived with us for almost 11 years. We made the right decision. He is 16 and I am now 61 and I do get tired more quickly.

You must be bloody mad. I bet you'd have the baby then you'd break up. See it on here all the time.

Father's age is not as relevant because:

• they don't have to physically cary and birth the baby

• they are not subject to PND and menopause

• they most likely won't be doing the lion's share of feeding/waking in the night/running around a toddler all day

• they can fuck off and opt out of parenting anytime but the mom is always the one left holding the baby

So asking whether a man would be too old at 43 too is a it of a false equivalence

I had my first at 20, my last at 39. It’s really hard, I’m knackered, I feel old, freedom feels so far in the distance and I’m worried I’ll be too knackered to enjoy it. There’s nothing romantic about having a baby, it doesn’t cement a relationship, it challenges it. I don’t feel like it’s fair on my older children either, I often wish I could spend more adult time with them

I'm 42 and I wouldn't. Can't think of anything worse at my age.

I am 42 and pregnant. It is less likely for you to conceive and carry to term, but I don't see why you should not go for it if it is right for your family.