To consider having a baby at 44

Age and possible complications aside I think having two children is such a different dynamic and if you’re not 100% all in because you want it (not your daughter or friend) then don’t rock the boat.

There’s no guarantee they’ll get along, there’s quite a gap in their ages even if you did conceive quickly so their interests and friends won’t ever align until possibly adulthood and it puts you into early retirement age with a child possibly still living at home dependent on you.

If you have financial security, family support and the time to dedicate to both kids then great, but none of that is really important if at the end of the day you doubt if it’s the right thing to put your family through.

I had a surprise baby at 44. I wanted one, but after a few losses, we were okay with being childless. My pregnancy went well. I didn’t have any tests. Birth didn’t go as planned. But it worked out, thank God. My advice would be to stop contraception & see what happens. Be prepared to have a child with special needs. Be prepared for miscarriage / stillbirth (nobody can prepare for that, but be aware) / you & your partner’s future good health. These were all factors for us.

If you want to actively pursue having a baby (IVF, surrogacy etc…) then that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Good luck!

No need for passive aggressive responses @Hereyoume

I think you’d be mad to try. Not just because you’re setting yourself up for heartache and failure, but because pregnancy, birth and baby rearing at 44 is going to be a right slog. I’m your age and I’d rather boil my head than experience pregnancy again, no matter how wistful I might feel that my baby days are over.

If your concerned about the free time element, I definitely wouldn't.

I don't think there is such a thing as free time after number 2.

(I appreciate you might have more family support than I do though, making this much less of any issue)

There’s always a risk with pregnancy, I never said otherwise.

And I wasn’t making a comment about assisted vs unassisted fertility either. I was merely pointing out what I see around me, which is plenty of parents of newborns and babies who are well into their 40s.

Don't do it for your child or because a friend suggested it. Consider finances (you'd be hitting state retirement age when they'd still be dependent) and the higher risks in pregnancy and disability in the baby, if you are able to get pregnant. Which is statistically unlikely. Just being honest!

I think people forget the loveliness of a new member of the family when they say I couldn't possibly do it again at that age as I used to feel the same until we had a surprise when I was 44. We absolutely adore our youngest; i used to think I really couldn't manage that when a friend had a baby after a big gap but it must be mysteriously different when it's your own as we feel so very lucky and all enjoy every minute so much (aged 2 now)
i did take extra interest in my nutrition and the importance of micronutrients (i took choline and other good vitamins and minerals, ate fish , nuts, etc). And yes risks of certain things might be higher in an older mother (including twins !)

You know that at 44 the odds of the baby having Down Syndrome are way way higher than during the 20s, don't you?

I think it's too old for the following reasons.

Giving up freedom and the time to enjoy yourself for probably at least the next six years (or seven/eight if you include trying to conceive and pregnancy).

The higher chances of a child who might have lifelong care needs. Being in your sixties when the child is in their late teens.

Not having the same energy to deal with sleepless nights, toddler phases, teen dramas. Still ferrying them around to activities/work when you're 63, etc.

I'm 40 will be 41 when baby is born and my midwife has said I'm low risk because I have a healthy bmi and have had non risk pregnancy and births before, she would only have put me at high risk if it was my first baby or I had had previous complications.

I wouldn't do it because your child wants a sibling. They're never guaranteed a decent relationship later in life. You need to do it because you want it.

I totally get how you must be feeling, it's like now or never so the pressure is definitely on and I'm assuming it takes over your every thought right now.

I also do understand why people would say don't do it but it's perhaps hard for them to understand that life doesn't happen at the same pace for everyone if they've had children a lot younger.

If it's really what you want then I say go for it! I'm 44 and pregnant (it's been a hard painful slog getting here) Ive had extra tests and things seem to be progressing really well this time. It's doable but you really need to decide soon as I'm no doubt you're fully aware.

Go for it if you want to - it's no one else's business and it's not that unusual these days to have kids in your mid-40s. You have set realistic expectations that it may not work out, but go for it and good luck! There are some heightened risks but you are the one taking them so again, your choice.

One of the hardest things I found about going from one to two was the time you take from the first. Yes they get different things, a sibling, a playmate (after 2 years or so) but those first two years you lose a lot of the one to one time you had. I still feel guilty about it. So it's worth considering that. Your bond with your first may well change especially as you are older and will find the toll of a newborn much harder and tiring.

I can’t think of anything worse. My youngest would be 14 when I’m 44. I’d hate to start again. So much more to life than just being a parent and I’m looking forward to having time to enjoy it.

I think you’d need be prepared that it might end in a miscarriage or that there is a chromosome problem that means terminating the pregnancy. Unfortunately at this age it’s more likely that a pregnancy doesn’t work out.

A bit different but I adopted at 44 after years of infertility. My DD is 16 now. It's been fantastic though I wouldn't have chosen to start this late.

Totally personal decision isn't it. I personally couldn't think of anything worse than having another kid at this age!

So fertility is fine at 44 is it?

There are no risks to the baby with a mother at that age?

Your little pocket of South London is likely propping up a few dozen fertility clinics.

44 IS old, please stop perpetuating the myth that 44 is an OK age to have a baby.

Very, very, very few women get pregnant at that age without significant and costly assistance. And even then the risks to the baby and mother are very high.

Agree with PP, 44 is not that old. In my pocket of South London, no one would bat an eyelid at a mid-40s mum with a newborn. Perfectly normal.

Go for it, if you’re able to and it’s what you want. Good luck.

You're braver than me! When I was 46 my DC both left home, I downsized and became mortgage free.

But all the best with whatever you decide. My youngest's godmother was 44 when she had her first and then went on to have another.