To consider having a baby at 44

It's nothing like saying that@Crushed23, completely different.
There is and has always been a 'window' during which women are fertile. This is a physiological fact. Sure we can push boundaries but that is the whole point, it is pushing boundaries because it is 'old' and outside the fertile window. I women want to do that and have fully considered pros and cons, that is absolutely fine but let's not pretend it is not old to have a baby.

I think 44 is on the cusp of being too old and a tad selfish to have a baby sorry OP

Sometimes in life we have to accept we've left it too late for things

Such a personal thing.

I just had my last baby at 38 - and for me that felt like as old as I would want to be during a pregnancy. It was harder physically than my earlier pregnancies. I had two miscarriages before it took as well. Having older children meant really limited opportunities for rest or self care.

It was a lot physically.

How is your health OP? Are you strong and fit?

I can't guarantee I won't!

I had my second at 39 - eight years after his big brother. He is at special school and might never live independently. His big brother adores him and he has brought a lot of fun but he is relentless and we have a lot of worries for his future.

The help our parents can give is extremely limited by their health and I am terrified of myself or my partner dying early and leaving the other to cope alone. If I had a crystal ball I would have made a different decision.

The problem is you just don't know if you will have a healthy child or not. While this is true at any age being older doesn't help with the risks or your ability to cope or to be there for their future.

The success and availability of fertility technology does not mean mid-40s is too old for motherhood. That’s like saying being diabetic is too ill to be alive because it relies on medical intervention.

This is such a good point @Crushed23

The success and availability of fertility technology does not mean mid-40s is too old for motherhood. That’s like saying being diabetic is too ill to be alive because it relies on medical intervention.

We’re humans. We push boundaries. As life expectancy continues to increase so too will the age at which people choose to become parents. 100 years ago, 35 would have been considered ancient for pursuing parenthood, now people don’t bat an eyelid at 45.

Yes, I believe that it what you see in certain parts of London. You also said it 44 wasn't old and was perfectly normal. I was responding to that, suggesting that a lot, probably the majority of these women have had fertility treatment and therefore that it is old for motherhood.

I had my second at 45, we had given up hoping but it happened. He's now at university and we've never had any regrets.

I'm glad that I had so much time to enjoy my younger days.

Lol. Do you have young children?

Don't get me wrong, I love my kids and they are well behaved teens. But by the time I'm 44, I'll have been parenting for 23 years.

Bring on the empty nest!

I'm 44 in April and I certainly wouldn't.

I have to say, some of the people saying they couldn't bear the thought of having a late teen/young adult still at home when they're in their 50s and 60s will probably be posting about how depressed they are due to empty nest syndrome when that time comes...

👏🏻

Had my first at 40, 43 now and trying for number 2.

I totally understand those people saying their DC would be late teens/early 20s when they hit 44 and THEY would not want to go through it again. But I think that's more to do with them happily feeling like they've completed their family and are so far removed from the baby years that they can't imagine starting from the beginning with another one.

I also understand people saying 'you should be looking forward to cruises/retirement in your 60s, not having young adults hanging on to apron strings'. Again, if THEY completed their family earlier in your life, they had less time then to enjoy their freedom then. Parents starting later had the opportunity to do childfree things before becomming parents.

I agree with the PP who said it's comparing apples with pears. People just do things differently

I think it's important to look at the actual data, which can sometimes be presented in a way that makes it sound remarkably more dramatic than it is. I'm reading some research now about this, which says that the risk of a child being born with any sort of chromosomal abnormality to a woman aged 30-34 years is 0.35%, whilst for a woman aged 40-44 years it's 3.14%. If you frame that as almost 9 times the risk, it sounds huge. On the other hand, you could say there is a 97% chance of a woman aged 40-44 having a baby with no chromosomal abnormalities, and that sounds a lot less scary.

My biggest concern would be having an amniocentesis that ended the pregnancy or found an abnormality that would be advised to have a late stage (birth) termination.

I don't believe I'd mentally cope with either of those scenarios.

It’s possible that people are using donor eggs of course, but I wasn’t commenting on assisted vs unassisted fertility, I was just saying what I see around me.

That being said, I doubt every single 40something mother of a newborn that I see has used donor eggs when IVF with own eggs and egg freezing is more common than ever.

I think perhaps you'd need to decipher if you're ok being in your 50s when your kid starts school?

Everyone has mentioned the risks to baby with an advanced maternal age, I'd also urge you to look into the risks of advanced paternal age. It hasn't been studied as much (naturally 🙄) but there's more and more evidence coming.

I do think YAB a bit U.

I was orphaned at 31, my parents were 53 and 63 when they died. As a PP said, there are no guarantees.

I am 51 and hating the perimenopause. I cannot imagine looking after a young child. HRT did not help me. Having said that, not everybody has a difficult menopause so you might be okay. Still I would not go ahead if I were you.

An orphan is a child whose parents have died. I don't think that's all that likely by the time the OP hits 62 and her child turns 18.

How in the fuck is it selfish? Honestly the judgement on here is off the scale.

@BeaRF75 · Yesterday 12:44

The baby at 44 may not be an issue, but what about a teenager in your late 50s? Or a still-dependent 21 year old university student when you are 65?
Don't underestimate how tired you will feel in your 50s and 60s, let alone the increased risk of major health issues at those ages.

@distinctpossibility · Yesterday 12:46

I'm not sure why you're asking tbh. You must know the risks are significantly higher for things like Down's Syndrome and autism and that it might take a long time to conceive a viable pregnancy. You know you'll be 62 at the youngest when the potential baby hits 18.

@Lifebeganat50 · Yesterday 12:47

I wouldn’t want to plan to be dealing with a 16-20 year old in my early 60s….potential university fees as I’d be looking towards retirement….to me it’s not about the baby at 44, it’s about all the above!

@Misthios · Yesterday 12:53

44 is not old in the grand scheme of things, but is very old when talking about having a baby.

All of this. Sorry @littleloopylou but not in a million years would I do this. I know 3 individual women who are around 60 now, who had a baby at 38-40, (so, a few years younger than 44.) And whilst it was great at the time and they didn't seem particularly old, and they felt healthy and fit; they are now 60-ish year olds with 19-21 year old children. All children still live at home, and still seem really young, and they are still totally dependent on them, and are likely to be for a few more years yet.

They have all said they feel too old to have a child in their teens/still at uni/still at home. (Their words, not mine...) Having a baby at 44/45 will be even worse. As has been said, do you want to be in your mid 60s, with university age children, who will possibly need financial support til you are nearly 70? And could be living at home til you're well into in your 70s?

As has been said, even by your mid 50s, you have a good chance of developing health issues and conditions, and aches and pains. And don't underestimate how tired and weary you will feel. Menopause is a killer. You really don't want toddlers/infants around you 24/7 at that stage of your life.

And then there's all the shit that goes with having school age children ... Running around taking them to hobby groups/after school groups/giving lifts/dealing with school politics/school run/problems with other parents/issues with bullying/exams/toddler tantrums/ teen years (nightmare!) and all that jazz. And that is on top of all the money they cost.

You should be putting your feet up, lying in til midday at weekends, going on cruises/peaceful holidays, going to pub quizzes, and going on long relaxing walks in peace in your 50s and 60s. Not looking after a school age child permanently.

You will get loads of people on here saying 'woo hoo go for it, 44 is a great age to have a baby.' And tales of their great auntie Ella who had a baby at 50 that was very likely their teen daughter's child that they took on and lots of posters who say they had babies in their 40s etc etc. In real life, most people will have had their last baby a few years before the age of 40, and would never have a baby at 44-45 y.o..

There are way more 'againsts' than 'fors.' (Including, as some posters have said, the possibility of health issues with the child, that can go along with a woman having a baby past the age of 40.) And there is no guarantee your sibling will get on with the new child.

I just wouldn't do it. It seems OK now while you are not too old, and probably fit, but you have to look at the bigger picture, and think ahead.

@littleloopylou I think the fact he hasn’t got a child of his own and would love one is an unspoken pressure because he could very well go off with someone younger and have a child with them.
I think as well even if you have a healthy baby you will find that it will not be easy for your daughter. There’s a high chance she will be jealous of the new baby and with good reason.