To consider having a baby at 44

You might want a baby now, but do you want to be doing the primary school years in your 50s and high school years in your 60s?

Do you want to be supporting a student through university when you're in your late sixties - would this delay your retirement?

Age gap of siblings - is it too big? They're not likely to be playmates really with a 7/8 year gap.

All the above - I do know a few who had babies 44 or later and it was all fine but the risks are so much higher - and you do have to think further than relatively immediate baby stage.

Just had my little girl at the ripe old age of 44, she’s snoozing away on my chest 🥰 ivf, my own egg, I consider myself very lucky (less than 5% chance of it working) but here we are! It’s fine, I’m good for my age (better than some of my younger friends), financially secure and my family tend to live well into their 90s so here’s hoping. Who knows what turn life will take, all I knew was I wanted a sibling for our daughter and I’m so glad I did. Second time round I’m a lot calmer and mature about things; yes I’m tired but I know it’s fleeting and before I know it she’ll be starting school!

Its not how young, fit and energetic you might feel at 44, but whether that's going to last through another 20 years of the parenting journey and beyond. You will need to work hard at your diet, fitness and general health and keep your fingers crossed you avoid unforeseen health conditions if you're going to do that without either shortchanging them or exhausting yourself. I'm 54 and could cope with a ten year old because I'm lucky to be fit and healthy, and have no other responsibilities. Many of my friends who are already finding life a challenge, with health, menopause, plus care of elderly parents would really struggle.

And dealing with elderly parents when you have siblings who don't care, or who are on the other side of the world, or who aren't speaking to you, or who disagree with you at every turn isn't a barrel of laughs either.

I don’t see what harm there is in trying. Maybe set some parameters around how far you will go to try (ie a budget) to keep your expectations under control.

I had my second child at 44 and I don't regret it for one moment. Yes a new born is tiring in your mid-forties, but I was desperate for another child and it has been so worth it. My personal choice and my experience, but it will be different for everyone.

It may be a bit of or all of that - and you're lucky to have an amazing partner!

You've reminded me, though, of a neighbour. She had her third baby, a surprise, when her other DC were 23 and 18. Her DH (father to all) was about 15yrs older than her. Her surprise baby had just started at uni when her DH dropped down dead. Literally. It was very difficult for her and still is, 2yrs on.

I wouldn't myself. The next few years of her life will be gone in a moment and your attention will be taken up with getting pregnant and then with the high demands of a new born. And that's if it all goes smoothly.

Does she have cousins or the children of close friends that she can grow up with and develop those bonds with? I'd encourage and facilitate those relationships. I might also get a puppy! A loyal, adoring breed like a labrador for her to love.

Lots to consider, including:

You might want a baby now, but do you want to be doing the primary school years in your 50s and high school years in your 60s?

Do you want to be supporting a student through university when you're in your late sixties - would this delay your retirement?

Age gap of siblings - is it too big? They're not likely to be playmates really with a 7/8 year gap. And then when your eldest is 16/17/18 she'll be independent and spending her free time with friends, work etc (we barely see our teen on evenings or at the weekend!).

Consider the financial impact - the cost of living isn't going to decrease. Life is going to continue to get more expensive. Would another child impact the things you can do and provide for your DD now?

These are things I would be seriously considering (I'm the same age as you).

The risks would be too much for me at that age OP. I personally wouldn't do it.

I would only consider it if it's what you really want. The fact your daughter would like a sibling is irrelevant. With the best will in the world, with a 7 or 8 year age gap, the novelty will soon wear off for her. I had my two at 41 and 45. DS2 has severe OCD and Crohn's Disease and I am mentally and physically exhausted with the practical day to day management and the stress. Not a great situation for a menopausal woman! I genuinely believe I could have handled things more effectively if I was a few years younger. So there are things like this to consider. Everyone is different though.

I wouldn't do it. I had a sudden rush of "let's have another!" when I was 42, but it didn't take me long to discover the increased risks of a whole host of special needs, from autism to Down's syndrome, not to mention the extra toll a "geriatric" pregnancy takes on your own body, and the exhaustion that comes with being and older Mum, which will in itself make dealing with a child with special needs much harder.

A friend had her last baby in her mid 40's and had a beautiful baby boy, but his special needs, though mild, are such that he is very likely to need some level of care and support for the rest of his life. Of course that can happen if you have a baby at 21, but the risks are so much higher at your age.

Your life is lovely now. I really really wouldn't invite such risk into it at this stage.

Also the sibling thing is kind of nonsense. They'll only be close if they are very very close in age, which it sounds like would not be the case if your existing child is old enough to express this desire. My teen is always suggesting I just crack on and have another baby so she has a little sibling to play with. Doesn't mean I have any intention of actually producing one at my age (other side of 45!). She'll be off at uni and I'll be standing outside the local primary holding a micro mini scooter in the rain again!

x2boys I am sorry about your son, I hope he is ok.

I did not have any testing for rare conditions, but they are rare. Sadly there are no guarantees of a completely healthy baby in any pregnancy. But it is the aneuploidies, particularly trisomies, which common and are the big increased risk with maternal age - karyotyping will show if a fetus has an extra or missing chromosome.

She's 7 and doesn't get to dictate the size of your family. A lot of 7 year olds wish they had a brother / sister, more siblings, less siblings etc. It's just part of her realising that other people have different families. My friend's 5 year old cried one night because his friend at school has two mummies and why did he only have one! An 8-9 year age gap is big and she might be less keen on having a much younger sibling in a few years time - a 5 and 13 year old have very different needs and requirements and satisfying both is very hard.

I wouldn’t. I had my last at 36 and that’s been hard enough. Even if you get all the tests there’s a lot you can’t pick up like autism for example.

100% this

Being wistful when you see other babies is also an absurd reason to have another child.

So many threads like this start off with the ‘just go for it’ posse, and then as time goes on, more people start saying things like ‘I wish my parents hadn’t been so old when they had me’, or ‘I tried at that age and had multiple losses and it was heartbreaking’.

You’re 44 now with an IUD. You’d be minimum 45 by the time any baby arrived, likely more like 46 or 47, and that’s even if you can actually have another baby without intervention. Meanwhile, you’ll be focusing on trying to cheat biology to have another baby rather than the child who’s already here.

I’m all for women pushing boundaries. But at a certain point we have to accept the limits of biology. Especially when there are more studies coming out about the decline in sperm quality as men age are coming out.

In your circumstances I wouldn't and it's nothing to do with your age.
The first reason you give for having one is because your DC wants a sibling, that's not a good enough reason for having another child, also you say you worry about having a child with special needs. If you feel you couldn't cope with a child with special needs I wouldn't try.

You can pay privately for more comprehensive testing, my daughter did. If it's possible I recommend it.

It's very difficult to ask strangers what to do, as it's really down to your lifestyle, health, family, expectations.

I had a child at 44 after trying to conceive for a very very long time. We adore him and we adore our family life! We don't feel too tired or too old, compared to the other parents of our son's age. He's a very very active little boy, now in school and we are 50 but with enough energies to bring him to classes, activities, days out, museums, holidays etc. We are actually looking forward to do even more travelling when he's older!

I am not worried about what my 60s or 70s will look like with him as a teenager/young man and don't really understand why it's inconceivable to have to live with a teenager when you are around that age. My plans, with or without my son, haven't really changed..... But, again, this is us and everybody else has a different story!

"All in" for what? She may love a sibling if she has one, but that wouldn't make any difference for you. She's not going to be a built-in childminder. They would be at least 8 years apart, and their lives would be on totally different trajectories until at least both of them are well into adulthood. This is just my experience, but I grew up with a close circle of six friends. One was an only child like I am, and the other four had siblings that were all at least 7 years older. None of them had any relationship to speak of with their siblings, and now that we are all 50, this remains true to this day. They have essentially nothing to do with each other.

They only test for the common chromosomal.abnormalities, my son has a rare chromosome disorder of which there are many the impact of which varies massively from person to person .

The rates of successful natural conceptions are much lower in women in their forties than in younger women. But that's not because EVERY woman in her mid to late forties has a very low chance of natural conception. Most women of this age will be infertile, but some (probably about 5-10%), with lucky genetics, will be as fertile at 45 as they were at 25.

Your chance of late fecundity is determined by genes that are linked to longevity.

Women who conceive a child naturally in their mid to late forties are likely to live longer than average, so the chances of their child being orphaned before adulthood are much lower than the doomsayers on mumsnet would suggest.

Statistically pregnancies in older mothers are riskier, but it's not clear how much of that is related to general health. If you are slim and fit, you're probably at lower risk than an obese woman in her twenties.

If you are prepared to test and terminate for chromosomal abnormalities you have no more risk of having a disabled child than a younger woman.

I personally was lucky, conceived naturally in one month aged 45, had a normal pregnancy and uncomplicated home birth, and am still perfectly healthy, with the energy to work full time and ferry my teenager around, in my 60's.

I mean, you’re not ancient. Women’s eggs don’t suddenly curdle as soon as they hit 40.

However, don’t have a child to give to another child. And your life is settled and happy, a baby, while lovely potentially, does make it much, much harder for a really long time.

They're a child, they cannot understand that their mum is putting her health at risk. And there is zero guaranteed a sibling would be around to help with elderly parents.