Not to use birth control at 45

So rude.

Don't call me daft, also others are hard of thinking if they don't get whatever random point I'm making. Right-o.

Like I said to the PP, that was not my point at all.

Of course your risk of death increases the older you get. Every fool knows that. No need to be so rude and call me “daft”.

The reason I posted what I did was in response to someone who reckoned that it was a given that a person in their twenties has parents who need care or are otherwise stressful to “deal with” in their seventies.

My point, for the hard of thinking at the back, is that plenty of people in their seventies are perfectly independent and non hard work parents to their adult children. The fact that others die before that age is neither here nor there. It’s luck at both ends of the spectrum.

The idea that people some die early so there's absolutely no predicability in death/illness is daft . If you're older, your more likely to die or be infirm.

If you die at 50, you could leave behind a reception age child. Is someone else dies at 50, they might be leaving behind an adult of 30.

It's a fact, why can't people accept it?

The downside to having children too young is the opposite, you might outlive them, which is very tough. Or they'll be left to care for you in old age, when they're also old.

You’re missing my point. People can die at any time. Every single parent has to live with that risk no matter how old they were when their child was born. My Dad had me at 26 and died when I was only 25. My best mate’s Mum was only 21 when my mate was born but was dead by the time my mate was 22.

My parents’ deaths were bad luck and not age related. My friend’s Mum was an extremely heavy smoker. The example of my very healthy in-laws in their seventies is more the norm, and cancer outcomes are getting better and better as medical science advances.

See that scares the shit out of me. I was 40s when I had my youngest. He'd barely be out of uni when we hit mid 60s.

I need to be a healthy 80 something

Similar. I lost my father in his fifties and my mother in her mid sixties, both to cancer that was just bad luck rather than age or lifestyle related.

My parents in law are mid and late seventies, physically and mentally fit and very socially active. They are in no way hard to deal with and don’t need any support. In fact MIL is still supporting her own mother, who is in her nineties and in a care home.

@Unopenedpackofmenssocks

I agree. Apparently at 40 you’re completely knackered and over the hill, so god knows what these people think of 70yr olds. My parents and in-laws are in their 70s and are probably fitter than me!

In my close friendship group, 3 people have lost both parents and 4 have lost one parent. None were due to old age, half of those tragically died when they were in their 20-30s.

If you want it, go for it, but I’d be prepared to put some effort in with regards to optimum diet, regular sex etc as you might as well give it your best shot for a couple of years.

I've got 5 friends who had babies around 45. They're all doing really well.
There are negatives and positives for it. One of the positives would be for your dc to have a sibling and family as being older parents, the fact is that they'll get less time with their parents.
That's not meant to make anyone feel bad as many parents die young too.
It's the luck of the draw and you can only go with what you feel.

“Deal with you in your seventies”?

What exactly is it about a person in their seventies that a twenty something can’t deal with?! Jesus the ageism.

I was 39 when I had my last as met my husband mid 30s. Husband had a vasectomy when I was 42 (he has one bio child) as I felt 40 was definitely my cut-off point.

I think you'd be mad.

45, no problem but dealing with a teenager in your sixties, god no.

Then in turn they'd have to deal with you in your seventies in their twenties.

Selfish.

I had my second by ivf at 45 I believe the odds were 15% but naturally it would be much lower

It's not unreasonable. It's entirely yours and your partners decision.

Personally no. But I was done with my 2 by 23! So our situations are entirely different

Was your other child a fertility baby?
If you want another child I'd consider that route.
But if you don't then I think you should take precautions.

I wouldn't but I'm not you.

If you're comfortable with the what if's, then go for it. Personally I don't think I'd want to risk pregnancy at 45 but I was done at 30.

My sister had her planned, much wanted, much loved daughter at 46 . She’s fab, my sister is fab , and now with a teenager is still young in outlook , and fit . It took so long to conceive, I think she is just delighted to have her . Their ages just don’t seem important, they just adore her .

In the name of balance, impregnation on other TV shows is available. 😀

I think if you are both in good health ,financially secure ,feel up to the challenge of mature parenting ( as you already had a child late you will know what some of that entails, I had my last at 41) and have had the conversations around what you would do if scans showed a disability , then fair enough! As ever, it’s would you regret it of you did try versus would you regret it if you didnt! I’m still enjoying being a parent in my 50’s and I would have made a rubbish parent earlier in my life.

Women do get pregnant at 45, it's less likely the older you are ( unless you're in eastenders or emmerdale of course 😉)
So if you are not willing to risk it, have a coil fitted

She has a four year old though, I doubt she is having spontaneous sex as often as a TTC couple would…

It's up to you, but there is no difference in physiological terms between 'actively trying' and 'not using birth control', if you are having sex regularly.