I am too old, aren’t it?

Of course you’re not too old. Don’t bow down to societal norms. The again, I’m in London and it’s completely normal where I live for women to have children in their 40’s.

If your bits still work and you have a good set-up at home then go for it!

Totally agree with this. And as several posters have said, it's not 'ageist' to say it. And it's ridiculous to say it is ageist!

My partner has no children. He wanted them but has accepted he won’t have any with me. He says he’d rather be with me than not.

This sounds like something a man who's unbothered says, then reminds you later that he wasn't that fussed. I wouldn't be embarking on that journey at 44 with someone who says this.

This. I think 44 is too old to have a baby

Very thoughtful and well-considered post, thank you. 😊

If you you both want it, I don't think you're too old. I know someone in similar circumstances who had a child at 47 and brings huge joy to their lives. I would like to another hand I'm 43 but it's not happening. We aren't trying ivf or anything, but if it happened naturally I'd be happy.

I am your age and also had a long and abusive marriage and have two older kids. I have finally found peace and my kids are thriving again now that they have gone NC with their dad. I could not even contemplate throwing another child into the mix even though one of my kids is now in her early 20s and doesn't live at home. I just want to focus on them and their wellbeing and they still need me and my attention. I want to be able to go out to restaurants with them, take them on holidays and just do adult things. A baby would definitely prevent that and a disabled baby would absolutely knacker me.

It sounds like you have finally formed a heathly and comfortable life for you and your kids, enjoy what you have and don't risk disrupting that. It really could go either way, but it will for sure take time away from your existing children who probably also still have some healing to do.

Again, you're completely off point. I haven't commented on those things and nor have I called them prejudiced because they're not (they're a fact of medical science). Read my reply to itwasnevermine above - sazzy6258 made ageist comments (underlined in my reply to itwasnevermine) and I replied to those remarks because they are ageist.

Fwiw I'm 51. I stopped periods at 51 few months ago. Was very reg every 28 days so tech I could have had a baby at your age naturally

I’m not sure you could! Having regular periods in your early 50s isn’t unusual at all; having a baby in your 50’s is very unusual. Even in the days before available contraception!

I have older parents. It’s far from hell. They are wonderful.
man’s even though they were late 30s (mum) early 40s (Dad) when I was born, when I was 9 years old, they became foster parents, and are still fostering today for n their early 70s. So they became even older parents than they were with me. They are excellent foster parents, not out of touch - if anything having teens around has made them younger and more in touch! My little foster-sis, now a young adult, they became special guardians for, when she was 11 and so was a teen with parents in their late 60s and early 70s and she is very close to them both and considers them as her mother and father.

the whole idea of “Imagine being 15 and your parents 60!” Is ageist. Some 60 year olds are better parents than some in their mid 30s. I also have two older siblings who were born when my mother was in her very early 20s, and they also agree that my mum has become a better, and more hands on mum the older she has become.

Your comment is entirely without context - see my reply to itwasnevermine above and understand I was commenting on what sazzy6258 actually wrote.

@pinkdelight you are right. I read it wrong

Fwiw I'm 51. I stopped periods at 51 few months ago. Was very reg every 28 days so tech I could have had a baby at your age naturally

I did give birth at almost 44 tho via ivf as unexplained infertility

No regrets at all tho she's my only one

Ivf cost many thousands as dh has chikdren before he met me so no nhs go - like you won't get either so cost is a huge factor if not trying naturally

But having a baby at 45 would make OP a total outlier! However having a baby at 40 to 42 is not particularly uncommon and in no other sphere of adult life is a 3 to 5 year age difference seen all that significant.

If OP is considering it, it would have to be now and she should be prepared for it not to happen.

It’s not prejudice to say that the risks to both mother and baby increase exponentially with maternal age. There’s a reason fertility decreases with age. That is undeniably true.

Why do people keep wanting to have children when they meet someone new?
Enjoy life as it is. Children are just going to bring more stress and strain.
Why spoil something that's going nicely.

Go for it. Make sure you are taking all your vitamins etc to give yourself the best chance.

Prejudice isn't, by definition, true.

I do agree with the sentiment of this ... that you're more likely to regret things you haven't done, rather than things you have done. But having a baby at around 45 is not one of them.

I think the majority of women would definitely regret having a baby, (at 45+) rather than not having one at that age.

I don't think I actually know a single woman aged 55+ plus now, who regrets not having a baby at 45 to 50. Seriously, not one.

I'm in my mid 50s, and my 2 DC - in their mid 20s - flew the nest a few years ago ... Am I wishing I'd had a 3rd baby when I was in my mid 40s, and now had a 10 to 12 year old child (when I am several years off my 60s?)

LOL. No.

.

But that's your experience. It doesn't mean it's everyone's experience - indeed, there are people who have posted on here that having older parents has been great for them. Try not to be so narrow-minded and prejudiced.

It's not. It considers that as we age our energy levels decrease and our likelihood of needing care goes up.

(FTM at 42 here)

I have older parents. It's hell.

@itwasnevermine it's not ageist to say that sometimes you're too old to become a parent.

No, it's not, but that isn't what @Sazzy6258 said. Re-read her post:
"There comes a cut off point where it is just selfish and I think you are at this point! You need to think about the child, when they are due to start school, you would be nearly 50 and starting to hit the menopause. When they are due to leave school you will be hitting 60!! My friend growing up had older parents and hated it as they were so out of touch with everything. Enjoy the life you have and don't do it."
There are some people here who don't seem to understand that ageism is a form of prejudice. Her opinion is ageist because she makes sweeping prejudicial generalisations about older parents.
And remember, ageism works both ways. I wonder how a young mum would feel if someone posted about them something like: How selfish. You're far too young to have a child. You have no life experience and don't know your own mind. You couldn't bring anything to a young child's development - you'll just want to be out partying with your mates.
Do you understand ageism now?

@YOOHOOITSMEEE · Yesterday 22:02

i have a friend thats pregnant with twins at 53
naturally conceived and tried for.

No offence intended, but I doubt this VERY much. If you do have a 53 y.o. friend who is pregnant, it's extremely unlikely that it was a natural conception.

If she has been telling people this, she should probably know that most people will doubt her, because less than 1% of women over 50 will conceive naturally, and the vast majority will not go full term and actually have the baby.

Also, pregnant at 53... ??? Really?!

I wouldn’t at your age, especially with younger children. You’re not even married. I know that sounds old fashioned but you would need that security if you even considered starting again.

Nonsense.

Many people regret things they've actually done.