To think 42 is too old for a baby?

I learned from observing friends with their children and had a pretty good idea of how I wanted to do things as a result.

Dunno.

My nan had my dad (unplanned) at 45 and that was back in the ‘50s.

Personally, I couldn’t do it. But each to their own.

There is more to life than worrying about the relationship future children will have with grandparents. Some people are estranged completely from their families. I never really knew my grandparents.

I do think It’s lovely for children to have a relationship with their grandparents but It’s not really something I consider to be the be all and end all when having a child. I certainly don’t begrudge my parents for depriving me of a relationship with grandparents.. it’s not something I ever think about tbh

You're very lucky to have parents of almost 80 who are alive and well. But with the very best will in the world, they won't be around for much of their grandchild's life. Obviously, it's really hopeful that they will be. But what an 80 year old granny can do is nothing like what a 60 year old granny can do.

Exactly this.

At this age, I'm a granny. But it's exhausting in a way it wasn't at 45.

It’s funny how mumsnet is so anti older mums. My mum had me at almost 39. I am pregnant now at 38. Both my parents are alive and well. I know people who lost parents who were much younger than mine. I don’t see what’s “baffling “ at all. Most people my age I know are fit and healthy. Where I live it’s common to have a baby at this age.
what I find “baffling “ is all the people criticising older mums who got pregnant in their 20s. I don’t know any of any men who wanted babies in their 20s. Anyone I know who did that it was unplanned. Apparently anyway.

100% agree, I think most 40 something mums of young kids (5years and under) are in denial of this.
They seem to think that they have the same amount of energy as 20 year olds.
Baffling

I think this is a really good point. Children are hard work whatever your age. Once you've had the experience you probably wouldn't choose to start all over again 10 years or whatever later. If you haven't done it you don't know how hard it might be, at any age, so there's that.

I admire good parents of any age. It's a tough job, physically, emotionally and mentally. We'll all come at it from different backgrounds with different strengths and experience. Anyone who manages to raise decent human beings, whatever age they produced them, deserves a big up. (And not to be a downer, but parents can also be terrible at any age, unfortunately ) I vote stop the ageism, in either direction!

Why ever not?

What's unfair? I'm genuinely interested because I'm 62 with a 20 year old and all is good with us.

I think it really depends on the individual. If I didn’t already have children I’d probably love to have a baby if I was 42. However personally it wouldn’t be for me. I like the independence that I’m getting from my teenagers

Having a teenager/a child still in education, when you're 62 is not something people should aspire to.

Says who? Why do you care what others choose to do? If you want to write yourself off as over the hill at 60 then fine, that's your choice.

I have a 7 year old and I'm going through perimenopause. I also run, go to the gym and work part time. It's really not that bad. Just accept that we are all different and that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. If you've had children early, then I can see why you wouldn't want to go back to the toddler years in your 30s or 40s but if it's your first time round, it's really not a problem.

Yes, and I have said as much in my previous posts on this thread. It does work out fine for some people. But the older the parent is, the higher the chance of a situation like mine occuring.

It seems clear that some people here are taking my posts about my experience as some kind of personal attack, which it's not. So I'm not going to post any further here. All I will say is that I think people need to be mindful of the risks and make plans so that their child is supported in the best possible way should the worst case scenario happen. Hopefully it won't, but a lot of people blindly assume good health will continue indefinitely and don't properly assess risk.

It's hardly 'young' though is it? And statistically you are way more likely to have health issues in your early to mid 60s, and be more weary, and tire out easily, than in your early-mid 40s. So why put yourself in the position of having a teenager/a child still in education when you're in your 60s??? As I (and some others have said) do not under-estimate how menopause will fuck you up! Having a teenager/a child still in education, in your early-mid 40s/even 50, is hard enough. Having one in your 60s will be brutal!

Seriously, why would anyone elect to do this in their early 60s? Having a teenager/a child still in education, when you're 62 is not something people should aspire to. IMO. It is not elderly of course. But it is NOT young. It's not even middle aged. You're a 'Senior' then and just 3-4 years off retirement age.

I had twins at 44 via IVF. Not everybody's journey is straightforward and the age has proved irrelevant as they and I are thriving!

It's all individual. I had my first at 34 and would have hated to have them in my 20's. Personally i'm a much better mum for being a little older.

That's why nobody can answer this question

But that is down to you and how you feel. Others don’t bat an eyelid at having to do the school run in their 40’s and 50’s and even 60s

And that's absolutely fine to consider yourself too old to have anymore kids.
I would have hated to have kids in my 20's but don't bat an eyelid at others who chose that path for themselves.

I think the issue of this thread is that OP is talking about her friend wanting a child at that age, not herself..... and who are any of us to judge others for their own life choices?

But this is individual experience

I had DS at 41 and now older than what people call elderly.

I work alongside DS in a very physical job that can be a 12 or 15 hours day and it’s the younger people who struggle keeping up

Not everyone is dead, in hospital or needs caring for when they get to the age that people consider as elderly

62 today is very different to 62 decades ago when life expectancy was lower.

Most 62 year olds now are very fit, still working and many are helping out a lot with their grandkids childcare.

Saying a 20 year old ADULT having 62 year old parents is unfair is wild.

No you said it was unfair, which inferred (to me and another poster) that 62 was elderly. As many people are still working then, and, nowadays, it's more the norm to be relatively active then, we queried it.

Those talking about caring for elderly parents and losing parents young etc, a lot of that is due to the health of the individuals involved rather than solely the year people were born.
Not every 42 year old is the same health and fitness wise just like not every 25 year old is.

There's actually research which shows that people who have children later in life live longer but, of course, there are no guarantees at any age.

Health problems are not unique to older parents. A good friend of mine lost his mum to breast cancer when she was 36 (he was 12/13 at the time). I'm watching another friend in her mid 40's now face MND which has completely turned her life around - she has 2 kids aged 10 and 8 and went from running marathons to wheelchair bound in a matter of months! My cousin is early 30's and has been battling cancer for the last couple of years and put through a medical induced menopause. She managed to freeze her eggs before she started treatment but it will be several years before she can even think about beginning any fertility treatment - not the timeline she would have chosen but sometimes that's life.

Tomorrow is not guaranteed for any of us. If another person feels healthy enough and wants to have a child in their 40's, who the hell is anyone else to judge them for it?
In the poetic words of a pp 'mind your uterus'

I think you've misunderstood, I never said 60 was elderly. However when the parents are elderly the child will still be a young adult and may end up dealing with caring responsibilities and loss at quite a young age.

I'm not being judgemental, I'm speaking from my actual lived experience. Obvioulsly my parents didn't intend for these things to happen, but there were consequences to their decision.

I do feel most people at better off at 42 than 22, but it's only one reason one might have for choosing to start a family/expand family.

I also think what you are saying about education is snobbish and inaccurate. When I was in my 20s I wanted to make the most of the higher education I'd received and I felt it didn't make sense to me to have a baby within a few years of graduating. I built my career first. However, the important thing is to have children whenever it feels right. 20s for some, 30s or 40s for others.

I didn't say 62 was elderly. But it's not that far away. And at that stage the child is 20 which is still very young adulthood.

I'm also not saying it can't work out, obviously there are people who make it to old age in decent health (I did say that in my initial post on the thread). But it is a gamble as the risks do increase as we age.

My parents were ok at 62. A few years later they were not, and I spent much of my 20s and early 30s caring for them and ultimately losing them. I had no safety net, no roots, and I suddenly had to be the parent to them. It was a stark contrast to my friends who still had (and have to this day) active and supportive parents.