To be surprised at someone being pregnant at 44

Someone having a baby at 44 is not that surprising as it will be perfectly possible for some women. But fertility clinics give statistics of a 3-5% chance of natural conception per cycle in a woman of that age (compared to 25% chance per cycle for a woman in her early 30s).

Therefore for a woman of 44, she is far more likely NOT to have conceived after a year of trying, by which time she is 45 and the odds are worse still. So it's also not usual/commonplace to have a baby at 44 (though that is skewed by the fact that most women won't be trying to conceive at that age anyway).

I'm very happy for women who want to conceive in their 40s and are successful but I think it's risky to assume that "I am still having periods so I can conceive whenever I want". I really wish it was as simple as that but it isn't. I had my first child at 30, conceived straight away, no issues. Started trying for second at 35 and it took 5 years. Took a year to conceive but then had multiple miscarriages and investigations - had poor AMH levels (indicated low egg levels/poor quality eggs), progesterone too low in luteal phase so was starting to lose my womb lining before embryo embedded, uterine scarring (reduced chance for embryo to catch hold) and to cap it all an auto immune disorder with no other symptoms apart from my body rejecting the embryo as hostile. I seemed outwardly healthy and was having regular periods.

I did conceive again naturally at almost 40 and armed with knowledge of the above managed to keep the pregnancy thanks to a blood plasma transfusion.

I'm now nearly 52 and still having regular periods but I can't kid myself that I could just decide to have another baby if I wanted to (I don't and have a copper coil just in case).

Agree. The first of my friends to have a baby was 33. Late 30’s was the norm in our circle

It might be normal and not uncommon but it is far from optimal.

What??

Most of my friends (and me) had kids in our 40s. What's the big deal? Not everyone wants to have children when they're younger - they may want to be progressing up a career ladder, working until they have a 'cushion', go travelling, etc.

Had to be a wind up thread or someone who barely lives outside their own head.

A relative of mine gave birth at 49 - and she’s still here at 90

Of the children with special needs in my son's year, the parents are all around 20 years younger than me, including the woman with twins, one of which has ADHD and the other is NT. All diagnosed by NHS.

Goodness, grandparents i know who are working also help out , but they are younger than 70 obviously. Retirement age is coming up to 67 now but only 8 per cent of 67 year olds are working . Young working people I know are aware of retirement age and making provision in their private pensions to retire much earlier. There is unlikely to b a state pension...will b means tested...so I'm sure majority will rely on earlier private pensions kicking in. .so govt dictated retirement will b irrelevant

I was born when my mother was 32. I had no grandparents because they had remarried and had their children ( my parents) later. What you've never had, you never miss.

in london women have the first kid around 33 (oldest in the uk) and this is the median. so yep, unusual, specifically if its the first.

My cousin had hers at 17, and 42.
Sil had her second at 36.

I think demographically there’s massive variation in what age is considered the norm, or unusual, to have children.

In places where many people tend to stay in the same area after school, working from 18 onwards, having kids in a woman’s mid to late twenties may be the norm. And so a woman having children at 35 or older will seem a bit unusual.

Conversely, amongst women who were at university until their early or mid twenties, then moved around, possibly including overseas, 35 could well be the youngest age they’d even consider having children.

My friend who recently went to NCT classes in an area of Cambridge where lots of the parents were senior academics, was the ‘young mum’ in her late thirties. The rest of the mums were in their early forties. Though of course there could well be lots of other women who tried to get pregnant in their forties and were unable to. By definition we’re only aware of those who were successful.

A lot. More than ever in fact.

Personally I wouldn't make the automatic link though. Again, I appreciate my own personal experience is actually a very small sample of people in the grand scheme of things, but from my own experience I would attribute an undeniable rise in SEN to environmental factors (rise in technology, diet etc). Obviously there could be a link to parental age, but it's so hard to pinpoint it to one thing when so many things have changed in society in the last 20+ years. It's an interesting point though.

If retirement age is 70 you’d be working and not on a position to help anyway..

I thought that too at 32. I had to have IVF.

You also have to factor male fertility issues.

Still have very regularly periods (27-28 days) at 43.

Honestly, I really thought getting pregnant would be easy for me - regular cycles, healthy, fit, young, loads of kids in my family.

I was very wrong. You cannot presume anything.

People seem to forget that women historically kept having children until they stopped getting pregnant and delivering live babies!

It's so depressing to see so many handmaidens that seem to think they've won some kind of race by having children younger than others and using it as a cudgel to knick other women and their choices

Just to be clear - I'm not bashing the choice to have children younger, just those vocal and vitriolic about it.

Of course, fertility declines and that is a real issue, but it's not the only issue. Some people (women and men) are infertile or struggle with low fertility, whether they are 19, 29 or 39. That's just a fact of life!

There is always an element of nastiness in these debates that smacks if pure misogyny.

I can’t think of anything worse than having a baby late 30’s+

I do think it's an odd post - there are plenty of older mums these days due to a whole host of factors. I'm surprised that you're so shocked that you need to write a Mumsnet post about it.

However, I do think it's unusual/not the norm. It certainly isn't the optimal age to be conceiving and I do get a feeling that some women feel it is their god given right to get pregnant in their 40s should they wish and that it's not a problem. Unfortunately, women do have a biological time clock and it isn't especially healthy to put female anatomy through pregnancy after 40. But, alas, we life in a world that says we can have it all so perhaps the blame shouldn't be on the individual itself, but a society as a whole.

Yes..but it's not necessarily a good thing. Teenagers at 60 and beyond. Believe me that is not good!

My own midwife told me about a woman that got pregnant naturally at 52 and 54. Unusual but not impossible.

@BoleynMemories13 how many of the DC in your class have a diagnosis or are showing the possibility of a diagnosis of special needs, as that can be impacted by older parents?

No one is picking on you, just stating the obvious : having regular periods and being in excellent health does not conflate with fertility. How knows, you would probably have found it easier becoming pregnant seven stones heavier but crucially five or six younger. The most fertile women I've known were never the picture of health ; but they were all young when they started having babies - by young I mean 25 at the most. And yes sometimes a 48 or 49 year old woman will become pregnant fairly easily and naturally because guess what, nature is nothing if unpredictable. New scientific discoveries in terms of conception also seem to point out that what matters isn't so much the age or number of your eggs (though that number does fall sharply the older you get) but the age and health of your uterus. It isn't the fertilization that's the hardest to come by but rather the implantation ; in short it is easier to fall pregnant with a 40 years old egg in a 20 year old womb than the opposite

Having a regular cycle is the opposite of not having a regular cycle which would be indicative of an issue.

"Yes people are living longer...but that often does not include good health. I see it around me older grandparents who are just not fit to spend time with the young ones to any worthwhile degree."

Yes, this happened in my family. Only of us has had children and he was late 30s. Parents had health problems already in their late 60s/early 70s so have never been able to babysit.
When I think of my own memories of my great-grandparents, the input of people in their 80s and 90s into your life is completely different to that of people in their late 50s and early 60s.

Yes you are - I had DS at 44. Women are leaving it until later in life to have DC now and many have no trouble conceiving naturally.

Age of menopause is not really the most relevant thing. The average age of menopause is around 51, but births over 45 are rare.