What age do you think is too old to have a baby?

[BabyLlamaZen]

I've seen a few threads related to this. What would you say is the cut off age for a woman specifically to be pregnant and have a baby? Or is there no cut of age - is it ok to have children in your 60s if medical advancement allows it?

This is such a tricky thing. I personally feel 45 maximum for actively trying, including medical help to do this.

My reasons I suppose are personal. Best friend was a surprise baby (parents aged 40 and 42). Reasonably healthy people but both no longer around. I know this is also unlucky that they both got cancer in their 70s, but also really not that strange. She's 30 and luckily had her children in her 20s so they got to meet them. She was so so worried about them being around for them, so it's it's that she almost knew. (She was also lucky meeting her husband early!)

My parents were mid 30s but I also lost one. Again, I know this can happen at any age, but it defintely increases chances as you get older. It was so painful to my siblings and I. I could never say to my remaining parent, but it's one of the reasons I had my son at 29.

I get that it's difficult having children young in current climates with finding a decent relationship, having a good job and the whole unaffordability of housing, but that's why people are having them mid 30s. Not mid 40s!

However, I know this may sound very unfair to those who have for whatever reason not been able to have children earlier. So really interested to see different views :)

I wouldn’t want to go beyond 36 (when I had my last).

Wolfgirl that is very unusual fertility.

All your five cousins had first children naturally and easily over 45, and then had second babies at what 47/48. Those who had a third must have been around fifty.

There is only a 1% chance of conceiving naturally at that age.

I think these ladies should volunteer for some medical studies - their experience is incredibly unusual.

I'm 43 and could easily handle a new born or a toddler now. The thought of raising a teenager in my sixties, no way.
Pregnancy I wouldn't cope with though.

I know plenty of women who had babies in their forties who are excellent mothers

There’s some good young parents

That’s so strange because I know PLENTY of women who had their babies younger who are excellent mothers. I mean there are SOME good older parents.

See how judgemental and bitchy that sounds?

@CherryPavlova

My sister had her last by accident at 43 with no complications but for me i hope I have had my last by 35.

Had mine at 22 and 25, wanted to be done with children by the time I was 30. I definitely opted for have them earlier in life

I had mine at 33&35. I think if I’d struggled I would’ve continued until I was successful tbh, but I think about 43 would be the maximum.
My parents had me at 36 and 45, I lost my dad when I was 30.

@LuckyAmy1986

I know plenty of women who had babies in their forties who are excellent mothers

There’s some good young parents

That’s so strange because I know PLENTY of women who had their babies younger who are excellent mothers. I mean there are SOME good older parents.

See how judgemental and bitchy that sounds?

@CherryPavlova

Yes judgement based on fact but not bitchy. Outcomes for children of very young mothers are far worse.
Depends if you want what’s best for children or not.

The whole bit about lots of teenagers being left with caring responsibility for sixty year olds is just nonsense. Inaccurate myth.

I was 34 two weeks after 1st was born.

I didn't meet DH until I was 31 so it's just taken me a bit longer I guess! DC is now one and I'm 35 in a couple of days.

I wanted to have children with someone I loved and we had planned for DC.

Personally I want to try for another when I'm coming up to 36 & that'll be it for me.

I didn't want to give birth at 40.

My cut off for trying was 9m before my 40th birthday.

Ok you’ve now changed it to very young rather than just young. How young are we talking? Are we also talking very old while were at it? Because that also changes things?

Wolfgirl that is very unusual fertility.

All your five cousins had first children naturally and easily over 45, and then had second babies at what 47/48. Those who had a third must have been around fifty.

There is only a 1% chance of conceiving naturally at that age.

I think these ladies should volunteer for some medical studies - their experience is incredibly unusual.

I don't know about Wolfgirl's family but I do know that our statistics on fertility are pretty poor and are based on a mix of very old historic data (European) and modern infertility studies (i.e. work done on women with fertility problems) so probably not representative of normal fertility. We do know the onset of menstruation is drifting ever younger in Western society but don't have good data on the other end of fertility because women now have the ability to stop having children when their family is complete. We also don't have a lot of data on the impact of ethnicity although there's some evidence that e.g. Indian women are fertile for longer than European women.

We also don't have a lot of data on the impact of ethnicity although there's some evidence that e.g. Indian women are fertile for longer than European women.

Yes I am Indian and Wolfgirl was perhaps referring to my family. I have a large family and normally we marry young but I have female cousins who married 40-45 and have 5 who not only got pregnant straight away at 45 (first time) they had more than one child. It’s not really that unusual. Even in India fertility clinics often ask women under 50 to ttc naturally for a period first and use their own eggs - something that doesn’t happen in the UK. But I give up on this thread. It is utter bullshit.

Doesn’t fertility fall off a cliff at 37 or is that rubbish? if it’s true then 37 is my answer

I stopped feeling broody at about 40. Never thought it would happen, but it did.

Now, at 46, there is no way I would want another baby or child. Just absolutely not.

Never thought I’d feel this way. Nature is a funny thing.

LuckyAmy1986 It does indeed. There are a handful of women in mid to later sixties who’ve birthed following IVF using donor eggs. I can’t begin to imagine how uncomfortable birthing would be for a body of that age nor how tired you’d be. Their choice though and clearly much wanted babies who will be cherished.

How young is too young? Another interesting question. I think every baby should be planned for and wanted. It’s incredible how on MN there are so many ‘accidental’ pregnancies given the effectiveness and availability of contraception.
I believe you should be an adult, in a stable relationship, with sufficient financial resources to meet the child’s needs. I’d think few under 25s were sufficiently mature or knew themselves well enough to provide the best start for children. Let them have fun and grow up fully and understand the complexities of the adult world themselves first.

It won’t be a popular view but I do think multiple babies under 25 usually dooms children to an upbringing in poverty and with all the disadvantages that brings.
There will be the odd anecdote of a nineteen year old who had three children whilst gaining a degree from Durham and now they are in primary schools, living in a five bedroom detached house with a six figure income. That isn’t the norm though.

Topics like this really make me wish my nana was still alive and I could talk to her about her experiences of motherhood; she had her first at 21 and her last at 43 and I would love to hear from her the differences she experienced wrt pregnancy and birth and so on. And child rearing- I bet the advice given in 1944 was so different to that given in 1966, everything must have changed so much.

Another factor I considered was my friends at school who had old parents. They were teased and they were embarrassed. They also didn’t fit in as well, you could always tell which kids had old parents.

I’m mixed race and have a mixture of Christian and Muslim relations who only use NFP methods or leave everything to God’s will. Almost every matriarch from decades ago to now in my family who hasn’t either used contraception or had a hysterectomy has conceived in their forties. My oldest sibling is 20 years older than me for example. Both grandmothers had children in their 20s, 30s and 40s. Same for their parents and grandparents. Friends from a similar cultural background have up to 14 siblings (minimum of 8) again spread over decades. Whilst fertility certainly declines in the 40s it’s not so very unusual to have children in the 40s and hasn’t been for centuries. Sadly miscarriages in the 40s are common and I know lots of women who conceived easily but experienced multiple miscarriages. Coincidentally, diabetes aside, we’ve no genetic illnesses or children born with chromosomal problems. My one sibling with a disability from birth is over a decade older, born when my mother was “at her peak” in terms of fertility and health. My grandmother’s oldest child, born when she was in her mid-20s died of cancer as a young man when his children were small. She lived till her mid90s.

We shouldn’t perpetuate a myth that pregnancy over 40 automatically a) won’t happen b) will result in a disabled child c) will leave the child as carers or orphaned.

The odds increase but they aren’t certain.

And if we are going to go after women post-40 gung-ho...why should older fathers get off Scot free? Increased risks genetically with older fathers too.

Was 39 when I had DS. In an ideal world I'd have had him at 35/36 but things don't always work out that way. Definitely wouldn't want to do it any later than that.

Yes, we tend to think of post-40 pregnancy as a modern phenomenon but my mother once worked out that all her friends’ mothers had had their last baby in their 40s. Difference is these babies were surprises rather than planned pregnancies. My own grandmother had her first child at 20 and her last at 44!!! No contraception so this is just what God sent her - her words.

And if we are going to go after women post-40 gung-ho...why should older fathers get off Scot free? Increased risks genetically with older fathers too.

We are not 'going after' them, the topic is about the age that is too old to have a baby. Your 40s is generally your last fertile decade so naturally this age bracket will crop up a lot. And even then your fertility rapidly declines in that decade - how many 41yo new mums do you get vs 48yo new mums?

As for the dads, yes, but they do not carry or give birth to the babies, and in most cases they don't do the same amount of baby/child care. While we would like it to be the same, it just isnt.

I had 4 kids in my 20s and am not having any more. I think if I had got to the age I am now (32) without having children, I would perhaps have tried for one child. I don't think I would have any kids after the age of 38, whether I had any or not.

@NameChange84

I’m mixed race and have a mixture of Christian and Muslim relations who only use NFP methods or leave everything to God’s will. Almost every matriarch from decades ago to now in my family who hasn’t either used contraception or had a hysterectomy has conceived in their forties. My oldest sibling is 20 years older than me for example. Both grandmothers had children in their 20s, 30s and 40s. Same for their parents and grandparents. Friends from a similar cultural background have up to 14 siblings (minimum of 8) again spread over decades. Whilst fertility certainly declines in the 40s it’s not so very unusual to have children in the 40s and hasn’t been for centuries. Sadly miscarriages in the 40s are common and I know lots of women who conceived easily but experienced multiple miscarriages. Coincidentally, diabetes aside, we’ve no genetic illnesses or children born with chromosomal problems. My one sibling with a disability from birth is over a decade older, born when my mother was “at her peak” in terms of fertility and health. My grandmother’s oldest child, born when she was in her mid-20s died of cancer as a young man when his children were small. She lived till her mid90s.

We shouldn’t perpetuate a myth that pregnancy over 40 automatically a) won’t happen b) will result in a disabled child c) will leave the child as carers or orphaned.

The odds increase but they aren’t certain.

And if we are going to go after women post-40 gung-ho...why should older fathers get off Scot free? Increased risks genetically with older fathers too.

Fathers get off Scott free because that’s the way they were created. Most of the time a mans world is different as he will usually work full time and it’s usually the mother that juggles the main bulk of parenting along side work. Also let’s be honest it’s a mans world A woman can up and leave her kids if she wanted to but this isn’t too common it’s usually the man who does this! I’m quite glad as a woman fertility will decrease why would you want to be able to get pregnant past 50+

It's so personal isn't it? My personal cut off was 30 , had dcs at 26 and 27 . Not sure what I would've done if I struggled to conceive because I had some fairly horrific health problems in early thirties which has definitely put me off going back to hospital for anything that isn't absolutely necessary.