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 :)

Haha @virago you'd be surprised

@Viragoesque I just said it. You know what i mean.

@NellyDean21 - again I’m of Indian origin so might not be representative. Everyone I know outside my family has lost a parent before they turned 30 and in all these cases without exception the deaths seem to have focussed the individual to fight for what they want. It is traumatic but generally younger people do receive more support. In every single case the parents were younger though - 50s-60s. The people I know with older parents (eg 40+) still have them around as they tend to be wealthier and healthier.

The people I know who aren’t Indian

Likewise anyone I know who has had a parental death in 30s has been completely messed up by it.

We all bring our own experiences to bear upon these decisions. I was 44 before I was ever to be in a position to have a baby. Partner was 48.

We could have gone for it, both well paid etc. I thought deeply about it but could not risk having a baby just for my desire when the chances of parental death and care was so high.
I had one parent die at 21 and a partner die at 34, both experiences put me in hell for about 4 years each time. And I'm Irush, death is not a taboo. Also when one parent dies the other is also going through their personal grief so unavailable too.

It's a personal choice but that's what the OP asked.

Hello everyone - we've had a few reports in about this thread that some posts are unpleasant about older mothers. Can we ask that you bear in mind our Talk Guidelines and remember that there are real people behind the user names?

Thanks.

Late 40s probably. My own cut off is my current age (40) but that's in relation to the age of my DC (4 and 14).

@Nellydean21 I'd like the opinion of someone who had to care for a parent or had a parent die when under 25 AND then had a child mid 40s to give their viewpoint.

Ok, I almost qualify as I've had a baby at 40. My parents were 37 and 54 when I was born. I lost one of them at 20. No, it was not the one you would expect. Yes, I was devastated but I had a fantastic support network at university, I buckled down and I carried on with my life as she would have wanted. In fact, it made me determined to live my life to the fullest because you never know what could happen. My father died in my mid 30s after being in a care home for some years. We were not close and while of course I was sad and shaken when he died, he wasn't a big part of my life then. Having had my children later (to the disapproval of some posters) I have actually avoided having caring responsibilities for both kids and parents at the same time. That wasn't a factor in my decisions at all but that's how it worked out.

I'm sad my mother never got to meet her grandkids but she died when I was barely an adult. Maybe if she'd lived I might have had a different view on things. Probably not. It hasn't affected my choice on when to have kids. My chance of living to 100 is only about 6% less than someone 20 years younger. Life is full of uncertainty and I know that as well as anyone. I will give my kids the best start in life that I can, I will love them and support them and challenge them. Then they have their own lives to lead as adults and their own choices to make.

What?! This thread got reported? What on earth for?

@nellydean21 I just read your last post and I'm sorry for your losses. Of course I can understand how they've affected your viewpoint.

Perhaps you can see from mine though that not everyone's experience of loss is the same. As a child of older parents I wouldn't wish myself not to have lived just so I wouldn't experience bereavement. Death is a part of life. My grief was a tribute to the woman I loved, it changed me and it scarred me but in the end it made me stronger.

NellyDean

It is a massive luxury, in the history of humankind, that most of us still have our parents in our 30s and beyond. Because we live so much longer these days.

And you know what? All the 50 year olds and 60 year olds I know who are losing parents are deep in grief and upset too. You don’t suddenly find that you cast off love for your parents behind your 30s.

I am 62. I have parents of 89 and 90, living in their own home. I have a teen about to go off to Uni. We are all fit active and happy. Frankly I wish my parents had been older when they had me because given that many people in our family live to be 95 I am going to be feeling quite old by the time I have to deal with any needs they might have.

I think it will be helpful to my Dc, too, to receive any inheritance from me before they reach retirement age.

You are being very set in your presumptions. There is more than one way to live a good life.

Wolfgirl I’m guessing you don’t live in London.
Re house prices.

Look: the stats about fertility falling off a cliff at 35 have long been proven to be inaccurate and outdated. Most mothers choose to have kids before 40, but many that choose or need to wait find that they conceive easily. You seem very rigid in your viewpoint, prejudicial and judgmental of older mothers.

@comeby yes but by then there are usually grandchildren to help out as well. So no one person has a large burden of care.

Most people in my family have children in their 20s. As a result my grandma is in her 70s, has 5 kids, 14 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren. God forbid if anything happened and she needed care, there are lots of us that can pitch in.

@ComeBy when did I say it fell off a cliff at 35? I wish people would stop paraphrasing. I said at 45 the odds of conceiving (and not miscarrying) a healthy child are greatly reduced.

I know Londoners have a really hard time grasping this, but some people do not live in london.

I know Londoners have a really hard time grasping this, but some people do not live in london.

Oh, the irony.

@Wolfgrrl, I know you have a hard time grasping this, but some people do not share your monomaniacal desire to demonise women who choose to delay having children to 'get the best of both worlds' as you put it with such ill-concealed bitterness.

Even if I was bitter, that's not an argument, is it? I've given my opinion, you didnt like it, so you're going down the name calling line.

60+

I've merely pointed out that your opinions appear to arise out of a dislike of other people doing things in the way that best suits them, @Wolfgrrl. And I have never, for instance, condescended to young mothers to the extent that I felt I needed to tell them that having a child is not like getting an extension or a dog. it's a 'real commitment'.

I never said there my opinion was the only way. Why are people being so defensive. And yes I am very aware that losing a parent at any age is horrific. But IN MY OPINION it is harder when young
And it is a FACT that the older you are the more likely you are to get I'll or die. My item granny luvrd to be 100 but that's the exception. Because I experienced deaths young it is IN MY OPINION selfish to purposely have a child after 46. I never asked anyone else to think it act like me.

The defence of people who chose another way is very strong? I puked never ever say this to my three friends who had their first child at 48 ( IVF) because none of them have experienced parental death or illness. My point still stands, has anyone who has had a parental death when a young adult, had their first child 47plus. Because rxieriencing that FOR ME meant I could never inflict that possibility on another human.

Sorry some of you see this as some sort of attack. I'm answering the OPs question.

Life thanks for sharing your experiences. We are all so different. However I think 40 is not the age group I was commenting on. I think that's young!

What Nelly said.

I have not called anyone names, been personal, or said anything that could remotely be described as 'nasty'. The thread is about what age in our OPINION (yes, I'm still allowed one of those) is too old to have a baby.

I have said time and time again - 40s if you COULD have had them before. If not, that is understandable.

The fact I got reported for that opinion is frankly laughable.

I think MN is an older mum crowd on the whole so I understand the backlash, but it doesn't change fact.

DD was born when my fiance was 43 (first child), so I'm not against older parents, but I think the full picture needs to be taken into account rather than just popping your first baby out at 40 to scratch the maternal itch.

Probably early 40s but it just depends on so many things.
In hindsight I'd have had mine a bit sooner ideally but circumstances weren't right.

Anecdotes are just that - stories. Of course there are young people who are devastated by the loss of a parent too soon - although they would have had to be very young deaths even if the parents had been 45 when they had them.
Many world leaders are well past the 60 mark and hardly on their last legs. It's pretty daft to make the summation that because one person suffered when a parent died at a much younger age than the norm for the developed world, that anyone who is selfish enough to have a child past 30 is going to also die and leave bereft teenagers. Clearly that isn't the case.
If we are talking anecdotes, most of my friends are in their 50s. Most have some caring or oversight of older parents still. Many of those octogenarian and nonagenarian parents continue to support the family and provide their children and grandchildren with huge advantages from a shoulder to cry on, free homegrown veg and homemade cakes and dress alterations to financial support and housesitting,
Its very ageist to assume that once past sixty, life is virtually over.
Most people do not end up in care homes as spouted earlier. Most live independently until a very good age without the controlling infantilisation by their offspring.

Would I rather have better life chances overall and a greater likelihood of growing up with two parents who remained together = or risk a parent dying in their sixties? No contest especially as the mortality figures by age show that there is statistically little difference between a 35 year old and a 60 year old who is generally healthy (that is with no congenital life limiting condition). Mortality rises significantly from 70 onwards but those most likely to die even then are the very ones who have been born to very young mothers and grown up in poverty. No, that is not saying all children born to very young mothers live forever in poverty, but the majority sadly do.

@Nellydean21 I think it's valid for the wider discussion as many people appear to think 40 is pretty selfish of me! Also you said you were 44 when you decided you were too old for a baby - that is really not much older than me. I would certainly consider a child at 44 if I hadn't already got 3. Despite losing both my parents by the time I was 35.