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 :)

Grumpy if they were that invested in their health, why wait to become an older mum with all the risks that brings for themselves and the baby?

Giving birth past 40 doesn’t always incur extra risks. I had a hemorage but because of my conditions. Everyone I know who had babies in their 40s had really positive birth experiences. The fitter you are before and during pregnancy the better your outcomes will be.

Giving birth past 40 doesn’t always incur extra risks.

Grumpy you're doing it again. Focussing on statistics when it suits you (younger mums kids have worse outcomes, more likely to be poor etc) and rejecting them when they don't (not all 40 something mums have health problems in pregnancy, etc)

I assume you know how statistics and likelihoods work. Either accept their relevance or don't, but only using them when they suit you is a really poor argument.

[quote Shinebright72]@CherryPavlova most people don’t have the same energy minus a decade! Plus I have a child my priority’s have changed! That wasn’t the point though I think your not willing to face facts

Each to their own though![/quote]
Many twenty year olds are students and stay in bed until 2pm. Many are anything but energetic. What you quote as fact is opinion or personal perspective. Plenty of people in late twenties have equivalent energy and drive to twenty year olds. Often more.

My personal cut off was 37/38. Anything over 40 I would view as 'older' and over 45 as getting too old. It does depend on the individuals health, fitness, energy levels etc
I had mine at 32 and 34 and for me this was perfect. We tried for over a year for our first and at the time I felt like I was getting old! Looking back I can see it was relatively young.
I think 28-37 is the ideal window.

I'm 35; met my husband at 30 and got married at 34. I'd love to already have children but it hasn't worked out that way yet - I've had two miscarriages this year. I definitely don't think I'm too old and will carry on ttc until I have a baby. It's all very well saying it's better to have finished having children by 30, but for many people that's just not possible.

@Bookaholic73

It’s none of my business how old/young others are, but for me and my life, I had my kids in my early 20’s and that was perfect for me.

Im now 40 with a 16 and 20 year old, so I have so much more freedom!

Genuine question. More freedom than what?

@Wolfgirrl, if you read more of the study abstract you quoted, the picture is somewhat different.

We find that offspring born to mothers younger than age 25 or older than 35 have worse outcomes with respect to mortality, self-rated health, height, obesity, and the number of diagnosed conditions than those born to mothers aged 25–34. Controls for maternal education and age at which the child lost the mother eliminate the effect for advanced maternal age up to age 45. The association between young maternal age and negative offspring outcomes is robust to these controls.

I do t know if I'll have children, my plan is to have a child adopted or natural between 32-40 and will probably only have one

I think the cut off should be when you no longer can have them without help
I had my first at 19
2nd at 20
3rd at 28
4th at 35
5th at 37
When baby number 5 was born I knew I was done
Now at 42 I know that I couldn't have a newborn.
My 5 year old wears me out

I'm had DD aged 39. She delights in telling me that next year age 55 I can go in a retirement home and she'll only be 15. Happy with the age gap, but feel obliged to stay healthy and live longer for her.

@wolfgirrl *but we are not asking whether it is better to be born to a 40 something year old with squillions in the bank who desperately wants a child, or a reckless 18 year old who got pregnant by accident.

We are asking the 'optimal' age to have a child.*

That's moving the goalposts. The title of the thread is how old is TOO old? Is a 40 year old too old regardless of squillions in the bank? I say no. It doesn't matter if she could have had kids earlier and chose not to.

Also I think people are misunderstanding longevity statistics. Your life expectancy at birth and at age 20, 40 etc are not the same. Surviving your infant years increases your chance of making it post 80. For women aged 20 and women aged 40 their life expectancy is 83. You are no more likely to die earlier because you are 40 when you give birth. In absolute terms yes, but not relatively. You stand exactly the same chance of seeing your child to adulthood.

Check it here: www.riskprediction.org.uk/index_lifeexp.php

I think people that set a limit/cut-off age to have children are people that had children before they reached that age.

It's easy for a 30 year old with 2 kids to say they wouldn't have had children past 35. The reality of infertility is a lot different. You don't reach a certain age and a switch goes off and you stop trying. It's a process that takes time to come to terms with.

We had fertility problems and when we started ivf, we said we would give it 3 attempts and if it didn't work, we would give up. We had one incomplete cycle (which I didn't really count as one attempt) and then conceived on our second cycle. It's easy for me to say I would have stopped after the third try because we had a baby on our second try. If 3 cycles were unsuccessful, would we have left it at that? Thankfully we didn't have to think about it but it would have been very difficult.

[quote Cattenberg]@Wolfgirrl, if you read more of the study abstract you quoted, the picture is somewhat different.

We find that offspring born to mothers younger than age 25 or older than 35 have worse outcomes with respect to mortality, self-rated health, height, obesity, and the number of diagnosed conditions than those born to mothers aged 25–34. Controls for maternal education and age at which the child lost the mother eliminate the effect for advanced maternal age up to age 45. The association between young maternal age and negative offspring outcomes is robust to these controls.[/quote]
Exactly. Being very young as a mother tends to lead to worse outcomes. Not for all but statistically. Thats why there has been so much investment in reducing very young motherhood (up to age 20) through education, sexual health services, more accessible termination services and why there are specialist midwives for very young mothers.

Too much nastiness being directed towards women who may have wanted children for years and struggled to conceive.

Yes Cherry and if this thread had been titled 'What age is too young to have a baby?' You would find posters piling in to say that having a baby as a teenager (or under age 22 IMO) is very very very rarely ideal.

But this thread is about what is too OLD. You seem to be outraged that anyone thinks beyond a certain age is too old, yet firmly convinced that below a certain age leads to a life of misery for the child.

Most posters (like me) have agreed that ideal is somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s range, and 40s is too old to be 'optimal'. Nobody is saying if you're in your 40s you shouldn't have children under any circumstances, but it isnt OPTIMAL.

And most people given the choice would rather be born to parents in their late 20s than parents in their mid 40s.

It is exhausting trying to argue this point as you're one of those posters with a fundamentally flawed argument. By saying over a certain age is too old, we're not saying 'the younger the better'. We are saying the middle area is better for everyone as it balances all aspects.

@Wolfgirrl But again, the title of the thread is not 'what is the optimal age to have a baby?' It is 'how old is too old?'

I personally think mid-30s is optimal but not till mid-40s do I start to think too old.

It is a bit defunct saying 45 is too old as most women can't conceive then anyway. For most people the choice will be out of their hands at that point.

Mid 30s is okay, but I wouldn't because if you ran into issues your time would run out pretty quickly.

Plus it kind of breaks your life up into awkward chunks iyswim.

My mum has me at 42. She died last year aged 84. I've still got my dad who is compos mentis. I know lots of people that have lost one or both parents before 30. Many of them were not old. Who knows what hand life will pass to you. I don't think you should not have children because you might die in 30 years. One of my friends has ms. Should she not have had her children (which came after diagnosis) because she might end up in a wheelchair or die early?

My mum was a fantastic mum and my children preferred her as a granny to my much younger mil who is still working and naturally still focused on her own wellbeing.

I'm 42 and about to have my 5th child (a completely natural surprise).

My dad was 50 when he had me and he's 76 now, he's an amazing dad but I know I'll probably lose him younger than other people have but I know a few girls my age whose dad died in his 30s/40s so you never know really. 35 would be my personal oldest but I'm 25 and pregnant now and I only want one so 🤷‍♀️

@Wolfgirrl

It is exhausting trying to argue this point as you're one of those posters with a fundamentally flawed argument. By saying over a certain age is too old, we're not saying 'the younger the better'. We are saying the middle area is better for everyone as it balances all aspects.

No, the age that is right for each women is the best age. Many will choose an age you deem acceptable but others will choose older.

its the making people feel its wrong and some imagined disaster will befall their children that makes your posts so offensive to so many women. It's not an argument in anything other than a difference of opinion because you aren't considering, or aren't understanding, facts.

@willitbetonight it’s not about shouldn’t everybody had the choice to do what ever they please and I think it’s different if you have not met your partner till later on in life. However to deliberately have a child at 40+ is another matter being an older mother at 42 means you will have a teenager at 60! Let’s be realistic..... do you really want the stress and complications at 60 that may occur??? Because I know I would not.
Also MS is quite a bad condition I personally wouldn’t go on to have kids knowing I had MS I do think it’s selfish to a degree.

@Shinebright72 you might not. But don't push your age prejudice onto everyone else. I suspect I'm fitter than you and have a younger outlook just by your comments. What exactly are you planning on doing in your 60's - sitting in a chair?

@willitbetonight