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 :)

[quote Shinebright72]@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.[/quote]
Well if you’re 42 when you have a baby they’ll be an adult by the time you’re sixty. Sounds a bit different doesn’t it?
Sixty really isn’t very old. Most people work well past sixty. Many world leaders are past sixty. Lots and lots of people have late teen/early adult children at sixty. It’s not a big deal.
Sixty year olds run marathons, swim the channel and climb Kilimanjaro. Very few are sitting in comfy chairs crocheting all day.

@Wolfgirrl

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.

The latest data says the risk of autism and other disorders increases with older sperm (over 40) but women never criticise men for having babies late, just women. Even though fewer babies with genetic problems are born to the over 40s than any other age group.

Even though fewer babies with genetic problems are born to the over 40s than any other age group.

Yes because the over 40s have fewer babies than combined younger age groups. It isnt rocket science is it?

As for your other point, NHS website states:

First-born children to mothers aged 35 years and over who also had fathers aged 40 years and over were at the greatest risk of autism (triple the likelihood). This was compared with children who were third or more in order of birth to younger parents (mother aged 20-34 years and father younger than 40 years). In separate analyses, there were generally “modest” links between autism and other parental age groups and other birth orders, ranging from 1.4 times as likely to 2.3 times.

* Also I am a fit and active mother I usually attend a gym, I have worked throughout the pandemic on the front line and I have knowledge of various conditions and I have witnessed and looked after personally and I have seen the outcome and it’s not how your dressing MS to be (you probably haven’t cared for anybody with such condition ).*

This is probably off-topic but MS / RA / Lupus are complex diseases and by the time it gets to the point where one needs hospital treatment it is likely to be very serious. However newly diagnosed patients tend to have a normal life expectancy now due to how good the treatments are nowadays.

@Wolfgirrl - that article is from 2008. There is a more recent one below.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190513081409.htm

Grumpy that just repeats what my link said but only focuses on the dads.

It is very personal but for me 40 was my cut off for having a second one (which sadly never happened). Hate to say it and will probably get a roasting but l think it is slightly different for a man, my DH was 45 when dd was born but he is young at heart so not an old dad if that makes sense. My dad was 40 when l was born but he was very strict and old fashioned.

I'm going to say 45. I never wanted a baby in my early 20's I had my 1st DC at 33 and my 2nd DC at 43. The 33 baby was fine the second 43 baby was utterly exhausting. It's now I realise in your 20's is the right time to have a baby

Something to consider. If you are pre menopausal then you might not be able to imagine the shut down of maternal energy. Not love. Obviously. But approaching 50 with a 13 year old and a 16 yr old, i felt weary at the yearrrrrs of parenting still left ahead of mr tbh.
I guess this is because ordinarily women's youngest children would be independent by the time they are 50. Not now. Not when women are still having their first at 40 these days. Nothing wrong with that. But i felt a very strong drive to be free in the run up to 50.
Like a mindset shift and a horminal shift. Im very old for a young woman but im very young for an old woman and i should be free to enjoy that, but im not

@KetoWinnie but that makes no sense, because biologically women are designed to keep having children in their 40s? Many of our ancestors would have started having children earlier than the average woman today, but carried on until the menopause.

Yes was going to say 'menopause'....

Babies are so tiring when you are older. Even my granddaughter staying in my house with dd, her mum, is tiring for me.

Of course I have to do a little more housework and some baby holding or walking but I honestly find it exhausting.....

55