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 :)

Personally, I think the question should be 'How old is too old to be a parent to a teenager'. Our DDs were born when we were relatively young (late 20s). Means we will be parenting teenagers in our 40s. Having children in your 40s means parenting teenagers in your 60s. Looking at my PILs and parents in their 60s now, I'm not sure they will have the energy for that (in fact my PILs have more if a parenting relationship with their eldest DGD and they do find it exhausting).

I would say mid thirties cut off for babies (both parents) to allow the energy for the teenagers.

Agree that you should consider what it's like when they're teenagers; if you're pushing 60 yourself, that's way too old imo.

I had mine at 29 and 31 and that felt about right. I personally wouldn't have had any more past 35.

DH and I are both 30 and we don’t want kids. We’ve agreed that it’s open for discussion until we’re 36 and if we haven’t changed our minds by then, it’s off the table.

That seems to be a really sensible approach amusedbush. But if you both decide at 36 you want children then have difficulty conceiving. Then it would be a problem.

@Viviennemary

This is a good point. However, we vehemently don’t want kids right now, I’ve never wanted them ever so I don’t think much will change in the next few years!

@Aroundtheworldin80moves I agree 100%.

My DP is in his 40s and I'm in my late 20s. There is no way I would have agreed to a baby if I was in my 40s as well. He's a super fit triathlete type but I anticipate having to care for him when he gets a lot older. I'm happy to do it as being with him was my choice, but I wouldn't want to inflict it upon my daughter, especially if she had to care for the both of us.

I’m ttc my 3rd (and final) baby at 33, nearly 34 years old. I found my last pregnancy harder than my first and my energy levels are much lower than in my twenties so I wouldn’t want to be older than 35 having my final baby. That’s just me personally though I wouldn’t make any negative judgements on anyone having a baby in their 40s.

I think as long as mother nature allows conception in a woman's 40s then that's fine and normal. It gets trickier when IVF is involved past the age of 50 - I don't personally think it's fair on the child, but then I've had 8 rounds of IVF myself (I'm 35) and understand how awful it is to long for a baby you might never have. So I would judge the doctor/clinic for allowing a woman over 50 to have treatment far more harshly than the woman herself (who would also be in the wrong).

I had caring responsibilities for my disabled mother from my mid 20s onwards, after my dad died when I was 22 and he was 55. Sometimes things were hard or sad but they are for everyone at some point. There's no insurance against losing a parent young or avoiding caring for parents and young children at the same time. I certainly wouldn't have preferred not to be here at all.

I always thought 35. Now u am 35, I think 40. I wonder if I'll change my mind again when I'm 40?

That's just for me personally. A lot of my friends have had children (including first/only children) in their early 40s and don't seem noticeably more knackered than me! I guess in general maybe 45?

I had my first at 30 and my youngest at 35 and I definitely found it physically tougher at 35

I think generally speaking it would be sensible to plan to finish having children by 36, if only to reduce the rate of chromosomal abnormalities and disabilities. I can’t get too worked up about people who don’t manage it though, there are lots of sensible reasons people don’t conceive before then.
Anyone who has naturally passed the menopause at the usual sort of age should not be having IVF though. Too much risk of the child becoming a career in their 20’s or 30’s when they should be establishing their own life.

Yes it is heartbreaking to see the number of women in their 40s trying to conceive a first baby on MN, but also slightly baffling that they seem surprised/shocked.

Under 40 would be the cut off for me. I had mine at 35 and 37 after lots of IVF (starting trying at age 30). I'll be 40 next year and recently toyed with the idea of a third child but can't grasp the thought of being nearly 60 when that child would graduate secondary school.

For me, over 30 would have been too old. The reason being a history of early menopause in my family. I had mine at 26 and 28. But DH is older than me so was 45 and 47. He absolutely didn't want any after 50.

It's a personal decision.

I’m 34 and losing weight so I can have one in a year or two I don’t want to be older than 40. It will be my one and only.

@shinebright72 I appreciate that a baby is a shock to your life

Ignore that, my baby boy just pressed 'post'! lol

@shinebright72 I appreciate a baby is a shock at any age. What I meant by being horrified at the thought at 28 is that family life/motherhood was not remotely what I wanted then. I spent the decade from 28-37 building my career, going out, sleeping in, lazy weekends away with partner, friends, foreign travel, learning languages. A baby would have been a huge tie that I frankly think I would have resented. In my 40s I'm more settled, I've achieved so much of what I wanted to do, I'm happy to be at home more. And I'd really rather be doing the school run in my 50s than my 30s!

@wolfgirrl I don't worry about that, no. For one thing, there's no guarantee they will need to care for us. We might drop dead sooner/ be healthy for longer. We will make financial provision in case we need a nursing home. We certainly don't assume it will be their job to sort it. I doubt they'll be living down the road. We haven't lived closer than 5 hours from our parents since we were early 20s.

After the menopause (assuming an average menopause age, not an early menopause).

Errr about 7 years ago for me so 32 :). Def don't need another one!

@Aroundtheworldin80moves Having children in your 40s means parenting teenagers in your 60s.

A child born at 40/41 will be an adult before you turn 60. Retirement age is 65 minimum now - to have a teenager then you will be giving birth at 47, pretty unlikely.

I do agree that nature's own cut-off of 45ish is a sensible one for the vast majority of people/ circumstances. But 35?!?! Or even 40? Nope, don't get that at all.

I used to think 36/37ish.
But fast changing my mind as I've been trying since I was 33 and am fast approaching 36 and in the middle
Of my first IVF!

I’m 43 and I’d still consider it except it’s not right for our family. My nana is 101 though so I feel young.

@lifesnotaspectatorsport of course anyone could drop dead/be hit by a bus, but as they're relatively unlikely I just wouldn't live assuming that was going to happen to me.

I totally understand wanting 10 years to travel etc first, but I don't think anyone needs 20 years of it at the expense of their future child if you see what i mean.

I totally understand wanting 10 years to travel etc first, but I don't think anyone needs 20 years of it at the expense of their future child if you see what i mean.

I find it a lot more difficult to understand why someone would have a child ten years before they wanted to have one purely out of some arbitrary sense of duty to maximise their longevity in the life of someone who does not exist yet.