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 have gone past 35 and that would be my upper limit.

The average life expectancy for a woman in this country is just under 83. I'm not sure why women in their late 30s to 40s should be assuming that they won't live to see their children to adulthood.

@viragoesque well, you don't have to, that's the whole point isnt it?

But if you did decide you wanted one, why wouldn't you aim to maximise your longevity in their life? Presumably you wouldn't criticise anyone for considering where they live or nearby schools before they have a child, how is this any different?

I mean within reason, I'm not encouraging anyone to have children in their teens. But I dont understand waiting till pushing 40 when you could have had them in your early thirties, for instance.

@Wolfgirrl Well, I didn't travel a whole lot in my 20s, couldn't afford it then. And who's to say the trade-off would happen. I might have given up a decade of enjoying my youth only to live to a ripe old age and not give any of my children any caring responsibilities. I can't understand giving up definite personal fulfilment in case of possible negative consequences which a) might never happen and b) I can mitigate with good financial planning. Just my view. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@CarterBeatsTheDevil because it isnt about the age you live to, it is about the type of relationship you have with your children.

If you have children at 40, by the time they are 40, your relationship with them will be that of carer and patient. You certainly wouldn't be able to run around after your grandchildren or help them out with much.

I’ve commented on some of the other threads. Personally I wouldn’t have a child after age 35, because I want to minimise the risk of more mcs and complications for me and the baby, be young and fit enough to be fully engaged with them throughout their childhoods, and see them and hopefully grandchildren grow up.

@lifesnotaspectatorsport yes I understand where you're coming from. But either way it is a gamble, and I would rather take the chance that is better for my daughter rather than myself.

I will be early 40s by the time she leaves home, I have lots of travelling plans up my sleeve for then! Also have a (realistic) plan to work in the States which has always been a dream of mine too.

My mum was 41 when she had me, I was 40 when she died. She was too old /infirm to enjoy her grandchildren by the time we got round to having them. She never met my youngest

That's really sad @Dhalandchips I'm sorry for your loss.

@dhalandchips I'm sorry for the loss of your mum. But if she died when you were 40 and never met your youngest, surely you yourself must have had your children on the later side?

43

@Wolfgirrl That's assuming your kids go on to have kids, that they need and want your help and that you live close enough to give it. All big assumptions. My MIL would love to see our kids every day but we live abroad. So in practical terms her help is minimal even though she had her son at 19 and is relatively youthful. Her other son has no kids. So while she would happily dedicate herself to the next generation it isn't going to pan out like that.

Of course @lifesnotaspectatorsport but if she chooses to have no kids and live in Australia (fine by me!) I will have lots of time for my career, pub, holidays etc. So a win-win really!

Yep, I always said I wouldn't, and then I did!

I'm currently having my last pregnancy in my late 30s and this is it for me. It has definitely been more tiring! Not impossible but more draining on my body.

However the above might not have applied/ I might have felt very differently if I'd only met my partner in my late 30s...

For me personally, 35 was the cut off. But I was influenced by my first pregnancy in my 20s having LOTS of complications so I didn't want to add my own age into the mix. Had four children between first at 29, last at 34.

@wolfgirrl Sorry, cross-posted with your last. I definitely agree it is a gamble but I think there are so many variables it's well worth taking. You only get one life. Glad to hear you're planning great things for your 40s though! We are just about to move countries again with 3 under 4; it'll be an adventure for sure but you might have more fun this time

My gynaecologist, always said It was better to have the first one before 30 and the last one before 40.

I know a lot of people would disagree with that but I suppose that his conclusion was based on dealing with hundreds of cases during his long career.

Obviously, you can have one after 60 if you wish and have the money, but I guess that whether you are getting pregnant in your teens or in your 60s you also need to consider your health as well as your wants or ability to raise the kid successfully all the way to independence.

@Wolfgirrl Honestly that's a really weird way of looking at it. I don't even know if my child will want her own children. I
Neither of my parents were able to give us childcare support because my dad died 20 years ago and my mum is wheelchair bound. Loads of able bodied relatively youthful grandparents don't do childcare because they don't want to or are still working themselves (and remember that the pensionable age isn't going to be anything like 65 in 40 years' time at the rate we're going and so we will probably still be working anyway).

@lifesnotaspectatorsport good luck!🍀

@Wolfgirrl Thanks!! I think we'll need it this time 😂 My eldest is very excited though.

If you have children at 40, by the time they are 40, your relationship with them will be that of carer and patient. You certainly wouldn't be able to run around after your grandchildren or help them out with much.*

This isn't a good reason not to have children at 40. (There are others!) Life is too uncertain. My parents had me in their 20s and my father died many years ago and I'm now caring for my mum, still in her 60s. Most of my friends have parents older than mine (some into their 80s) and I always feel it's a bit unfair that they're hale and hearty. I'm the one who doesn't get much help. All the old grandparents are at the nursery gates!

But it's OK. At least my children cheer me up and connect me back to life again. If I were doing this after they'd left home or even when they were teenagers I think it would be, selfishly for me, much more ageing and depressing.

There is some research to say that women who have children in their 40s live longer than average (probably the causation runs the other way round, and they're ageing slowly). And some people who have their children early lead pretty feckless lives, especially when all the children have left home.

@CarterBeatsTheDevil That's a really good point actually. If you have your kids at 30, say, and they have theirs at 30, chances are you will still be working full time during the baby years.

@CarterBeatsTheDevil

But you're talking like having children is an awful life-stopper so why do it sooner than you have to, which I find a really weird way of looking at it.

Like I said, even if she doesnt want children and wants to live abroad, it's a win-win for me because then I will have time to travel and do what I want to do.

But if you are retired you'll likely be 70ish in future, so not able to help much with the baby/toddler years anyway, even on weekends/evenings etc