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 :)

@hopsalong of course, that's why I said where people have the choice (e.g. have been in a position to have a baby for years but wait until the very last moment).

I don’t get people justifying having kids in their 40s by saying but you could have your kids young and still die at 50.

Yep and you could have your kids at 40 and also die at 50 and that would be even worse!

Hopsalong - you’re caring for your mum who is in her 60s...imagine if she’d had you at 45. What a burden for a teenager/20 something.

The older you are, the more likely it is that you will die/need care when your kids are young. It’s simple.

I had my first aged 30 and last at 36 . I can honestly say it was so much more tiring with the last . That 6 year difference was really noticeable stamina wise !

I’d say in an ideal world as close to 35 as possible as obviously risks increase and I personally wouldn’t want to have been any older than that but I think it depends entirely on the person and circumstances. Lots of people aren’t settled by then and haven’t even necessarily met a partner.

My cut off to have the last child is 34.

@Wolfgirrl But if you are retired you'll likely be 70ish in future, so not able to help much with the baby/toddler years anyway

Might as well have fun then!! I take your point about the attitude towards kids. However it is surely a fact that you will have less money, travel less, go out in the evening less when you have young kids. Fine if you don't want to spend your 30s doing those things but I did.

For me - 30. I am not doing a primary school run in my 40s

@lifesnotaspectatorsport 🤷‍♀️ it would be the same for your 40s though wouldn't it? But you would know what you were missing. Whereas I've got a lot to discover which I find exciting.

I started trying at 25. I am now 38 and we have stopped. I already have less energy and have since been diagnosed with a chronic condition that leaves me bedridden when it flares.

Having said that re grandparents, my FIL died at 40 himself. My father won't be around much longer and my.mum has a lot of health issues. I can't see any of them having grandkids around much even if we had managed to conceive.

I think it is a personal decision but I do think older parents have a responsibility to make arrangements for children in their teens or very early adulthood who could lose their parents, not be able to afford a house or to rent. That could be saving for them or ensuring wills were in place.

Idk DP parents had him at 40, mine had me at 30. His parents have been able to help him out financially A LOT more than mine have because they're were already earning a fuck tonne by the time he was born

@HarrietM87 it's the only argument on MN where statistical probability is dismissed in favour of hoping to be the outlier 🤷‍♀️

38 would be my cut off

It’s funny because I had my babies at 28 and 31 and boy was I verbally attacked by female friends saying how young I was to have babies. It was hurtful and ridiculous. I was married With a job and house

Im 34 and pregnant with my first. I said to my DH before we were engaged that i would like to have a baby before i was 35. If we have another in the future it would be around 37. I feel i am in a better position now to start having children than when i was in my 20's

lissie really? Where I am 31 is considered old!

Most people here have their first at 21-23.

For me, personally, I was done at 26. Not once had a flicker of desire for another since and quite happy with the idea that my kids will all be adults when I'm 45. I already feel like I'm getting another part of life to try something new for me beyond the kids and my youngest isn't yet at secondary.

I have at times thought it might have been better in some ways if I'd had mine later, but like with anything there would also be many things worse. Sadly, having them young hasn't meant having active extended family - my oldest wasn't even a teen when his uncle died and we've since lost all their grandparents. That wasn't really part of my thinking when I had them, but I'm glad things happened as they have. I'm comfortably in my thirties and very happy to have the baby and toddler times behind me. I would most definitely not have a kid at 60.

Generally, I think discussing the risk factors on a spectrum would be better than just if one is fertile or not or a good/bad binary with a cut off. I mean, even though significantly older fathers are possible, there is strong evidence of their children having a higher rate of health problems and few men really do that. I think most people, when given information, will balance the benefits and risks for themselves with a few outliers, much as we already have. I'm not sure how well that information is presented - I've seen a lot of 'the younger the better' things when all the research I've seen says under 20s have a much higher risk of issues for mother and child than those over 35.

I think most people think the way they did it was the best way to do it. So those who had their children young think 40 is far too old to have a child, those of us who had children late think being a grandparent in your 40s or 50s is a horrendous prospect.

I had my children in my late 30s and early 40s. I am glad I had my 20s and 30s to enjoy being young, complete my education (did a PhD so took longer than average), work hard establishing my career with no competing responsibilities and build a strong foundation in my relationship with DH. It's much better for the environment to delay parenthood and I think my greater life experience helps me be a decent parent. Plus as older parents with a good careers we are financially comfortable so we can afford a good sized house and good quality childcare.

I had DD at 26, personally I’d like to be done before I’m 30 with DC2. As I want to enjoy my 30’s with my children not stuck in the baby/ toddler stage. I figured if I had her younger I get to spend more time with her and potentially grandchildren.

I think it’s best to plan ahead and not leave it so long that you will have fertility issues, but obviously life doesn’t always work like that.

My cousin will have teenagers in her late 60s and college age kids in her 70s (so potentially still financially dependent on her). I think it is fine to have babies in your 40s because babies are reallly easy. But being in the same situation as my cousin would be my worst nightmare.

I was 37 with my first and 39 with my youngest and I had very straightforward pregnancies, no issues at all. DH is my second husband and we didn't meet til I was 34, I had no desire to have a baby with someone I didn't think would be a great father. It was the right time for me personally.

It's much better for the environment to delay parenthood
What do you mean?

Im not one of those who thinks they did it the best way. I would have liked to have been younger, but had recurrent miscarriage which delayed things.

These debates get really polarised with people talking about having kids in their 20s or 40s, but in reality the ideal time for most is late 20s/early 30s because on average you will have had time to have an education, get established in a career and be financially stable while still being young enough to have relatively low risk pregnancies and run around after your kids until they are adults, with a decent prospect of knowing your grandchildren.

@StarScream22 There was barely anyone in my DCs class (small village primary school) whose parents were under 40 when they were in reception, maybe one or two. In my friendship group we're mostly early 50's now and all have teenaged DCs. I've noticed that there are definitely more young mums (though still quite a few older ones) when I pass school now so it must just have been that particular time, I don't know.

@StarScream22

lissie really? Where I am 31 is considered old!

Most people here have their first at 21-23.

Most people round here have been to university and/or worked for several years before having children. I would say that in most cases the earliest that anyone has had a child would be late 20s.

Oh, I didn't say when was too old. Basically if you can get pregnant naturally and can afford a child then feel free to get pregnant whenever you want but not before 25. So that's a too young not too old!