If you were 44 and found out you were pregnant?

[HillsHaveEyez]

Would you have it?

I’m not asking for advice for myself. Just interested in whether you personally would go ahead with a surprise pregnancy at such an advanced age.

I had my second at 43, so it is a yes.

No personally I wouldn't. I'm 34 now and had my 2nd and last 11 years ago. The thought of having another now terrifies me never mind when my youngest is 21. My 40s are for me.
Lots of people would be horrified to have a baby at 21 and 23 like I did though so it is swings and roundabouts really.

Yes I would - and did at 42, with 5, 3 and 18month olds already.

An unplanned pregnancy in my 20s on the other hand I would have been horrified and not gone ahead with it.

No, only because my husband is 10 years older than me. I had a surprise pregnancy at almost 40 and we'd decided that we were very unlikely to go ahead with the pregnancy, we already had two children aged 9 and 11. I miscarried. As much as I love babies, I am 42 now and just don't think I'd have the energy especially as I have never had any family support and it would be even harder now. However, I know women who've had a babies at 45 and 47 both planned.

Yes
My friend had hers at 44 and 47. She is now 84 and enjoying baby grandchildren!

I would always have said yes previously, however I’m 47 now, and have custody of 2 of my granddaughters, one came to me at 14 months, the other at 3 days.

I’m exhausted. I think I’m calmer now but the broken nights and chasing after a busy toddler have almost broken me,

If I found out I was Pregnant at 44 I think my OH would be more shocked than me given he'd be 62

Well, I was actively trying to get pregnant at 44 and had DS2 at 45 - so yes I would have it

44 is a way off for me yet. But I love being a Mum so I’m sure I’d be thrilled.

Yes, I'd have the baby. Dh might leave though, as he's very definite that he's to old for any more babies. If I was 44, he'd be 54, which is pretty old for being dad to a newborn. I would never be able to go through with an abortion though, so would rather lose the relationship than this hypothetical baby. Of course, what I really do is make sure my contraception is bomb proof because I don't want more babies now I'm over 40. I've been there, done that, getting some slight freedom back (not during lockdown obviously) now my youngest is 10.

My family has babies late though, my grandma had her last at 44, my aunt has her youngest at 43. It doesn't seem that horrifically old to me 🤷. I have a friend who had her youngest at 49, now that was definitely a surprise, but he's a gorgeous happy 10yo now and she wouldn't be without him.

@Rachie1973

I would always have said yes previously, however I’m 47 now, and have custody of 2 of my granddaughters, one came to me at 14 months, the other at 3 days.

I’m exhausted. I think I’m calmer now but the broken nights and chasing after a busy toddler have almost broken me,

What an amazing thing you're doing for your DC and DGC Doing it all again 20 odd years after the first time is huge x

I'm 43 and pregnant (deliberate).

If I wanted another child and could manage financially, then yes.

At 44 you think of the here and now as in having a baby.
Fast forward 20 years....I know I want to be around as long as possible for my children in the future. I know no - one has a crystal ball and anything could happen, but I do hope to be still here for them when they reach their 40's / 50's. That is less likely to happen if you give birth in your mid forties.

@MsAwesomeDragon wow, 49!

With my life at it is, I wouldn't choose to take the risks of continuing a pregnancy at 44 (I also wouldn't do it now, several years before that).

I did choose to take the risk when pregnant at 18. Thankfully, there were more benefits than pain, but some of the risks did bite me in the ass and I don't fancy trying my luck again in that regard. Also, my youngest will be turning 18, so starting again with an infant will probably be the last thing on my mind.

I can see why others choose to do so, their risks still aren't as high as many groups of young mothers in many areas, it's just not for me. I was very glad to be done with infants-toddlers before 30.

I had one at 42. I probably would have gone through with it at 44 but would have been worried.

I know!! She actually didn't realise she was pregnant til she went to the doctor for something completely unrelated and he made her take a test before she could start treatment. She was flabbergasted when the test came back positive as she genuinely thought she was menopausal, but obviously not. She didn't know how far along she was or anything, but the decision was pretty clear cut that she was having the baby and delaying the medical treatment til after the baby was born.

Nope, I'm done! I'm 40 with a 13 yo, 10 yo (with my ex-husband) and an 8-month old with my fiancé (his first - and last baby!!) She was very much planned but it's been extremely hard during lockdown.

Yes, definitely.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@VinylDetective - I spent years travelling in my child free 20s. It would not be the same now and if you have an “independent established career” you wouldn’t want to give it up at the peak of your earning potential in your 30s and early 40s.

People should of course do what suits them or how life turns out. But I would generally say young motherhood is a barrier to career and travel for women and statistics bear me out.[/quote]
My life doesn’t bear you out. You don’t have to give up your career to travel, that’s what annual leave is for. Who travels for years in their 20s now? Kids might get a gap year if they’re lucky. And no, it wasn’t the same in my 40s, it was better - you can keep your backpacking, no squalid hostels for me.

Since I am nearly that age and pregnant, it’s a yes from me. This individual pregnancy is very much planned but having children much more earlier was the original plan, however medical issues got in the way. I know some people choose to give up if they haven’t been able to have a child by a certain age but that wasn’t the right choice for me.

There are many on here who are answering from a perspective of already having raised children which I guess changes your outlook. It’s hard for them to say what they would feel if they hadn’t.

For me, if I had already raised a family when younger and then found myself unexpectedly pregnant, yes I would also have the child.

If people look back at their family trees they will usually find they’re only here because somewhere along the line late pregnancies happened. Before reliable family planning women did frequently give birth well into their forties, with less frequency than earlier as fertility had declined, but it happened pretty often. Some of my ancestors had an immense number of children, several had between 10-20, and even those who had 7-8 ‘only’ it almost always extended through the early forties, the difference being the later ones had bigger gaps between them which I guess shows lower chances of conceiving.

Yes I would have gone ahead . My grandmother was 43 when my father was born . His father was 58 !

@heidipi

Bless you. A few words really gives me a boost right now lol.

No my sister and cousin both had surprise babies at 40, this convinced DH to get the snip the week before I turned 40 last year!
Our Dc are 10 and 8 and we are enjoying them at this age where we can all do stuff together but they can be independent as well, I've got career plans as well a baby wouldn't have fitted into my plans.

I had a pregnancy scare at the beginning of lockdown last year (in hindsight, it was the beginning of peri-menopause), and so I spent time thinking long and hard about it.

DH (who, incidentally, has had a vasectomy - so clearly I wasn’t pregnant) was fine about it, but I wasn’t.