To have a baby at 45?

[Hope88]

I am thinking about having another child. But I would like to have a bigger gap between children which means I would be getting near 45. If it all goes well. Do you think it's selfish to have a child at 45? I just think I would be a better mother if I wait opposed to rushing into it and being really stressed out. Your thoughts please.

[DaphneDoomWarrior]

You are not being unreasonable, but just be aware that mother nature takes no prisoners, and may take the decision out of your hands by that age.

[Aislingorla]

A bit selfish, in my opinion. If your (hypothical ) child does the same you 'll be 90 when you become a Grandmother!

[mumsamilitant]

I don't think 45 is old these days. Not compared to even 10 years ago. As long as you and your partner are in fine health then great.

I have one DS of 13 and will always regret not having a sibling for him. He wouldn't have minded in the least about the age gap.

Good Luck.

[KatAndKit]

It isn't to do with health. A woman's fertile span has not increased in the last ten years unfortunately. You can keep yourself as fit and healthy as you like, and of course, you will perhaps better egg quality for longer if you avoid smoking, but just because people have kids later these days, it doesn't change the actual fact that women are only fertile until a certain age.

[luvviemum]

Well, it's possible and you may well have bags of energy but personally, a baby is the last thing I'd want at 45.

[lesley33]

"I don't think 45 is old these days. Not compared to even 10 years ago. As long as you and your partner are in fine health then great."

45 may not be old - although fertility wise it is. But having teenagers in your 50's/60's is. I honestly think too many people look at the fit and healthy older people they know and assume they will be like that. Well whatever you do, you may not be.

A third of men die before the age of 65. So if her DH is older or same age as her, she could be left a widow bringing up a teenager in her late 50s/early 60's.

And of course no-one knows what will happen - her and her DH may be very fit and healthy. But it is a much bigger gamble than when you are younger.

[GwendolineMaryLacey]

Oh well, that's a load of us fucked then...

[hairylights]

YANBU.

Don't let the scaremongering put you off.

I'm fit and healthy at 43 and expecting my first - I had three miscarriages last year (probably age-related) but I have become pregnant (ie: still technically very fertile) four times in 13 months.

yes, I have considered that I'll be an older mother as my child grows up but I will love my child, care for and provide for him/her just like anyone else, and I will have the maturity and patience I didn't have when I was younger.

[OldBroom]

Good for you. Go for it. I had my first and only at 42. I'm an only child, and my Mum was also 42. This makes the generations pretty stretched apart, but does that matter?(how the hell is Jo who won the Bake-Off last night a grandmother at 41???)

DS is now 12, and I'm feeling younger than ever because I see the world through his eyes. We couldn't have afforded to pay for the lessons and holdiays and sports clubs (and school fees, to be frank) if we'd had him any younger. I like the feeling of security, and knowing that I'm giving him (more or less) the childhood that I WANT to give him, not forced to give him because I can't afford anything else.

And if anybody tells me that all you need is love, I'll throw up.

[montysma1]

I am 45 and 25 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy was not planned, but not being avoided either. I had twins at 42, again, not really "trying". So it is not a given that fertility automatically plunges when you hit 40.

From my point of view both pregnancys have been straightforward. This one actually seems a dawdle after a twin pregnancy, although i never found that too problematic either. My main problems have actually been caused by a lot of really negative attitudes from the medical profession.

Nor have I found loooking after toddler twins even remotely taxing, if anything the last 3 years has been more relaxing as I have stepped back from my business a little, all though I still run it as a full job.

Dont let anybody tell you you are over the hill at 45, the half dead 20 somethings I skip past in the clinic give lie to that.

[Aislingorla]

I had my first at 27 and we just got on with it, no savings, renting at the time. But I glad now, we were, by far, the youngest parents dropping him off at Uni (of which he is suitably chuffed!) Just saying!

[lesley33]

Apart from fertility, I don't think the issue is taking care of DC in your 40's. Most parents will have the energy, etc to look after DC at this age. Its having teenagers at 60 that I think is much more worrying.

[BalloonSlayer]

God what a bunch of miseries on this thread.

I had an accidental pregnancy and a DC at 43, so when he gets his driving licence I'll be getting me bus pass. But I expect that if I'd had him at 20, he would have regarded my hypothetical 37 year old self as a tragic old gimmer, so at least in this case I won't be so offended, as there'll be a grain of truth in it.

My BIL died suddenly aged 42, leaving behind DCs of 7 and 2. You could say that if he had had his kids earlier they wouldn't have been so young when they lost their Dad . . . but he wasn't ready to have DCs earlier and at least he DID have them. We none of us know how long we've got. You could go on forever with your "what if?" scenarios.

OP I'd say that you would not be unreasonable to have a baby at 45. But I do think you are being highly unwise to PLAN to have a baby at 45. Being able to have a baby at 45 is quite rare. I think you should try to be more realistic.

[spiderpig8]

It will be a lot harder to get PG and much much more likely to MC

[Aislingorla]

I agree lesley. We know a lot of older parents who were amazing parents when their kids were young but cant cope (or relate) to them when they are teens.Some of them are simply not in touch with the reality of the stage and blame todays' society, etc.

[splashymcsplash]

Most has already been said, except the increased risk of fetal abnormality and maternal death that comes with getting pregnant at 45. I don't mean to scare you but it is something you should research and consider carefully.

[AnotherJaffaCake]

YANBU. I had my first at 41 and second at 44.

[AnyFucker]

I would like anyone over the age of 15 to try and relate to my 15 yo

It's not about age, it's about parallel universes

[Aislingorla]

You re very lucky Jaffa! The medical advice is to have children before 35 for the benifit of both mother and baby.

[ShoutyHamster]

hairylights congratulations! :)

[gigglepin]

Well not selfish, but if it works for you then great, im 41 and have given up all hope now.

[Aislingorla]

It can be very much about age AF. (and lots of other factors) keep trying to relate to your teen, you're the adult remember. (and no swearing at me please!)

[jandymaccomesback]

I had a surprise baby at 43. It was fine from my point of view until I hit 50, and then I realised that I was running out of energy. He was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, and that is something else to consider. The older the parents the higher the risk of disability, and the problem of what will happen
when you aren't there becomes a consideration.

[AnyoneButLulu]

It's the miscarriage risk that would make me want to avoid this scenario. And of course you'll need to think about your decisions on Down Syndrome.

Loads of women do have children in their 40s, with immense success, but not usually because that was the way they planned their lives.

[AnyFucker]

I keep trying Aislingorla

I am a young 45, but I can't get in that particular parallel universe

It was locked to me the day I turned 20

I expect the same happens when she is 20 and her kids give her grief too

'tis the way of the world...