What do you consider is a realistic age for having a last baby?

[GlitteringJasper]

Purely based on your own personal opinion?

What age is the 'cut off' in your mind for someone having their final baby?

Really interested to hear views on this!

Am dithering!

Silly older women. If only they stopped partying so much.

I had first-trimester screening (nuchal scan and bloods) for chromosomal abnormalities both times, yes, and would have terminated. Test results showed very low risk levels for the three trisomies they screen for both times (think it was actually lower the second time). Agree it was definitely something I felt I had to take into account, though as they pointed out in the foetal medicine unit where I had the tests, the baseline risk only gets what they would consider "high" once you're over 40, not over 35.

My
Mum had me at 43. I'm her only child and until then she thought she was infertile ! It was a huge shock and ofcourse she worried about the risks.

But sometime getting pg at all is so unlikely that it's worth the risk if you finally do.

Chromosome disorders are not as uncommon as you might think individually rare chromosome disorders are indeed very rare I have been told my sons is one in a million but collectively about 1 in 150 babies are born with a rare chromosome disorder this info comes from unique the charity that supports families affected by rare chromosome disorders.

Interesting thread.

I had my DC at 27 and 31, and always thought 35 was a good cut off for me. I'm 38 now though and broody . DH is 50, which in both of our books is too old...so no more DC. But if he was closer to 40, I might try for another one.

Lots of my friends and colleagues didnt start having babies until 35 + though. And I have a few friends who had their first baby in their 40s. No judgement from me. Its a wonderful blessing whenever it happens.

My personal cut-off was 35, but that was mostly due to my subjective experience of being brought up by older parents. I said I would never do that to my own children. Since then I've understood better that the issues I faced was more to do with my parents' attitude than their age. However, I'd still have been wary, because helping my elderly Mum whilst bringing up my own children has been very hard at times.

I'll never know whether I might have changed my mind if I'd struggled to conceive or met someone later in life. You don't know how you'd feel or what you'd do unless you've been in someone else's situation.

From my own point of view - how I'd feel physically, etc. - I'm 45, now. Achy round the joints sometimes, so I don't imagine a pregnancy would be much fun. Otherwise, re. energy levels, I think I could probably cope with the newborn and toddler stages. The one massive thing that would put me off is knowing what would lie beyond that. With two teenage dds I already feel like emigrating sometimes - I just can't imagine dealing with that at 60! Each to their own, though.

I'm almost 43 with an almost 3 year old. Obviously, I don't know what it will be like being 50 with a ten year old, but I'm a bit taken aback at people saying they would have been too exhausted to carry and deal with a baby and toddler at 40 plus. Perhaps these people are speaking from the perspective of already having children, already being overstretched, and imagining adding another to the mix at 40 plus? Because my only feeling is relief that I didn't have my son any younger - I wouldn't have been as good a mother as I am. I sailed through pregnancy in blooming, glossy-haired good health at 40, and feel fit and energetic with my toddler.

Also, I was the second youngest in my London NCT group.

I think some people are rather confident of having children in their mid-40s. Have they not seen an infertility clinic? They are absolutely rammed with older women. I think a good many people who breeze, "Oh, it all just happened when I was 43," are lying and they've been having IVF. Not all, of course. I was a nasty surprise at 44! But I suffered from dreadful infertility at a much younger age, so it's not necessarily hereditary.

Furthermore, those who are trying to buck nature by stretching the age limit can look, I'm sorry to say this, a bit creepy. I see some women with prams and one wonders how on earth they are going to cope when they have a boisterous toddler.

Interesting thread. I wish I had started earlier. I had my first at 32 because I/we werent ready before then but now I see how much fun my ds is and how much I love being a mum I do wish I had started having a family in my late 20s. I always thought it wasn't the right time for work or other circumstances but now wish we'd just gone fuck it!

Now personal circumstanes have changed again and I dont know whether I'll be able to have another one, dh is 10 years older than me and I personally don't think it would be fair on a future second child to have a much older dad than his/her classmates. So for me....I have mental cut off of the next year or so - I'll be 35. I'm sad about that though.

I think some people are very dismissive of older women in general and mothers in particular.

Ideally 35-38, but realistically 40.

Anyone who deliberately chooses to leave it later than that for lifestyle/career reasons in spite of being in the right relationship and having having adequate housing, financial stability etc, is a fool.

sorry, I've answered as if it was first baby, not last baby, but the answer is the same for either really.

a family friend gave birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome at 37, that baby is now an adult and of course entirely dependent on the parents.

you do know that not people with Downs Syndrome are of course entirely dependent on their families?

You do also know that not all chromosomal abnormalities will show up in standard scans and blood tests (I had very low risk bloods for ds, but he has a genetic condition which has evaded most testing tbh!)

You do know that not all disabilities can be screened for, not all disabilities happen at birth and not all disabilites are some life long burden of suffering?

I didnt feel an urge to keep partying into my 30s - I started v young (admittedly prob younger than most..) but I'd had a good 15 years of partying, travelling etc and living for myself by time I had first baby.

I also didn't feel a particular urge to keep partying, it took 7 years to conceive, and I had 2 years worth of cancer treatment, I really was too busy leading the high life obviously!!

Life happens, and despite the best laid plans, shit happens too.

Crossfitmyarse yes. An old uni mate still lives the life I had when I was a 30 year old bright young thing, pre marriage and kids, yet talks very confidently about "when we settle down and have babies" with her long term partner. But I want to shake her. She's 42 and deluded. Because she admittedly looks younger, she thinks she IS younger.

I thought a lot about chromosomal abnormalities and other age-related risks when ttc post 35.

I do think that if you are older it's important to think about it and to consider what you would do/how it would affect you, the baby, your family, but having said that, of course you hope that all will be well and the risks are not so high (imo) that the hope for a straightforward pregnancy and birth are unrealistic.

With ds1 (I was 34 when he was born), my background age related risk for T21 was 1:460 and after screening tests this went down to 1:20,000. I had no further testing and ds1 has no chromosomal abnormalities (that we know of, many of us do of course and live out our lives unaware of them).

No-one commented on my age when I was pg and I followed the same care pathway that a 24 year old would have.

With ds2 (I was 40 when he was born), my background age related risk for T21 was 1:85 and after screening tests this went up to 1:27. I had an amnio which carried a 1:150 risk of miscarriage, ds2 has no chromosomal abnormalities (see disclaimer above).

There was very little comment about my age, but I was put on a higher risk pathway which meant I got one extra scan and was officially under consultant lead care. In practice this meant seeing a registrar once in my pregnancy and ds2 was delivered safely by a midwife.

Like I said, it's important to think about risk, but also to think about your approach to risk, where your own cut-off is, what you feel is too high to risk, or too low to worry about, and that is different for everyone.

" I think a good many people who breeze, "Oh, it all just happened when I was 43," are lying and they've been having IVF."

But for some people it does just happen at 43 without medical intervention (as you say yourself): my grandmother had both her kids in her 40s. It's harder, yes, but it's not impossible. I think we've got so used to the media scaremongering about HAVE CHILDREN BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE that in some ways the message has almost swung too far the other way and people believe that you actually become basically infertile at 35 as a matter of course. I once had someone cheerfully inform me that they needed to get cracking on TTC as your fertility "dropped off a cliff" at 35 and it was impossible to get pregnant naturally at 40, you'd need IVF or donor eggs, which was news to me as at the time I was 40, pregnant, and had got so by, er, "doing it". Far, far more women got pregnant naturally in their 40s than today's "having it all career ladies" (barf) before the widespread availability of contraception - it's hardly "bucking nature" to have children before you're actually menopausal. (also I am fairly sure I do not look creepy with my toddler)

Obviously not saying that everyone should wait until they're 43 to start trying to get pregnant, but it's hardly a total impossibility. I remember reading that a significant number of terminations are for women in their 40s who had completed their families and thought they couldn't possibly get pregnant again.

Very true hazeyjane and having a child with disabilities is not the worsts thing that can happen IMO i wouldn't be without ds hes funny ,cute and makes me laugh every day.

I think fertility treatment and IVF is a gift, and one of the wonders of the modern world. It's a shame to see it treated so casually, like a lifestyle choice for family planning, or insurance policy against accidentally leaving it too late. There is absolutely no guarantee it will work, for a start.

Well for me it's going to be 39 or 40 for a FIRST baby... if I can conceive.

Due to serious MH problems I couldn't have a baby earlier in my 30s... I had originally planned to get married & have babies in my early 30s but sadly life never works out as you plan it!

I may get my fertility checked, meanwhile now that I'm well I'm starting to internet date again and get to the gym. I can't cope with being a single mum due to my MH problems and low wages so I will be spending the next year until I'm 39 trying to meet a man...

The worrying thing for me is actually being in a relationship as I suffer from traits of BPD and relationships are difficult for me.
I haven't managed to have a ltr yet.

For me not past 35 as an absolute max. My friend's parents had him in their mid 40s. Now he is only 29 years old and his father is 70+ and has altzheimers and doesn't know who he is and his mother already died. He basically has no parents, I find it heartbreaking. His parents will miss his wedding, any babies he has, etc etc. I know health varies a lot (my own grandparents are 80 and still reasonably healthy god willing) but the older you get the less likely you are to be healthy and the less time you have left. Also I'm bloody knackered with having 2 kids in my twenties, no clue how I'd manage if I was twice as old!

There is a lovely MNer who tells the story of how her midwife put on special Counselling Face on hearing she was (I think) 42 and said sympathetically "how long were you trying" to which the breezy response was "oh, about five minutes".

I think anyone who has scans in pregnancy should (a) be prepared for some kind of foetal abnormality - this is why the NHS provides scans, ffs (b) have considered their options in the event of any abnormality. The chances of which do, obviously, increase with age but are not completely limited to age.

BTW I'm nearly 52 and not exactly decrepit either.

Statistically speaking:

Most Down's babies are born to younger mothers.
Many women in their 40s seek terminations as they thought fertility 'fell off a cliff' after 35 and relied on that fact, whereas in actual fact you are likely to remain fertile until the menopause. (Who would have thought it?)

In my friendship group I know someone who had a Down's baby at 16, and someone else who got pregnant by accident with her first child at 43 (perfectly healthy pregnancy, by the way).

It is a bit more tiring on the body having babies when older but we are actually designed to do it. People forget that.

I'm not too worried about being an older parent - my parents are both in their late 60s and still work and have fairly good health.

My nan is 90 this year and in good health generally, most of my other relatives lived until their late 80s.

I do worry about having a child who may have to cope with my MH problems but that could be a problem at any age. Currently I'm medicated and well but easily tired because of all the meds. Getting up in the night to feed a baby will be an issue.

I think it's impossible to say, because everyone is an individual with their own personal circumstances. Personally I'd say 42/43 for a last baby, but others clearly consider that very old for themselves. I am expecting my first and will turn 35 while pregnant, which some posters on this thread consider ancient! However I feel absolutely fantastic and am the same age as most my friends who are also in the TTC/baby years.

35 for me (I was 30 when I had my ds).

But don't forget the dad as well. My dh was 39 when we had our ds and he didn't want to be an "old" dad, so that was one of the many reasons we only had one dc.

My dad was 49 when I was born. I am envious when I see people of a similar age to me whose parents are in their late 60s/early 70s and incredibly fit and able to go running with them or whatever interests they share. But to be honest he could have got Alzheimers in his 70s (or younger) - or been killed in a road accident so there are no guarantees whatever age you are.