Honest opinions is 42 too old....

[Summerwood1]

To be thinking about having one last baby? I have a 10 year old daughter and would love to start again!!!

I have adults (stepdaughters aged 22 and 20, live with us) and then a 5 year old. No problem there.
I know quite a few people in their forties who have had babies, although I am the oldest one I know.

I had my twins ( first children) at 42.
When I was in my 20's I had a brain tumour which left me with epilepsy. There was no way I would've considered having kids until my health had stabilised.
So I will be knocking 50 with 2 under 10s. The upside is I have reassessed my diet and exercise so I will,hopefully, be around longer for my boys. If you have a young outlook on life that can be just as beneficial. I know at 50 I am a lot less stressed about stuff than I ever was, am financially better off, and more laid back generally.

Im 43 my youngest is 17 id rock in a corner if i had a baby again but if you feel you want another baby do have 1 too old is a personal preference imo.

Everyone is so different - if you feel well and it's something you really want then it's your decision.

I am expecting DC6 and will be nearly 48 when I have her - had DC1 when I was 34 and the other 4 since then. So far, I feel fine

Consultant said if I wasn't fit and well my body wouldn't be able to sustain a pregnancy - nature knows best!!

Good luck with whatever you decide x

I'm 43 and had DD, my first baby a year ago (just didn't meet anyone I felt happy to procreate with when I was younger). Despite my low risk according to the triple test, she was born with DS. It's no picnic but she's wonderful, gorgeous and hilarious and I've never regretted having her. I'd love to give her a sibling, but who knows whether that'll work out.
So, do what feels right for you, OP. Be aware of the risks - if DS is something that concerns you, have the Harmony test; it's much more reliable than the basic NHS test and carries no miscarriage risk.
I can't compare being pregnant in my 40s with being a younger mother, as I never experienced it. I was unlucky enough to have bad SPD and nausea throughout my pregnancy, but as soon as DD arrived, I felt amazing!
Best of luck, whatever you decide.

You can definitely have a child at the age of 42. I am 41 and 36 weeks pregnant. However, it might be wise to prepare yourself in advance for a tougher time, in terms of conception. It took me much longer to conceive than when I was in my thirties. Also, although I didn't personally experience it, the risk of miscarriage is much higher. This is generally where most of the conceptions that have genetic anomalies end .

Saying that, you could get pregnant with no problems at all- and the vast majority of over-40 pregnancies that go to term result in perfectly healthy babies. Good luck!

Still laughing at posters who say they don't know anyone over the age of 32/35/38 whatever who's had a child, as though that's a reason not to do it. It seems blindingly obvious to say that no one can make the decision but you, but here's what I think anyway.

I've never seen a thread on here asking whether AIBU to consider having a child because the OP was obese, or disabled, or on benefits, or gay, or found themselves in any other circumstances other than the stereotypically 'perfect' family set up that some of the above posters seem to think they have. I imagine many people would find the idea offensive. But age discrimination is apparently OK????

If anyone is suggesting that 42 is "too old" based on some perceived lack of energy to parent a little one - I wonder what they'd make of thousands of women in their forties who are nursery nurses, teachers, paramedics, midwives, or anyone working in any other occupation apart from a part-time job behind a desk who can go home early for a nice lie down?

As for the point that you might die before your child grows up . Anyone of us could die as tragically young as Rebecca Ellison (Rio Ferdinand's wife, age 34) or live to be 100 like my granny. You can't plan your life like that.

Many (perhaps most) women are still perfectly fertile at 42 - you won't know until you try. Yes its true that the risk of miscarriage is higher than for younger women, but equally its not as if miscarriage is the preserve of women in their forties. Its also true that the statistical risk of genetic abnormalities is higher, but there's excellent antenatal testing available. Its obviously an intensely personal decision as to what course of action you might take if there was 'bad news'.

I got pregnant (first try) at 43 and had my DD at nearly 44. I find it mildly upsetting that there are people on this thread who would probably say she should never have been born. I also find it comforting that its nobody else's f*ing business. She's now 21 months and is beautiful, clever, physically athletic, way ahead of all her milestones and yes of course I am biased because I adore her.

So I think the only answer should be, if you want a child, try to have one, if you don't, don't.

In my line of work we have all left it late most of my friends are at least mid to late 30's and early 40's we are all now part time with young families.

I wouldn't choose it (and I'm sure you'll get a lot of people on here saying that), but honestly I think we are all 21 in our own heads.

If you honestly feel like you won't struggle and it won't be detrimental to your health, then do it.

It's an eternal coin toss isn't it? Have your kids younger, and have more energy, be able to get back to your career, have less chance of illness/birth related trauma statistically, and be young enough to play with DGC and help with childcare. Have them older; have more money, patience, more likely to be a SAHP, perhaps be advanced enough in your career to work from home sometimes...

Each age group has its advantages. Rather than your age, I think you need to be asking questions that every potential parent should ask themselves; how would we cope with disability? How tight are finances? What will childcare arrangements be? How will existing DC cope? Age is secondary to all that, IMHO.

ChewyGiraffe... if you're so confident in your own decisions then how can anybody else's opinion 'upset' you in any way? Nobody else cares what anybody else does as long as it does affect them. It doesn't so they don't. Do what you like.

To call 'ageism' is just ridiculous and you're extrapolating about your daughter in a most unfair way. People have opinions, they're not affecting your decisions.

LyingWitch - criticise my phrasing if you like. OK, I lets just say I find what I perceive to be ignorance and prejudice in others somewhat 'disappointing'.

'Extrapolating' about my daughter is 'unfair'? Really? And there was me thinking it was a legitimate expression of my own experience and my own opinion.

IMO it is ageism to imply that noone should have a child at 42 (or beyond). What else do you think you should call it?

Yes there can also be fertility problems when you are lder of course. I actually had no prpblem falling pregnant and fell pregnant the very next month each time I actively ttc, between the ages of 41 and 45. But I did have to experience repeated miscarriages, which wasn't nice, before I got my baby.

No, Giraffe, you drafted other people into your comment because you suggested that people think she shouldn't have been born. You said that, nobody else did and it was a shocking comment.

You say you don't care what other people think and posture that way... and then appear to be hurt that they think what they do.

People have opinions about everything under the sun, it's not necessary to apply a label for each and every one of them. Everybody has their own experiences and if I, for example, say that I wouldn't have a child in my 40s because I couldn't cope with the high genetic risks, does that make me disablist as well as ageist, or am I just saying something that applies to me and nobody else?

Can't you see the difference between somebody's opinion that THEY personally wouldn't do something without seeing it as some kind of judgement on YOU? People are talking about their own circumstances and their own opinions and it's not about you or anybody else.

I will am 50 with a 9 year old. As far as I'm aware no-one thinks its odd in the playground.

I think those horrified with the idea of starting again at 42 is becuase they're mentally past that and like most of us once you;ve moved on to the next stage you don;t want to redo the baby stuff. It's only recently I've done that and truly would be a bit horrified at the idea of managing a toddler again. But having a 1 year old aged 42 was fine at the time. I don;t think I was any more tired than anyone else.

everyone's different, it is hard to say whether 42 is too old. For some, it might be and for others it would be fine. If you and your partner feel that you want another child, have the energy (emotional and physical) and can afford to have another child, then I'd say you're probably not too old.

I have no idea if people think I am odd in the playground (or just wonder if I am the granny) and I could not care less. I am odd, for that matter.

For me no way. I always wanted to be done by 30. I am now 33 and my eldest is nearly 16 and the youngest is 6 (I have 5). I am looking forward to having more independence and time for me and my husband.

My sister had two babies in her 40's after a 10 year gap and I personally don't understand wanting to back to that but she is more than happy with it but it isn't for me. I would not want to be dealing with teens in my late 50/60s, I figure that is the time to concentrate more on myself and maybe grandchildren.

I had my first two days before I turned 18 though and I am only now starting to get a better education and going to work and doing all the things I didn't get to do as a young adult.

That said, if you want a baby and feel like you are in the position to have one it doesn't matter what others think does it?

kewcumber you are right it isnt about age its about the age you start havi g babies my dds friends was 41 she wasnt ancient in the playground we chatted about the same stuff we were both tired on a friday iyswim

No , it's not to old.

Friends mum*

Hormones play a huge part in this too,I really believe that as a woman enters her 40s she is very aware that it's a case of now or never to have a child (whether she has one,none or ten!!).I'd ask myself how long I had been broody for...if this is just a recent thing,or a response to a life situation,then I'd hold off.Is there a reason you didn't have any more in the last 10 years? (you don't have to answer here,just to yourself).If you weren't broody then,but are now,then it could well be your hormones giving you a push.

Hard decision to make,and only you can make it.You'd be at least 43 having the baby..I definitely think that's a much riskier age.

It's subjective - it would be waaaaay too old for me and dh, but not for others.

My friend is still trying for her first at 39 and on her first course of ivf - it changes according to your circumstances.

I dislike being taken for my 1 yo's grandma :P

It all depends on you really.

Are you fit and healthy?

Are you willing to consider what decision you will take if you find the baby has serious chromosomal abnormalities?

We went for a 2nd despite knowing it would be a dreadful preg (HG) because I really really did not want my first to be an only child. It's bloody hard work but then Im not a healthy specimen. It's definitely worth it though. The Pipsqueak was born at 44.

One thing: do put in place plans for what happens if you and your husband shuffle off this mortal coil when the child is still young. But that goes for everyone, it's not an age thing.

Hormones play a huge part in this too

Again, this will be so different from woman to woman.
I've never been broody in my life - having my DCs late in life was a combination of how my life panned out and repeated MCs.
Keeping going until I conceived DS4 when I was 43 was purely a selfish decision taken by DH and I as we wanted a larger family - as I am not all that fond of looking after babies/toddler, it was more a 'long game' for me: having older children and then adults with (maybe) their partners and families in their lives was my motivation.

I know I am repeating myself, but I truly don't think that whatever anybody else thinks or feels about this or how they decided to plan their family can possibly have ANY bearing on what somebody else does. Far too personal.

DS4 is now 5, I am 49 and so far I've not been taken for his gran. I am not the oldest mum at the school gates either