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!!!

In my neighbourhood, nearly all the mothers are old. I only know a few women who had babies in their twenties.

Given so many more people are having their children later, with many people starting their families in their mid thirties I think the 'being mistaken for a granny' is less likely now, although probably very local demographic influenced (ie an area with mostly professionals will probably have more older mums).

But I don't think it makes sense to describe the risks associated with age as agism. It just is more likely that conception may be a problem, that miscarriages are more likely or genetic anomalies more possible. It is also more likely that older parents may have health issues and that they may die or become ill or incapacitated when their children are younger. That doesn't mean that these issues will affect every family of course, or that younger people are somehow immune to problems, as the statistics are about populations not individual risk.

Raising these issues also doesn't mean anyone thinks that older people shouldn't have children or that their children shouldn't have been born, just that when making a decision about whether or not to have another baby the risks should be borne in mind.

In biological terms I expect very few people on this thread went for the optimal age in any case - late teens/early twenties is biologically best, but socially problematic, I suspect young mums have far more negative comments than older ones.

[[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cusp/201211/whats-the-best-age-have-baby]] is an interesting paper on the best age to have both first and last babies. The conclusion is that ideally you should start your family at 34 and finish at 35 (although as a mother of two with a very small age gap I'm sure the small gap had health consequences for me!)

I had my DD3 aged 43. I also had a 10 and 9 year old when she was born.
I made the decision I would have the abnormality scans and unlike the other 2 as I did not want to knowingly pass on responsibility for a disabled child onto older siblings. Neuchal scanning plus blood tests have improved this decision a lot. I only added to a long thread because I wanted to point out that a first baby in your 40s is different from adding to a family. My older DDs are great with their sister - they compensate for my old age and she stops them becoming surly teenagers before their time. The older ones will maybe have a babysitter in need of student finance in the future. The baby will always have big sisters to look out for her should I die off.
Also historically women had babies from their 20s to their 40s. All that has changed is the number of late first babies!
Anyway a very personal decision but if you want to then I see no reason why not!

I'll be 37 when I give birth to my first, a combination of not really knowing if we wanted a family and getting our ducks in a row before trying led to the delay. I have no regrets at all. I've travelled all over the world, I've a great career that I'm able to take extended maternity leave from, we can afford a nanny, a housekeeper, a large family home in London and private school fees. Frankly, I'd give up the higher energy levels for the other things I couldn't afford to give our child if they'd arrived in our 20s, when we were working very hard to build our careers and had no money.

I'm trying to say there will pros and cons and opportunity costs for every choice. This was the best possible outcome for us. On a purely genetic basis, it's biologically riskier to have a child later. But most people will take many other factors into consideration and for us it was well worth the risk.

If I was 42 and got pregnant, I'd definitely still be having this baby. Only you can decide if that's right for you!

Apatite1, serious stealth boast there about how you can afford a nanny, a housekeeper, a large family home in London and private school fees not sure why it's relevant here? Not the first time I've heard this rhetoric before however. That it's better to wait until you can afford such luxuries before having children as if they are the most important things in life. Your post speaks volumes to me in particular. For some couples it literally is a huge priority to afford everything on their wish list regardless of their age or how their child will feel growing up with much older parents etc. Those who didn't grow up with older parents have no idea or concept of what it is like for those children.

FWIW my Grannie also had my Mum aged 43 with a 13 year gap to the youngest of her 5 siblings. Grannie thought it was a disaster when she discovered she was pregnant. By the time I came along when she was in her early sixties she thought having my Mum was one of the best things she ever did and my Mum never thought of her Mum as old and neither did I.
Money didn't come into the equation either!

I had DC3 after a 10 year gap at 36.

I am all but 40 now (40 in a few weeks) and definitely feel too old for another.

If you feel fit & healthy enough for one more then have one more.

My best friend is expecting DC6 at age 41. What's right for one family does not have to be right for another.

That ain't a stealth boast Foxy. It's naked show-offery.

Why is apatite showing off?

She can afford the very things that make parenting a hell of a lot easier, I cant afford it but that doesnt mean I resent that she can, good for her! She has worked for it and presumably made sure that she was in a financial position to provide the things she felt were important before she had children.

My lottery win list has Nanny, Housekeeper and Private Schooling as the top three. Chauffeur is number 4 so I dont have to walk to the pub and back FYI!

Who wouldnt have those things if they could afford them? I think the issue isnt that she is showing off but that you are jealous.

I had one in my twenties, two in my thirties and two plus a very late miscarriage in my forties. The baby who died had downs.
To be honest, I did not find having a baby in my forties was much more tiring than the ones in my early thirties. Also there were plenty of older kids around who helped with the baby. If you still can get pregnant in your forties and want another baby go for it. Yes the risk of disability is higher, however it is not as huge as people imagine. It is a question of perspective. A one to nine risk sounds high but effectively means a 90% chance the baby is okay. Also you cant compare a pregnancy in a woman who is in her forties with a first pregnancy at that age.
I was 45 when I lost my last baby. The pregnancy had been a complete shock. Pregnancies as you get to your mid or late forties are quite rare and a lot of successful ones are with younger women's eggs.
But I also personally know of two women who had (unplanned) babies at 50.

Haven't read whole tread but agree with I finishedthe biscuits
Had DD2 at nearly 40 .Would have had more but good reasons not to.
Met DH at 30, married at 32 . We were financially secure, DDsmuch wanted
I am nearing 65 (retired 4 years) and I dont think our DDs feel we are too old . It may be a cliche, but having children can keep you young in outlook .

In terms of what it is like for the children, I think it certainly will be a different experience. My five year old has not just me and DH to take her to the park or the cinema or read her a story, build something... she also has three much older siblings and someone will usually be available. She also has one sibling close in age. She also has parents who are far more experienced and relaxed about matters. I am much more capable as a parent now than when I was in my twenties.

Look at what I had at age 45 yrs and 10 months! I sailed through the pregnancy and they were all born healthy, no problem. I can hear the gasps now!

I had three.......not 5 :o

I was about to ask triplets!

I wondered if your username was upgraded from "Twins" to "Triplets" :o

Were they naturally conceived? I am being nosey I know, but I just wondered what your reaction was on hearing you where having 3 at almost 46!

And another Q, which has nothing to do with age...how the hell did you do the night wakings?! I hope for your sake they slept through early!

Aww, Triplets. They look adorable. Are they still brand new or have they grown a bit since the photos were taken? They are very cute.

Tsk tsk Bogey you are not meant to ask about how they were conceived. I read it on MN so it must be true

If you have the energy (and the fertility!) at 42, then go for it!

It seems strange now, but back in the 80s, anyone pregnant for the first time who was over the age of 28 was noted as "elderly primigravida" on their notes. Most women had their first baby between the ages of about 23 and 27. I had had all of my children before my 27th birthday. I would have quite liked to have more, but by the time I felt able to cope with another baby I thought I was too old by then to have one (I was 34).

Am I not Dont?! I ask because an IVF pregnancy (say) with 2 eggs implanted is known to be a possible multiple from the start where as a natural conception would be a bit more "What the FUCK?!" if you were told you were having triplets!

Bogey I know what you mean but I think some people don't like being asked. Im sure some people don't mind though.
However and whenever they arrive triplets are incredible. I would have liked twins but I did the next best thing and had my 4 DC in very quick succession. I don't know what I was thinking.

Yanbu but I wouldn't personally. I am 51, had ds at 38 and I'm knackered now. I'm fit and healthy. If it were my first maybe, but not subsequent.