To want a baby at 45 - I already have two DCs (4 and 8)

[TeaandSympathy4me]

I was on the train on the way back from a meeting in town when I saw a lady cradling a young baby. I just felt a surge of - hormones I think - the same way I felt when I wanted to have DC1 - and just before we started trying. I have had to have various health checks recently and the gynaecologist asked me if I wanted any more. I said I was worried about the various complications older women get. I am very healthy but a friend whose sister had a baby at 44 and another friend who actually had a baby just as she was about to turn 44. Both these babies have grown up with learning difficulties - which I know is not dependent on the mother's age... Heck I feel really silly for asking this when there are such brutal things going on in the world.

[BathshebaDarkstone]

I had my 4th at 44. It's tiring, especially as he's bolshy. Be prepared to be knackered in years to come, and to breathe a sigh of relief when they go to school/bed.

I have no regrets, but I can't wait for this phase to be over.

[Yakitori]

My "last chance baby" will probably be a puppy. Plenty of time and energy required to train and socialise them as it is. The kids will enjoy a dog more than another sibling at this stage!

[loveyogalovelife]

45 is the average age of a mum in San Francisco - it's all about perspective and the individual. There are young 45 year olds and older ones I guess...

[shakemysilliesout]

Eh? Average age of first time mums across USA is 26. East coast is 29. I doubt San Fran average age is 45

[Iusedtobecarmen]

eliza
Thats a bit negative. It is apparently about 3% but still. I got pregnant fairly recently and very easily . I dod have a miscarriage but i still conceived. Someone i know is 20wks pg with their second. Aged 45.
I will always be optimistic.
I dont criticise those who have babies 'too young' or have no jobs,or multiple fathers. I dont understand why people care.

[Namechangeemergency]

Always makes me laugh when people suggest fostering or adoption as an alternative to birth children on these threads.
If you think someone is too old to cope with their own birth child how the hell do you think they will manage a tramatised child out of the care system?

[Greengoddess12]

Gosh I had my last and fifth at 36 and was knackered.

I have my grandchildren a few days a week now aged 49 and honestly it's tiring.

Also we still have teens to support so look at your finances logically and properly op.

[MyGiddyUncle]

45 is the average age of a mum in San Francisco

Bollocks it is. For that to be true there would have to be a high number of women giving birth in their 50's and 60's to even out all the women who give birth in their teens, 20's and 30's.

[bikerlou]

Only you know how you feel about family and if you really want another baby at 45. If that's what you really want and you love small children then why not?
Personally I can't think of anything worse but then I had mine at 21 and then freedom still very young but my sister has two small children around your age and adores them, she is tired but wouldn't change a thing.
Just be aware that the menopause changes you. It's destroys your warm mummy hormones and you get incredibly tired. If you do hit the menopause while they are all still young you will need HRT or you will not be able to cope. The menopause is like a baseball bat round the back of the head.

[citybumpkin]

Everyone is different. You maybe tired, you maybe not. Hopefully you are able to offer a child everything which may include some energy. People can come up with countless arguments to dissuade you - the planet already has enough people, you are too old, you will be tired, you already have children so why another. It is entirely up to you and how YOU feel. Yes, statistics cannot be ignored but to be honest, but it depends on which statistics you are reading. Different media points you in a different direction. Your glass could be half empty or half full. I suspect children are not easy at any stage of a mother's life.

Again, your body, your decision.

[ElizaDontlittle]

I think I lost my post - sorry if the same sort of thing appears twice:
Iusedto that's not negative, it's true. It's unlikely, statistically, to happen. There's probably a similar chance of me recovering enough to work full time, or of being able to fulfil my dream of being elected in local politics. I don't worry about them or plan for them, any more - that way leads bitter disappointment and heartache. If it were to happen then great but it's not negative to tell me or this OP, look, it's probably never going to happen. Truth can hurt, but it's not negative.

Namechange I mentioned fostering because this OP has energy to spare and a 97% chance of being unable to conceive - sorry if I wasn't clear. I absolutely agree with you, it probably requires greater emotional energy, if anything.

[Overcooked]

Slightly off topic but I certainly don't think that the NHS should fund fertility treatment for a woman in her forties with two existing children unless there are exceptional circumstances.

[Floggingmolly]

Surely to God they don't, overcooked?

[FrozenAteMyDaughter]

I don't think they do, Overcooked and as far as I know (though this may vary across trusts) they don't fund treatment that would involve donor eggs (which treatment might at age 45) regardless of the woman's age and reason for infertility.

[expatinscotland]

They don't, Over.

[Pisssssedofff]

At 45 I can't imagine having the energy I really can't.

[FrozenAteMyDaughter]

In fact, I think I read that some trusts won't fund fertility treatment if one of a couple already has a child which does seem a little harsh (hopefully that is out of date).

[expatinscotland]

'In fact, I think I read that some trusts won't fund fertility treatment if one of a couple already has a child which does seem a little harsh (hopefully that is out of date).'

It isn't, unless you're one child has died, and even then there's an age limit for the female. Fail to see why it's harsh.

[FrozenAteMyDaughter]

I don't understand why so many people think they will be exhausted at 45 or at least more exhausted than at a younger age. I actually think what is tiring is having children and I think that is tiring if you are in your twenties, thirties or forties.

If you have had children since your early 20s, I can understand the horror at the thought of starting all over again in your 40s when you should be looking forward to more freedom and doing other things than being a parent. But if you have never had children, or only have young ones (like the OP) the situation is very different. You have had the freedom to do other things for 20 years and the thought of spending nights in and being tied down isn't so dreadful. I say this as someone who became a parent at 41. The thought of another at 45 is not horrifying at all ( and I have passed that age now).

[FrozenAteMyDaughter]

expat I don't think the age limit is necessarily harsh - that is practical and no doubt relates to the statistics for a successful outcome. However, I think if you meet someone who already has a child, it is harsh that you won't be funded by the NHS to try to have your own baby as you would if you were a childless couple.

But there again, plenty of people take the view that there should be no funding for IVF on the NHS at all, so I know views on this differ.

[coffeespoonslife]

I'm quite surprised. Most responses are a bit negative aren't they? Of course you are not too old, age really is just a number. I have just had my first at 42 and can't wait for another. Age is irrelevant. Plenty of mums in their 20s and 30s are unhealthy and unfit whereas plenty of mums in their 40s and 50s are super fit and healthy, and are in a place in their lives and relationship to be fantastic mums. As for complications, you could drive yourself mad with statistics and risks at any age. To talk of selfishness as a blanket comment to over 40s is pretty silly.

[expatinscotland]

'However, I think if you meet someone who already has a child, it is harsh that you won't be funded by the NHS to try to have your own baby as you would if you were a childless couple.'

I don't see that as harsh at all. You know going into it if you go with someone who has a kid you'll need to fund your own fertility treatment if you need it. That's entirely different from a childless couple.

[Pisssssedofff]

expatinscotland unfortunately it applies to couples where he may have a child and doesn't it either, friends of ours are blocked at every turn from seeing his child, but can't get funding to have one of their own either. That's pretty harsh

[expatinscotland]

Life's hard. They have to draw a line somewhere.

[Floggingmolly]

What's to say the same thing couldn't happen with the second child, Pissssed? He has a child already, his relationship (or lack of) with that child is a purely personal matter and no real business of the NHS.