Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

182 replies

TeaandSympathy4me · 06/11/2016 16:48

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.

OP posts:
sj257 · 10/11/2016 21:30

For me it'd be a no. I'm 29 and have a 10 and an 8 year old and 30 weeks pregnant. I know without a doubt that this baby is my last! If I had a baby at 45 my eldest would be 26!

Obviously your circumstances are different and only you can decide if you can cope. Xx

citybumpkin · 11/11/2016 00:52

Thanks Sarf. In a thread of nay sayers and negativity its much appreciated. However, whether its the first, second, third....child at whatever age, every person should be able to express their maternal/paternal longing for a/another child. Only a couple of generations ago women were having children into their mid to late 40s. Yes, we can say times have changed for the worse but it can also be said they've changed for the better. Each to their own. Noone should berate another being for contemplating something which is so positively deeply felt. I only lurk and post occasionally on here due to the vast amount of negativity. Again each to their own...

SlottedSpoon · 11/11/2016 07:18

I have just had my first at 42 and can't wait for another. Age is irrelevant.

You are right about one thing there - you can't wait. Because age most certainly is not irrelevant. It's foolish to think that it is, both in terms of the ability to conceive and maintain a pregnancy resulting in a healthy baby, and in terms of having the time and energy to see parenting through to its natural conclusion when your children reach young adulthood.

Some people don't choose to become parents for the first time in their 40s , it just happens that way for them and I understand why they would still take that compared to having no kids at all, but why on earth so many women now choose to delay parenthood until their 40s is an absolute mystery to me. One can only assume that they do it because they seriously have no idea what it's going to be like; how much of a toll it takes on your physical energy parenting children for the first 5 to 10 years and how much of a toll it takes on you emotionally/mentally, parenting them through teenage years to early adulthood.

Having a child at 42-45, so you are still running around picking up after them and being woken at night etc possibly until you are 50, and then having to parent 15-18 year olds when you are pushing 60 is going to be no picnic, let me tell you.

FrozenAteMyDaughter · 11/11/2016 08:16

SlottedSpoon are you parenting in your 60s? Because if not how do you know what it will be like for others? People on here are claiming to be knackered in their 40s or earlier. That is not my experience at all. Everyone clearly has vastly different energy levels.

Also who are.all these people.choosing to be parents in their 40s? Most people who have a first child in their 40s have either met someone late or had fertility problems that have dragged on, or in not a few cases, have had a surprise.

Some.people have had a child or children earlier and.are.seeking to.complete.their family. In most cases.they are fairly early 40s so hardly on their death beds.

It really isnt such a terrible thing.

LBOCS2 · 11/11/2016 08:34

Coming from it from the other side - DM had us 'late', in the eighties. She was in her early forties when my sister was born. Having an older parent was never an issue for us growing up, or as teenagers (although she did occasionally get mistaken for our grandmother). Until relatively recently I would have absolutely championed the idea of having DC older.

But... DM died at 67. So DSis and I lost her when we were in our twenties, and it was really bloody hard, I was just starting my own family and DSis had only moved out a couple of weeks previously. Looking around at my friends who all expect another 20+ years with their parents, it IS something to consider because it did affect us a lot despite being adults.

Which is not to say that people can't die at any time but with increased age the risk increases.

franincisco · 11/11/2016 09:49

at whatever age, every person should be able to express their maternal/paternal longing for a/another child.

Expressing it and actively doing something about it are very different things. There was a documentary on a few years ago showing women who wanted to use donor eggs/sperm who were much older. I think the youngest was 50 and the eldest was 63. One of the women was Spanish and had twins at the age of 55 I think. She said she loved them, but had been very foolish thinking that she had the energy that she had when her other child was born (he was in his late 20's) Very sadly she got cancer and was dying and had to organize someone to look after her then 3 year old twins. Her only living (youngish) relative was her son who was in his late 20's, lived abroad and was less than delighted to be the new parent of his twin brothers.

The other lady had been a Professor in Oxford IIRC, retired due to ill health and then decided it was time to start a family Hmm She suddenly had maternal urges, felt that she had lots to offer a baby and it was her right as much as any other woman to become a mother. She seemed much older than her age, presumably due to health problems and she was quite frail. I think everyone watching the programme breathed a sigh of relief when the ethics panel (who had to yay or nay the treatment) unanimously agreed it was a no.

franincisco · 11/11/2016 09:53

Obviously there is a massive difference in having a baby at 43 and 63, I don't think it is wrong to have a baby in your 40's but i do think the OP would be mad to start baby life again when her youngest is at school , especially considering her age.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page