To ask how old is too old to actively seek to get pregnant?

[SerenDippitty]

Science is making it possible (though not easy) for women past natural childbearing age to become pregnant (with donor eggs). Is this a good thing? What age if any should be the cutoff point - 60? The world’s oldest verified mother was nearly 67 when she gave birth to twins, but there is an Indian woman who was an unverified 72 when she had a son.

Where do we draw the line? Isn’t it a bit selfish to seek to have a baby when you know you won’t be around for most of that child’s adult life?

Journalist??

Journo

My quote "this is research but not as you know it".
Hth

Cut of should be natural childbearing age - apart from women who have very early menopause etc..

No I’m not a journalist. I’m genuinely interested in this issue having had fertility issues myself, but if it is a subject t no one wants to discuss that’s fair enough.

Agree with natural age. Having a baby at 67 is practically child abuse.

Barring fertility issues it should be a cut off of menopause age. Once you naturally can't have kids then it's done. If you went through an early menopause then it's different.

It’s much harder to cope with the demands of a baby and young toddler the older you are so I think Mother Nature intervenes by making it harder to conceive past age 35 although you are likely to be more settled, financially stable and in a more secure relationship etc etc.
Although I became a first time mum at 37 it is very demanding in terms of tiredness. Also if you have children in your late 30’s early 40’s you’ve less chance of any family support as your DC’s GP’s will be elderly or not around. I would say 40 would be the latest age to be a first time mum but if you have no health issues possibly early 40’s. Sixties is ridiculous in my opinion.

Personally, I don't think the fact that an older mother might die before her children are fully raised is a valid one. Any mother of any age might die due to illness or injury before her children are grown. If that is your only argument, then no one should have children.

Sorry, should have said "valid objection."

Natural age of menopause, though if someone had a premature manopause, then trying after that (up to the typical menopause age for her community) seems a good use of those techniques.

All things being equal I'd say at your natural menopause. But strictly speaking, 45 years old would be where I draw the line.

Personally, I don't think the fact that an older mother might die before her children are fully raised is a valid one. Any mother of any age might die due to illness or injury before her children are grown. If that is your only argument, then no one should have children.

It’s one thing knowing you might die while your children are still young. Knowing you will before you’ve even become pregnant is a bit different isn’t it?

I realise it’s the woman’s body going through pregnancy and childbirth therefore different but I find it quite misogynistic comparing older mother’s to child abuse when people like Ronnie Wood and Rod Stewart have procreated well into their sixties and no one bats an eyelid.

I had a friend in secondary school school whose DF was 80 meaning he was around 66 when my friend was born. I suspect it would have been far more frowned upon had his mother been 66. It’s unfair to have one rule for one and another for another.

I think ANYONE of any gender should consider how long they are likely to be around and also in good health to support their DC. I know it could be argued that anyone of any age can fall into bad health but it is far more likely if you became a parent at 50 than 30. It’s impossible to predict the future of course but if you are considering becoming a parent at 60, there’s a chance you will be in failing health or dead by the time they are 20. You will likely miss marriage and grandchildren or if you are around, won’t have the energy to care for your grandchildren.

I do think that the argument that an older mother is likely not just might die before her children are fully grown is a valid one. My mother died when I was quiet young, she was also unusually young to die, but she died quite suddenly. Obviously it would have been nice to have had her for support but at lk easy she wasn't a burden to me. If a woman becomes a mother in her sixties then by the time her child is in university she would have well and truly declined. How is it fair to expect a teenager to deal with a geriatric parent? If you have the means to entirely shield your child from your grunted health problems and provide for them adequatly to compensate for your inability to help them yourself then I suppose it's fine. But having a child when you are already old and then relying on them for help when they are so young you should be the one providing help and care is incredibly selfish.

I think 45 for both men and women. You have a very good chance before that age of seeing your children into adulthood.

Men can father children at any age but that doesn’t mean they should. It’s now known that sperm quality deteriorates with age and older fathers have a higher risk of having children and grandchildren with autism spectrum disorders and learning disabilities.

I think the whole family dynamic should be considered and the odds of what’s likely to happen over the next twenty years.

On threads about “should I have a baby in my forties” I always ask the age of the father and whether he smokes or has other relevant health factors. Having your father die or experience life altering morbidity when you’re ten is a big deal. Looking after a ten year old while nursing your partner through a stroke is a big deal. And when it comes to families where both parents are in their fifties at birth then the odds of a child being orphaned or having to take on care requirements in their teens becomes, imo, too high.

If someone smokes then all age cut offs move down a decade. If you’ve got particularly good health and genetics (all grandparents jogging round the block into their nineties) then you can probably stretch them up five years.

We all want the best for our children and the number one requirement is to be there for them.

On the subject of millionaire septuagenarian dads I think the money does make a difference to practicalities. If Rod Stewart has a stroke his kids aren’t going to have to combine GCSEs with a 24hour shift as carers. It wouldn’t make the emotional side easier though.

I think natural age of menopause for women and I also think that men who continue getting women pregnant once they are in their 50’s and above are self centred vain arseholes. Invariablymthese are the type of men who are wealthy enough to attract much younger women who are very keen to ensure they have a pregnancy for their own self centred reasons....
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should....
That said, there’s a lot worse shit that goes on in the world.
It’s becoming a much more significant issue as women are pursuing careers at the expense of having children. I’m 45 now and the thought of having a baby fills me with horror. If I was really wealthy and childless though, a surrogate would definitely be an option (because I’m rich and entitled and if I want something then I can buy it.....)

Pensioner age fathers are far more likely than not to have younger wives/partners, though, aren't they? So although the father is not likely to survive to see the child turn 30, the mother would.

In cases where the mother is also a pensioner, the child would likely be orphaned before reaching adult age. That's very different. I suppose if a woman of 67 could safely go through pregnancy and birth (pretty big if, and as someone in my mid 50s the very idea makes me break out in a cold sweat) and the child's father was 40ish it might be OK.

However, we all know that when a couple with children split up it's very common for children to stay with the mother and for the father's involvement in their lives to be absolutely minimal thereafter. So if the mother was likely to die in the near future from natural causes, what happens to the poor kid then?

As an older mum (40 and 45 when I had my 2) then I would also say natural menopause. Mind you, I'm 50 now and wouldn't dream of doing it again, even if I could! Which I really don't think is an option.

I had a planned baby with DH after he was diagnosed with a terminal illness - a sibling for the one we had pre-diagnosis. We coped fine, but it would have been very different if my health was also poor.

Personally I would draw the line at using donor eggs (misses the point slightly) - agree with pp who said the age of natural menopause.

If it's a case of likely parental longevity does that mean that someone with a life-limiting condition is wrong to have a child or adopt?
Being that they will pass away before their child is middle-aged, or possibly an adult and may have conditions that means that the parent will not be a typically fit and able individual. I'm thinking MS or similar.

I think 50. Though early 30s was late enough for me, can't imagine how I'd cope with the knackeredness!