Have a 4th at 47 or not?

[baby4ornot]

I will be turning 46 this year and have been on the fence about conceiving a 4th child.
Back story, we had a difficult time getting pregnant due to my endometriosis. We finally had our first child via IVF at the age of 40. Then we had twins (boy&girl) at age of 42. I was wiped out after the twins and had a severe umbilical hernia which I was told by my dr that I needed to get fixed before I ended up in an emergency room. I opted to get full muscle repair with no mesh. I was 44. At the time I couldn't think of having a fourth. Now my oldest is about to start K, and the twins will start next year.
We have 1 embryo left in storage. I have this immense guilt about leaving it in storage and that I should attempt to go through and try having this baby. The embryo has already been tested (after initial MC with first 3 IVF, we had all the embryos go through PGD testing), so it should be free of chromosome defects which would lead to a MC (miscarriage) or birth defects. It would just be a matter of it surviving the thaw and implanting.

I go back and forth on if I can physically handle a 4th at 47 (assuming I start the process this year and give birth next year)? When I was pregnant with the twins at 41-42, my BP was a concern, now I will also have to factor a pregnancy with a sewn stomach. Also we would be going back to square 1 baby stage and infant daycare costs. My husband doesn’t want to give the embryo up for adoption but I don’t want to destroy it either. Hence my dilemma. Anyone w similar situation or thoughts?

I think 47 is to old, if it was your first but no not the age for a forth child. It is unfair on the DC. If they were born with a disability, not due to age just look, I was 29 and 35 with mine both have additional needs.
My teenage boyfriend had much older parents, it really embarrassed it, his dad was 60s when he was 16. he never let me meet them.
You'd be 50 when they joined preschool.

@Dippypippy1980 my parents were always very active, mucking in with horses/pony club and rugby with my brothers. Depends on the parent. Obviously the risks are there, but childbirth and pregnancy are not risk free regardless of age. Why do people have a second child after a c -section? What if the embryo ends up implanted in the scar of the uterus? Medics will advise of the risks and support, but as far as being an active parent is concerned I think it's no big deal to be a bit older. Rather older than younger and financially unstable.

No way.

You already have 3 dc.

You are pretty bloody old. Sorry.

*luck

No, it's just too much to go through it all again. The very thought is giving me cold sweats.

Jesus. If it were maybe your only chance to have a baby I’d have some grasp of your situation, but this is unhinged.

OP, I'm not in this situation at the moment but may be after our second ivf later this year. If the cycle is successful, it will be our last child but like you, I don't like the idea of destroying embryos.

My clinic have said, if we have embryos remaining, they can do a non-medicated embryo transfer at a time in my cycle when it is unlikely to implant so the embryo does have a chance, although fairly miniscule.
Could you look into that?

My clinic have said, if we have embryos remaining, they can do a non-medicated embryo transfer at a time in my cycle when it is unlikely to implant so the embryo does have a chance, although fairly miniscule.
Could you look into that?^

What’s the rationale?

Cassie, yes totally agree good to have parents who are both in good health and financially stable - you hit the mother load.

But I do think parent should think about their health and the lifestyle they can offer their children, and whether they are likely to be around for their whole childhood. The example I have given is very specific, I also know people who became parents in their forties who are wonderful, active, involved parents.

Parenting is exhausting at any age. It’s just a factor people need to consider when thinking about becoming parents in their late forties.

What’s the rationale?

I'm guessing it's that the embryo has theoretically been "given a chance" rather than being destroyed in the usual sense, or had to be donated to science (my understanding is that you can't donate just the one embryo to another couple).

I seriously would not, too many health concerns and you have your other dc. I know everyone is different but mid forties into fifties can be a difficult age for alot of women, poor health/hormones. Nevermind pregnancy and baby.

Surrogate? I know everyone is saying it's just a cluster of cells, but to me it is a potential baby, not just random cells. I get the feeling you feel the same or you wouldn't be so torn.

Please don't jump on me, I am pro choice. To me, pro choice means that the mother takes precedence as she is more important, not that an embryo is just a clump of cells with the same value as a toe nail.

I know two mums who had children at 46, both fit and healthy and the dads are older, intact one of the couple looks younger, have their own business, go to festivals, the dad recently climbing Everest! They might be the rare though, but never really think of their age neither does my daughter and their daughters friends.

@bluthbanana yes that's it.

It's an option for couples that are uncomfortable with destroying the embryo outright.

I'd be worried about the health side of things more than anything OP. I do think some posters have been unnecessarily, intentionally harsh on this thread though with their links to trashy tabloid articles about 72 year old first babies and "you're old.... dot dot dot for dramatic effect.... too old". But I guess there's always a few bitches on here.

There are massive ethical issues with using a surrogate - far bigger than with not implanting a blastocyst.

The cluster of cells which are transferred for IVF are a very long way away from being a foetus, it's literally a cluster of cells which could still split in two to form identical twins.

Please don't jump on me, I am pro choice. To me, pro choice means that the mother takes precedence as she is more important, not that an embryo is just a clump of cells with the same value as a toe nail.

To me, pro-choice is not just

1. the mother is more important, but also;
2. an embryo is but a mere clump of cells; and
3. if you disagree with point 2 fair enough but please try to maintain perspective until such time that 15,000 children don't die every day of starvation.

Is there the option of a surrogate carrying the embryo for you? Don’t know how it all works but it would take the physical strain of the pregnancy away?

I would do it. Assuming the DRs don't tell you it'll be life threatening to do so.

I have 3 frozen embryos and I intend to use all of them. I'm 41. Assuming you have your child at 47, you'll be 67 when they're in uni. It's not that old and the likelihood is you'll live well into your 70s or 80s if you're in good health

Your health is the issue not your age. Though of course the 2 can be related in pregnancy. And often are.

I can’t comment on the implications for your health. The complications do seem worrying. And you need to talk that over with your partner and your consultant.

But you know that your embryo is free of maternal age related chromosomal defects. And in truth I am quite shocked at the ageist bullshit I read on here regarding women over 40 giving birth. I had my third child (naturally, but I do not think that makes a difference here) a few months short of 45. I was well then. Am well now. Might not stay that way. But no-one gets a guarantee of health.

I am staggered at all the talk of it being “selfish” to have a child at 47. That is not intellectually sound at all. It’s “selfish” to have a child at any age. Almost all prospective parents are driven by ‘selfish’ desires when it comes to procreation. We don’t do it for the sake of the planet and seldom do so for any reason other than our own “selfish” desire to bear children. It’s a desire as old as time and deeply ingrained in many. Prima facie, It’s no more or less selfish to have a child at 47 than 27. It might be more risky. But that is not the same thing. Only you can evaluate that risk

I should qualify - only you - on medical advice - can evaluate the rusk.

Lol 😂 47 😂😂😂

You feel immense guilt about a microscopic bunch of frozen cells

Would you say that to a woman who’d had an early miscarriage?

When it is a baby?

I’m afraid I’m against IVF when it involves creating multiple embryos and leaving them “on ice”. This is what it leads too. It doesn’t sit well with my personal values. I don’t think we should be creating human life and leaving it sitting in a glass tube forever.

I get that most people don’t see it this way. Or choose not to.

Tricky one OP. Shame you didn’t get this sorted a bit sooner, which I realise is not helpful. I sympathise with your turmoil.

No no no no no...no. Just enjoy the children you have 💕

@escapade1234 that's just how it works though. For example, I am in the middle of IVF (ICSI) I had 6 eggs retrieved, 4 were able to be injected with DH's sperm, 3 fertilised but only 1 made it to the full 5 days. Last time, I had 2 that made it. Without attempting to get multiples, you risk not getting any at all.