Would you have a baby at 45?

[84wood]

Hello

I am considering having another baby. We’ve already got a lovely DC who’s 5 and we’ve really enjoyed being parents. I had a trouble free pregnancy and had my child privately so I’m lucky to know all the best doctors and units. I’m also in very good health. It would be a bit of a financial struggle as DC is in a private school but not impossible. How would you feel? Would you try?
Thanks so much for reading and for any advice.

But this also applies to women in their late 30s. If the OP was 39 no one would say anything, she could easily be in peri by 42.

It's a double standard in terms of perception, but it adds to the point about health not necessarily being brilliant by 40.

But I get your latter points and do feel this thread has become quite unbalanced.

In generations before the pill, sure women gave birth to babies up till the menopause. They also had 9, 12, 14 kids. Surely no one is advocating this as a good example?

I don’t think it was the norm in all families to have a child at 45, no. I mean, it happened sometimes, I guess. Infant mortality was WAY higher, as was maternal mortality so often the outcome was tragic anyway. For those babies born successfully to mothers 45 and over who already had large families, often the youngest would just be mainly cared for by the older children. No, it wasn’t ideal and no/one would advocate that.

No such thing as peri-menopause. It's all menopause & should be treated accordingly. I know this is OT so apologies, but it's a massive pet hate of mine. Putting 'peri' in front is a way for society (aka men) to minimise our suffering & tell us to shut up & get on with it. Doesn't happen with male age related problems. Do we call the occasional failure to get a hard on 'peri-ED' & tell them to tolerate it for a few years due to it not being as bad as it could be yet?

@bugbasher That is interesting. I have never heard anyone objecting to that term. I saw it as just meaning still having periods, but having symptoms of low oestrogen.

I take your point bugbasher.

Go for it.

I also think though the same can be said for references to women being knackered because of age in their 40s. It isn't age it is menopause.

@MyuMe Age really isn't what it used to be. I have a friend who is 61 and she is really active and still working fulltime and lots of hobbies and yoga and gym. Poor teenager being stuck with her as a mum

Does your 61 year old friend have teenaged kids?

My GP calls it peri. Menopause is the completion of peri.

Menopause is defined as when you’ve not had a period for 12 consecutive months with no other cause identified.

Perimenopause is when your hormone levels and periods start changing but you’re not in menopause yet. You may still be ovulating and may still be able to get pregnant.

So I think the distinction between the two is valid.

Just as pre-diabetes indicates blood sugar levels that are higher than normal but not yet a diabetic levels.

But menopause is actually when your periods stop, it is a single event. Perimenopause is simply the befoe and after which is when symptoms are often far more severe. Instead of changing the correct terminology, perhaps the way forwards is to educate those who minimise its effects?

I know that we could all be struck down dead at any point in our lives and irrespective of how old our children are, but the simple fact is that it’s more likely to happen the older you get.

In my twenties and thirties I don’t recall any of my friends or acquaintances dying and heard of it happening to others very rarely.

In my forties it happened to one woman I knew who had school aged children.

Now I’m in my early 50s it’s happened to 8 people I know, personally in the last three years. Eight! Oldest was 60 and the youngest was 45. Mostly cancer, but a couple of sudden heart attacks too.

Those people had children who were either already adults or at least in their mid to late teens. Imagine they’d all had their children when over 40 or even 45. It would be much more tragic for the children in question that it already is, but no less likely to happen.

@Teateaandmoretea Yes I agree menopause or peri. It is not age as such, but age related as peri and menopause usually does not happen until your 40's and 50's. I think this is why younger women or those who have easy menopauses don't understand it. Because of course 50 isn't old. But peri can make you feel like you are ancient.

I was 32 when I had my first - she's now 5 and desperate for a sibling. I'm completely torn on what to do, so worried about the risks due to my age, not just for the baby but me with a second section

Go for it, @IamMoana, this is not the same as deciding to try for one at 45. You’re only 37, FGS!

Teateaandmoretea It’s less likely but the surprise menopause baby and pregnancy has happened in my family

So not a chance I would risk. My symptoms have not impacted my cycle at all, I still get the same symptoms when ovulating I am quite certain for now I could become pregnant (never been an issue) that could change within a few months

But my energy levels have dropped and the brain fog is what I am now getting - changes are happening

Abortions peak in teenage years and then again in peri years. Women who think they can't get pregnant, and do. Yes fertility declines, but that does not mean you are unlikely to have a kid.

I want to just make an observation:

It’s seemingly fine on this thread to comment on having a child later in life, but in all threads with young mothers, young mothers are massively defended. And I don’t see why. Having a child isn’t physically great when over 40, no. But I don’t think someone in their teens or even early 20s is mentally prepared necessarily, or financial ready/capable. Particularly with an accidental pregnancy.

There are lots of “ideals”. Ideally one would be financially secure, married or in a committed relationship with the father, responsible...all those other things which are optimal but non-essential.

I wouldn’t personally want a child at 45, but nor would I at 20. Or unmarried. Or without finances. But circumstances are often out of our control and reading this thread has made me think of people who don’t find the right person until 40, or don’t have the money and decide to wait until they do, rather than go on benefits, or TTC for 10 years.

I guess my rambling means I think the judgment re older parents (including my own earlier post) are unfair.

No, I don't think I'd have one over 35, 40 would be my absolute cut off!

'They' would love it just be periods ceasing. It's that definition that's led to our needs being ignored & minimised for so long. Time for us to start taking our language & definitions back. I'll stop gobbling off now, I'm menopausal & bolshy (but still having very regular periods unfortunately).

@crispysausagerolls I listened to everyone about not having a baby too young. Personally I wish I had had mine younger.

I voted no as for me personally I had a cut off of not TTC past 41, DS was born a few months before my 41st, and I already had an older DS

However, I'm not sure how I would of felt had it of been my first, and could quite easily of seen me keep on trying till I succeded

In an ideal world it would be better to have children younger, in one's twenties or early thirties. That wasn't an option for all of us!

The OP'S choice is to (try to) have a second child in her mid forties, or never have a second child. I'd be trying for the second child.

It’s irrelevant people talking about grandparents at 60 being fine looking after small children occasionally. Most people in their early 60s will be still in full-time work. But working to retirement age while caring permanently for small children would be difficult. I know one grandma who had to do it- after her daughter died, leaving her to bring up two orphaned children.

To those suggesting people in their mid 40s who have noticed their bodies slowing down lack vitamins, or are 'prematurely old can I just point out that no matter how fit and healthy you are for 45 it isn't the same as being fit and healthy for 20.

There is no escaping the aging process. I am a fit and healthy for my age 45. I'm well aware I'm fitter and healthier than many people ten or even 20 years younger than me. I am also well aware my body takes longer to recover from everything than it did when I was 20. Longer to recover from a night out, unaccustomed forms of exercise, the common cold, a grazed knee.

People live longer because we have extended old age, not because we have somehow made 45 year olds the same as 25 year olds used to be. 45 is still 45 and it is still less energetic than 25 for any given level of health and fitness.

The only person I know who had DC at 45 did egg donation...had two mid/late 40s and is struggling with the tiredness / parenting etc with little support as her parents are now aged and her DH working all the hours to pay for the massively expensive treatment / nursery costs etc.

Another thing I have noticed in primary school myself (we live in an area with lots of older parents) is the parents having e.g. cancer, in primary aged parents, as they are older parents, in 50s/60s, it is quite sad really, know several families, with mothers with breast cancer, another with a father with lymphoma, and several chronic illnesses leaving the young DC worried and anxious...

So, no I don't think it is great idea really overall.