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.

Having babies in your late 30s/40s is a choice though-many on here claiming they "couldn't " have had children younger. Why not

Speaking for myself, I didn't meet my DH until I was in my early 30s, and we started TTC straightaway because we didn't want to be older parents. I was infertile, we went through IVF once, and there were no eggs. I was 37 when we gave up the dream of a baby of our own.

Social Services insisted rightly that we should take time to come to terms with this, have therapy etc, and then the adoption process takes time. I was 40 by the time DD1 came into our lives, and DH was 44. Then we were 47 and 43 when DD2 came here, also at 1 year of age.

So less of the judgement some of you have towards older parents; you often don't know what's gone on in our lives bringing us to having our DC at the ages we do.

If I was childless yes but otherwise no.

@Cotswoldmama I agree with you there. Unless it was to adopt another DC, which my DSis and DBIL did when they were both 44. Their youngest is now 4 and in Reception. He's their 4th child, one of the older siblings is her DSS from DBIL's first marriage. They have 2 older DC, who are now 10 and 8.

But starting the adoption process at 45 would be a bit late, as it takes at least 18 months. If Social Services approve your application, it would be recommended that you adopt an older child. But even then it's a big decision, as older children often have serious issues to deal with. It's often single adopters who do that, and it can work better than with a couple, as a child with troubled backgrounds frequently respond better one to one.

I would never have done it if I'd already had DC. It's often better to consider fostering, as you're not committing yourself to raise a child to adulthood.

Personally speaking, no I wouldn’t. I chose to have my children in my twenties so I could spend my thirties, forties and beyond focusing on my career without break and also so I’d have lots of energy for my DC. The risks once you pass 40 are also too high for me.

So true @Lizzie0869 I love children and even though it's quite a way off I think I'd like to foster children when they leave home. There are other ways of having more children in your life. I think the risks of carrying a baby out weigh the positives.

It depends on your situation and your health. I had mine at 43 and no issues. It's different for everyone though.

Gosh I feel very saddened by most of your views about older mums :(.
To answer the OP. Yes I would. In fact I had my first child at that age and I can't say I have experienced any of the negatives that most people are posting about.
Many professional women are having children in their early forties.
Decide what is right for you. Probably the only persons opinion that you should listen to is your partners and your GP/midwife. :)

No I wouldn't, but I'm pregnant with my first at 20y/o and always wanted all of my children (2-3) before I'm 25. So just personal preference

@Lizzie0869 It's not about judging or attacking older parents. I know only too well that circumstances aren't right for lots of people at age 25-35, whether that's to do with finding the right partner, not being secure enough financially, or whatever. I get that.

However, I think it is really important for people to think about the impact on the child. Those of us who have been the child in that situation and suffered negative consequences are entitled to talk about our experiences. Ultimately it is a gamble, taken for the benefit of the parents. If something goes wrong it's the child that pays the price, and that can be utterly traumatising.

By talking about our experience, maybe we'll give people like the OP something to consider. For people who are already older parents, maybe they can think about ways to mitigate against the risks and plan for their child's future should the worst happen.

Of course people go into parenthood with good intentions, but it's clear from this thread that the realistic outcomes for the child in the future are not being considered. Someone's desire to be a parent should not trump the future child's wellbeing. A line has to be drawn somewhere. When one of the parents is 57 it's quite clear it's all about the parent's wants and not the child's needs.

@Sakura7 I know, but it's a sensitive issue. I know better than most about this, because I grew up with my F's Parkinson's Disease hanging over us. And my DM was orphaned at 10, her F was 82 and her DM 49, dying of a heart attack.

My paternal DGF died in the war, shot by the Gestapo (my F was Czech). My paternal DGM died at 70 of a heart attack, as did my F, of septicaemia, when in hospital having had a major stroke. (He was no loss as he had abused us when we were children.). My DM is the only one still alive at 80.

Life sucks sometimes. So I do get what you're saying, but sometimes life doesn't work the way you want it to.

I do think adoption is different as I didn't go through a risky pregnancy, like my DSis did at 38, nearly dying of pre-Enclampsia, and also had gestational diabetes. She then went through it again 2 years later. I kept my mouth shut but I was very worried. I suspect they adopted their third child, their DS, because her DH put his foot down. There's a 22 year old DSS and 2 small DC too. They're wonderful parents, but what she did was very risky.

Adoptive parents have always been older than birth parents because usually they TTC, go through IVF and then are expected to take time to come to terms with infertility and then a lengthy adoption process. It's not right, but, ask yourself this; if we hadn't adopted our DDs, who would? There aren't any couples of the 25-28 age applying to adopt (or very few).

No. I had my youngest at 37, and that wasn’t limit.

@Lizzie0869 I agree that adoption is different, not just because of the lack of pregnancy issues but also because those children are already here and need a secure, loving home. It's wonderful that you're able to provide that. Also I'm sure you had to go through a vetting process so it's clear that you are able to provide that for them. Obviously that's not always the case when people decide to TTC.

I'll admit I've only read about half this thread and need to get some work done now but I'm surprised that so far, no one has mentioned the difference between chronological age and biological age. Someone could be 30 but due to poor health behaviours etc like smoking have a biological age of 45. And someone aged 45 might be super healthy with good health behaviours - diet, exercise etc, good bmi - and have a biological age of 30. Surely that's a relevant factor, when deciding when is 'too old' to have a kid? (But I am a fabulously healthy two-kids-in-her-40s mother so may be slightly biased)

Shocked at all the ageism and nasty comments and assumptions that being 60 = ancient and old-fashioned and embarrassing. I know women in their thirties who wear twinsets. I'd have been embarrassed for them to have been my mother

Good luck, op, whatever happens

@ostrichrunning Although that is true, I am of the age where I have seen people live longer than you would expect from their lifestyle, and people dying younger than you would expect from their lifestyle. This is why Drs ask you as you get older about the health of your parents, grandparents and siblings. Heath is about risks. If you live healthily you decrease the risk of dying young or being in ill health you. But you do not eliminate that risk.
I think a lot of this also comes down to your attitude to risk. I know I am pretty risk averse, others are happy to embrace a lot of risk.

Yes. I would. I'm shocked at al the 'no' responses on this thread.

Your child is 5... if you'd like her to have a sibling, go for it.

I had my DD at 42. We are both fine... I'm in my 50s now and feel sad that it's all going so fast. I don't care that I'll be in my 60s when she goes to uni. All my mum friends are amazed when they find out how old I am.

45 isn't old. My family has a long history of having children later than most. My grand dad was born in 1893!

45 isn't old. My family has a long history of having children later than most. My grand dad was born in 1893!

Sounds like my family. I was accused of being a liar on mumsnet once in a discussion about the war, when I said that my grandfather would have been far too old to have served in the 2nd world War. I'm 44, he was born in the 1880s, so he would almost have been too old for the first world war

I couldn't bat an eyelid at what YOU decide to do (my mum was an older mother to me), but it would be a HELL NO from me. My children will be 24 and 21 by the time I am that age so NOPE.

I wouldn't. I'm 39 now and consider myself too old for another. My husband studies paternal age effect and mutations during spermatogenesis. I know enough to know the ilder the parents the higher the risks of a number of life limiting nasty conditions.

For me, anyway, it’s not any physical limitations, but emotional ones.

For 50, I am very active and at least physically feel as though I’m half my age, so I could do the physical work, no problem. The thing is, menopause has hit, and I just don’t want to anymore. Menopause has chipped away at the utter selflessness I exhibited when my children were younger. I love my kids, but they’re teenagers and do things for themselves and I’m grateful.

I am very comfortable saying “No” now to the little things, whereas 10 years ago I wasn’t. “Mom, can you make my lunch for school?” “Nope.” “Mom, can you make me a sandwich?” “Nope.” “Mom, where’s my backpack?” “I don’t know. That’s your responsibility” and I refuse to hunt around the house for it like I did 10 years ago.

It's different for the "bigger" realities of life; my older son is starting college in the fall and there is a lot inherently that goes into college planning, but that's the sort of thing with which I don't mind helping.

I would be resentful, however, if I had to once again be responsible for every single nuance of a small person again at this stage in the game.

Yeh, it is not where i am mentally. Im beginning to reclaim myself.

I really agree with you pp

There has been a shiftin my mindset that corresponds so completely with menopause symptoms.

I would worry a woman would enter in to another 20 years of motherhood at 45 and then at 49 get these feelings i have.

I am single parent to two teens so im NOT done but all of my hormones are telling me im done.

Im happy with my mindset and encouraging terns to be as independent as possibble but they need my support still.

Out I feel exactly the same and see my friends so too. It must be hormonal. The “how can I help you darling” mindset flips to “get it yourself” which is fine if your kid is 13 less so if they are 3.

I am (v unexpectedly) pregnant at 44 and I had my children at 37 and 38 - met my husband at age 32 and it took us a few years to manage it so I wasn’t deliberately holding off. All the stuff about “wouldn’t do it past 35” is really an irrelevance to you - you DIDN’T do this before 35 so that’s neither here nor there really. In your circs I’d absolutely have a go and see if it works. Loads of mothers have children in their late 30s and 40s - the number of friends I have who had children in their 20s by comparison I can count on one hand although that may be just my own demographic. At 44, not a single medical professional has even mentioned my age or batted an eyelid. Women have been having children at that age since the dawn of time and now we have the benefit of screening and good healthcare available to help you along the way - and you might not even need anything special as you’re in good shape.

So surprised by some of the replies on this thread. I must exist in a parallel universe! I and several of my friends have had babies in our 40s. Like fascinated I loved my life pre-children and wouldn’t have wanted to have babies earlier. So I would say yes, absolutely, no question. The main thing is your way of relating to your child and trying to build that strong loving bond. I think I’m doing a better job of that now than I would have earlier in life.

No I wouldn’t after witnessing a close friend having to let her brother go into foster care after their much older parents passed away within a year of each other, and she was unable to take on responsibility to him. It can of course happen to any one at any age but I personally had mine younger to have more time with them. All that matters is how you feel about it, if it’s a now or never situation then follow your heart but make sure there are safety nets in place should the worse happen.