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.

@karencantobe I had an unusually early menopause at 40 yo. My DC were only 10 and 7 at the time. So they didn’t hit their teens till I was right in the middle of night sweats and all that jazz. And I also had a financially dependant older DM to worry about. I managed it. And would have managed a baby too.
What I did have though is a very supportive and loving DH, and a strong support network with life long friends.
Other people cope with far worse things like severe illness or severely handicapped children.
All I’m saying is I parented children and teens throughout Not an altogether easy menopause, working full time and with exactly the same circumstances you describe.
I wouldn’t change it if it meant not having my wonderful children. In RL very few people sail through life and parenting. There will always be spanners in the works regardless of our age/stage in life.
What’s important is with the benefit of hindsight to say: would I do it all over again?
I’m 57 yo now with DM gone but a I have a clear conscience I supported her even though at the time it was a lot.
Last year I got another spanner in the works and now I’m recovering from breast cancer and with DC in their mid/late twenties still tentatively making their way in the world, still have the wonderful DH and friends support network.
Hang in there! This too shall pass.

Single adopters do it at that age, but they really have to demonstrate to SS that they have a good support network. And they adopt older children

Single adopters don’t adopt older children because they die sooner than married adopters! In fact single women live longer and are happier than married Women.

Single adopters adopt older ( and much more difficult and damaged children with significant SN) because that’s usually all they can get. Placing social workers prefer couples - even though many of them will divorce . Sadly they have the same prejudices as the rest of society.

@SoyYo I have a supportive and loving DP as well and have dealt with lots of other stuff happening too. Maybe you had an easier menopause, or are just better at coping with things than I am?

I agree, IMOGEN. And from what I understand, that type of child thrives with a single adopter, as they have her full attention. Some of the best adopters I've come across are single.

karen who knows? Maybe yes maybe not 🤷‍♀️ But I have the benefit of hindsight now and so for OP it’s important to see that plenty of us wouldn’t change our life choices despite the challenges that came with it
I wish you well.

I wouldnt simply because of the increased risk of everything. The statistics for down syndrome in 45+ is something crazy like 1 in 30 chance. If you're in a position to be able to care for a child with complex needs as well as your current DC then go for it, no matter what they will bring blessing to your life but it will be challenging. When you have children at that age you have to be ready for this to be a reality.

I had my first and only shortly before my 43rd birthday (told my partner that 42 was absolute cut-off so just in time for baby). I had only one, as my concerns included an adequate, willing, available and healthy support network as I went back to work full time initially. Having a nanny was out of the question but I did have a lot of support with doulas and a part-time nanny in the first year. There is a lot to be said regarding the challenges of autism or other issues surrounding babies born after 35 as many have already pointed out in the thread. I have an autistic younger brother, so that was part of the deciding factor - I didn't want to tempt fate.The pregnancy was fine and uneventful but I did have a C section at 10 days over hospital date. My own Mum was already 68 and not as spritely as she was when prepared to help with my brother's two when they were small some 10 years before. I seriously considered it as was, as I am now, in excellent health. I have no worries of being 60 as my teen reaches her 18th - although she berates me for being so "ancient" against her peers' mothers! I wish you well with your decision-making.

Mmm this is an interesting question for me. My Dh and I are infertile (both sides) and tried for many years. I never wanted to be an older mum as I had a young mum and we started trying when I was 27. I’m now 42 (nearly 43) and in my job I see a lot more women over 40 having babies (I’m not a midwife but I work in operating theatres so maybe they are more prone to sections too - any midwives/obstetricians for stats on that?).

Anyway, lately I’ve been thinking maybe we should give it another go. We are both a lot healthier that we were a few years ago when we decided enough was enough. Only issue being I take a medication for migraines that causes birth defects and it’s the only one that really works for me (selfish but I have severe chronic migraines) plus I’m at uni for another 18 months. And I love the freedom of being just us. But my family dies with us as I’m an only child and my mum was the only one of her siblings to have a child. Who will look after us when we are old? Lol.

In reality I don’t think I could do it now though. I don’t feel my age and my sleep is screwed anyway so I’d be fine on that front but I have adhd and can barely organise myself and get myself up washed and dressed let alone a whole other human being lol. But it would be so much fun (I’m under no illusion and I’d actually be the strict parent - ask the dog!)

Oh and being an olnly child I wouldn’t want to just have 1. I wanted 4!

Yes. I had mine at 42 & tbh, dealing with a stroppy teen, I'm so glad I got the menopause out of the way before that hit

My close friend had her first at 45 too, though sadly cancer stole her from us last year. She was an amazing mum, so patient & full of energy up to the end & made a way better mum than her wild child younger self would have. It's the saddest thing ever that her lovely boy lost his mum when he's so young, but I do believe that could have happened to anyone at any age as it has done with younger friends taken by cancer

Except sadly deaths do increase the older you get.

Too old for me in my situation. I had my DS at 35, had to do the whole injections and stockings thing, don't think I quite qualify for the term 'elderly' yet 🙄😂 These are completely irrelevant as only matter for a few weeks. What would matter to me is I'm too tired to function as it with 2 kids nevermind another and by 45 my 2 will be mid teens so wouldn't fancy sleepless nights and dirty nappies again. If you don't see it that way then go for it! It's personal choice surely?

@Sakura7

'Female life expectancy in the UK averages at 82.9. So on average, the child born to a 45 year old mother would be 37.9 when she dies

So roughly half of women will make it to that age and half won't. Of those who do, they are likely to have several years of declining health before they get to that point, at which point the child will be expected to provide support. The chances of living to 82, fully independent and with no significant health issues are low.'

You're confusing 'median' or 'mode' with average there. The proportion of women on either side of the 82.9 years figure is very unlikely to be half each side

Of course the risks of dying increase as you age chronologically but my point earlier was that if you look after yourself, the chances of that happening decrease. No one should ever say I hope that a 25-year-old who is obese and chain smokes should ever have a child because their life expectancy is lower than average but actually that would be the same logic as that being applied by pps saying 'don't do it, you're too old, think of the child'.

Also confused by those saying they had older parents and wished their parents had had them earlier.
Assuming they even had the option, if their parents did choose to have children earlier, it would have been a different sperm saying hello to a different egg. I.e. a completely different human being! Surely most people would choose having older parents and existing over not existing at all?
I'm also confused by

I said roughly half Ostrich, I know it's not going to be exact

The general point stands and no amount of denailism can change the reality of aging.

@Sakura7
*I said roughly half Ostrich, I know it's not going to be exact hmm

The general point stands and no amount of denailism can change the reality of aging.*

But it won't be anywhere near half! I'm not being pedantic here - roughly half either side is way off!

I'm not denying ageing, I'm just pointing out that this factor is more complex than just taking into account someone's age. So much depends on the individual in question.

Ok then Ostrich, I'd be interested to see the stats supporting the premise that a significant majority (which it must be if it's nowhere near half) of women outlive the average life expectancy.

It's not reasonable to expect that the majority of women will make it to 82.9 years, living entirely independently and without any significant health issues.

Oh my what a cheery and uplifting thread. We're all going to die and leave our children orphaned, such optimism.

Perhaps think of it the other way women who conceive 40+ are probably more likely to be healthy and live longer lives. It's a possibility. Someone I work with had her children quite early.. Around 26ish, she has several young children but I imagine she's less active than I am, she must weigh around 20 stone and does have some health issues linked to her weight.

I really hope that staying fit and eating healthily will stave off the aging process but not sure it actually does!

@Sankura7, I don't know the actual figures. It's highly unlikely that it works out 50% one side, 50% the other, but actually, I slightly misunderstood you in that I thought you were implying that 50% of women won't live to their eighties sort of thing. I imagine that most people fall into a range close enough either side to 83. (Again, don't have figures - had a quick look on Office for Nat Statistics and couldn't find that level of detail.) But if that's true, it would be kind of a moot point - that a proportion of women won't see 82.9 exactly. My main point is that if you're a healthy woman,you can reasonably hope to see your eighties. And for that reason, surely a woman's health/biological age is at least as important factor as her chronological age when trying to decide if it's too late to have a baby.

@MsTSwift, it can do! time.com/5761592/how-to-live-longer-and-healthier/

Otherwise, why would anyone bother?

My DM was the youngest, fittest, healthiest eating, trim, youthful person you’d ever meet at 65 and then she got Alzheimer’s. I wouldn’t wish caring for her on anyone and certainly not a recent graduate. I’m 50, she’s 68 now and it’s one of the hardest things I’ve done in my life.

Ignore the idiots on here telling you no. Its horses for courses.

If you have the financial means, good support, and excellent health (do lots of pilates) and great understanding doctors, then go right ahead.

The science is good, get your tests, and the research that the DM never ever publishes is that older mothers make MUCH better parents, they're more stable, patient, understanding.

Listen... the old blokes on viagra are having kids in their 50-60-70's Nicholson, Baldwin, Trump, Jagger, Goldblum, Joel, Lucas, Steve Martin, Michael Douglas, Hefner, Willis... shall I go on??? ....so its bloody time they laid off women.

No judgement from me about other people's reproductive choices.

I will say though- there is a lot of naivety on this thread. People saying that if you "keep fit and eat healthy" you'll live to 100 with no health problems. I'm afraid life doesnt work like that. I know multiple people who lived extremely healthy lives- vegetarian, tee total, ran marathons, etc some got cancer in their 50s, others had heart attacks in their 60s and several got alzheimers. Now obviously, im not saying living healthily is pointless but this idea that if you live healthily you are guaranteed to live to 100 with no health issues is incredibly stupid and simply not true.

Noone truly knows how older age is going to affect them, health issues can creep up on you without you knowing and to a certain extent its a lottery. Some people require social/medical care in their 60s and others get to 90s with their independence intact. The people on this thread saying "I know people in their 70s who still work!" - sadly, thats really not the norm. Most people in their 70s WILL have a certain amount of health issues purely because the main risk factor for chronic disease is age. The older you are, the more likely you are to have chronic and life affecting health conditions.

No but I am 33 and have two young children with a small age gap. I am considering a third in the next year or so as my dh is keen (I currently feel my family is complete). At 45 the age gap would be too big and due to health complications I would be more likely to have a csection as have had two already.

You are in a different place in your life, consider all the options and then do what is best for you as a family. Hope all goes well for you whatever you decide.