Too old for a baby

[MummyIWantItNow]

I really want to try for another baby. I'm just 44 now, with a 4yo dd.
DP thinks we're too old. I don't. AIBU?

Had my first at 22 here. Bought a house, in a professional job, studied and worked throughout when DD was young, got a promotion, had a small close network of friends. Never wanted to do uni or travel.

It's not all doom and gloom for mums in their 20s!

I had my DCs at 36 and 40, DH was 40 and 44. We have never had any issues whatsoever. I am very young in my outlook however and also very fit, I’m 54 now and have never felt better. I honestly think that age is just a number and what matters is your attitude and your fitness. Go for it OP and see what happens. If you fall easily, well it was just meant to be!

notheragain4

I'm not disputing that there are clear conception and health advantages to having a baby relatively young.

I'm not slagging off younger parents -- a lot of people come from the starting point that you can be "too old" to be a good parent, without properly defining what that means. I'm saying health and conception risks aside, I think its a load bollocks and is based on outdated ideas of what a "good mother" is - financially dependent and without much autonomy.

Older mums have had to put up for generations with the idea that they are poorly suited for the job and I'm challenging it because I don't think its grounded in fact.

I wouldn't have a child at 45. The risk of complications and ASN are just too high at that point. Also, I don't mean this to be cruel but I personally think it's unfair on a child to have elderly parents while they are young adults. I know people in their early 20s who have to care for older parents and whilst this may not be the case for everyone it seems very unfair.

It’s a hard decision. Our Dd was born when I was 39 nearly 40 (after six miscarriages) and we wanted another and started trying when I was 41 but it never happened as I went through an early menopause. I was glad in a way that the decision had been made for us as I was worried about any genetic abnormalities being older. It felt like we had got away with it once, but might not again.

@thepeopleversuswork

You can't just put health risks aside, it's a dominating factor in if 44 is "too old" to have a baby. The OP isn't early 20s, to diminish the qualities of a younger parent does nothing to support the OP in having a baby, does not reduce the health risk and only serves to insult those who had children young- to what benefit? Win an online argument?

As this wouldn't be your first baby, I don't think you are too old. :) The only caution I would give is that fertility is more of a gamble when you're older, so I hope you've considered different scenarios. You might struggle to conceive - or you might end up with twins. Older women tend to release more eggs. (It was actually a Parks & Rec plotline.) Best of luck, whatever you decide. x

notheragain we’re going round in circles. I’ve said I accept that there are health risks and I’m not insulting anyone.

But I am tired of people thinking they have a free pass to suggest older mothers are inferior to younger ones for very vague, woolly reasons which don’t stand up to scrutiny and actually have more to do with old fashioned and essentially misogynistic ideals about motherhood.

People are very quick to make these knee jerk assertions and then get very defensive when older mothers challenge them and I am tired of it.

thepeopleversuswork so why can't you talk of the benefits to mothering at 44 rather than saying unfounded things about mothers in their 20s? You think the answer to combating "woolly" accusations against older mothers is to add woolly accusations against younger mothers? That's the kind of logic my 6 year old has when arguing with his brother.

I cant say I've seen older parents on here being judged for their parenting skills per se - more that the health issues are much higher risk and experiences from those who do have older parents, again mainly from a health point of view (ie. they passed away when their children were still relatively young adults/became carers at a young age/watched a parent deteriorate/parent didnt have as much energy to do stuff with them).

I think you for whatever reason have a chip on your shoulder about this - are you an older parent and have you been insulted about it in real life because you seem to be incredibly projecting onto this?

I cant see where on this thread people have consistently suggested being an older parent = being a bad parent more so that if you want their own opinion that the health risks would be too much of a problem for them so they wouldnt do it - which is exactly what the OP asked

Mothers of varying ages can be up shit creek for different reasons. Younger ones could get pregnant recklessly and have no means of bringing baby up, older ones could have waited to get the house, careers sorted then can't conceive. We're all dealt different cards.

I don't think you can say one age group is a 'better parent'.

It would be too old for me but it doesn't mean it would be for you. I'm also 44 now. Due to infertility I had my daughter fairly late, at 38. I wanted a second up to about 41/42 and then decided to enjoy what we have and move on. I get the occasional pang about having another but I couldn't go back to the sleepless nights and nappies now.

I got pregnant at 46 thinking I was safe to not use contraceptives. My GP advised a termination immediately due to issues regarding my age. I also had precancerous cells on my cervix. I think it may be best to get some advice first before you decide.

Totally up to you. My colleague's wife got unexpectedly pregnant with number 4 at 48. Had a very healthy pregnancy, healthy baby, all good.

I'd try to cut through all the bollocks (which would include a lot of the arguments on here about energy levels/child embarrassment) and look at the health stats properly. What's the risk to the baby? To you? I don't know, but I don't think its hugely riskier than having a baby in your late 30s (but like I say, don't know)

Could you cope with it if it happened? That's the other question.

Best of luck.

No you aren't being unreasonable at all.

It is a matter of you weighing up the pros and cons and deciding for yourself.

I cant believe some of the downright offensive comments I am reading here.

I have a 10 month old baby at 35 and I also have 3 older kids between 10-14 and I honestly felt a better, more present and attentive parent in my 30s than when I did in my 20s. I feel more confident now than I ever did back then.

My mum died when I was 25 years old, she had me at 18 and although I loved her, she could have been a better parent. I am also mother to a child with severe SEN I gave birth to at aged 22. Some of the shit mentioned here isn't only a scenario for the older mother.

notheragain4

"so why can't you talk of the benefits to mothering at 44 rather than saying unfounded things about mothers in their 20s? You think the answer to combating "woolly" accusations against older mothers is to add woolly accusations against younger mothers?"

Well I thought I'd essentially done that: I outlined why I think that there are benefits to being a) more experienced as a person b) more financially secure and critically not financially wholly dependent on a man c) knowing yourself better d) having got most of your desired "youthful" experiences and wanderlust out of the way. I wasn't having a pop at younger mothers but its undeniable that they are less likely to fit most of these bills. How many mothers in their 20s unless they are from seriously rich backgrounds -- can support themselves?

I said that from an emotional and financial standpoint, these things are likely to count in your favour as a mother, and got people jumping down my throat and telling me to stick it where the sun don't shine etc. So I think you're being a bit harsh.

I stand by what I said. There are clear benefits from a conception and health point of view to having children younger, which need to be taken into account (and have been extensively on this thread). But I think if you can manage these, being a more rounded and grounded person is likely to count in your favour as a mother.

I'm 42 and ttc so I say go for it.

We have a 5 year old and we weren't in a financial position to try again until last year. We were undecided about whether to ttc. But in the end, we thought we'd regret it if we didn't try, so we are trying, but we know it might not happen for us at my age (I've already had an early miscarriage).

As for people saying they it's not fair on the child to have older parents. I do envy people who has children in their 20s, but I can't turn back the clock. Worrying about being dead isn't a reason not to have a child. My mum had me in her 20s, but she became very ill when I was in my 20s, and has since died.

Reasons for not having another child.

1. You would be putting yourself and your unborn child at risk, when you have another child to think about.
2. Chances are you won't have the same amount of energy to run around after a child as you did 10 years ago.
3. You'll be as old as some of the grandparents at the school gates, which could cause your child some embarrassment.
4. Your husband doesn't want one.

Reasons to have a child.

1. You want one.

I had my DS at the age of 18. I can promise you, nobody congratulated me at that age and I felt judged for most of my early 20s and onwards. I then had miscarriages from my late 20s into my mid-30s.

I then had my DD when I was 40. I haven't ever had someone tell me that there was an increased risk of additional needs. Obviously the risk of chromosome disorders was potentially higher in that you start from a higher risk rate but on screening I was deemed low risk.

I live in London so maybe that is why I don't feel judged as having a toddler now I am 42.

I am currently trying for another baby however have to admit that some of the posts on this thread have concerned me. I have obviously been able to find info regarding risks relating to miscarriages and chromosomal issues but nothing in relation to additional needs. I would honestly be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. There have been a few people on this thread that have used the word "likely" when referring to the possibility of having a baby with additional risks. Perhaps they meant higher risk but "likely" suggests a level of certainty.

From a non-health perspective, financially I was in a much better place to have a child at 40 than I was when I had my son at 18. Qualified, own home, with a partner who wasn't going to disappear after the birth. Certainly more comfortable in my own skin and happy to join parenting groups and classes - I felt far too judged when I was younger to do anything like that.

Am I more tired than I was when I was 18? Probably but I can't really remember but I'm also not so exhausted that I can't do anything with her.

@nicky7654

Sorry to hear of your situation. I'm very surprised a GP is even vaguely qualified to recommend such a thing. I had to have smear tests during my pregnancy due to having pre-cancerous cells a few years ago and I bled quite a bit during pregnancy. I saw gynaecologists and obstetricians and was never told anything like that.

I would question what authority a GP has to say something like that tbh given their lack of expertise.

It's not so much the being an older mum and dad that would worry me but more the risks of something wrong with the baby.The statistics are very high at 46.

@viviennemary - which risks are you referring to? The higher risk of chromosomal issues or miscarriage or what? 1 in 40 is your base risk rate for chromosomal issues over 40. That then gets recalculated at screening.

Are these the risks people are referring to on here or is there something else I need to be reading?

@thepeopleversuswork

You can say the benefits of being 40 without assuming the situation of those in their 20s. I'm married to my high school sweetheart, own my own home, educated to masters level, in a successful job the youngest at my grade managing people older than me and completely able to be financial sufficient if we split as I earn more than my husband. Travelling with our children. I had my first at 22.

You have made grossly unfair accusations at the quality of someone's parenting based on their age while dismissing the biggest issue with having children in your 40s. Commenting on someone's physical ability to have a child based on scientific fact is completely different to accusing young women of being inferior mothers.

There is a superiority complex on mumsnet about having children later, but I personally think it's pretty superficial to choose to have children with potentially hugely diminished quality eggs (10% chromasomally normal after 40) for additional security that can be obtained at a sufficient level in your 20s and 30s. Of course we don't all choose the situation we are in, but let's not kid ourselves that having children in our 40s is any smarter an idea than a very young age.

Californian study of increased risk of autism suggests an increase from 1.1 per 1000 at age 25 and 4.4 per 1000 at over 40. So not a massively increased risk.

Sorry that is a 2.3 per 1000 people for over age 25.