Is 46/ 47 too late for first baby?

[Everythingnotsaved]

My friend really wants a baby & is nearly 46 & would probably be 47 by the time baby came. I always read really really different views on mumsnet about babies and pregnancy and age so thought I’d ask:

Yanbu- it’s too old
Yabu- it’s entirely possible

I am assuming shes looking at donor eggs but is it just about that - what about the child too with older parents? I don’t know what I think really.

@Hyperfish101
I'm not here to be hurtful to anyone and I agree that comments about saggy boobs and the like are totally unfair. However if the question is asked about older parents, I don't see why I shouldn't talk about my real experience of being the child in that situation. Not least because very few people do consider this, almost every post is about how healthy the mother is or how young they feel.

The most common age of death for women in the UK right now is 89. It is still fairly unusual for women to die sooner than this.

Unusual - just look at the death notices in any newspaper!

Each to their own but I'm 39 with young kids and I find it tiring!

I’m just asking people to consider people’s feelings a bit more. Those of us with experience of being older parents might have useful things to say but a quick read of the thread has us all tagged as selfish and past it.

Yes of course your POV is important too. I can only speak from mine and rather than try and give my honest assessment I just feel judged so that’s why I won’t contribute after this.

@GrumpyHoonMain just because somebody has stated parenting is exhausting doesn’t mean they are unfit so fit mothers don’t get exhausted??? It’s nothing to do with that at all... this comes up a lot of these types of threads where the older mothers want to claim they are fitter..... parenting is exhausting regardless of how many miles you run!

Money also doesn’t buy health no matter “how wealthy one is”.

My understanding is that the risk of problems or complications increases dramatically year on year in our 40s. Down’s syndrome, obviously, but others too.

That’s the bit that would stop me - high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, placental problems are serious considerations at that age, twins are far more likely, Downs is more than one in 40 and higher risk of difficulties at birth.

@eaglejulesk

The most common age of death for women in the UK right now is 89. It is still fairly unusual for women to die sooner than this.

Unusual - just look at the death notices in any newspaper!

How many people get to 89 with NO medical conditions?!

My friend is 23 and had just lost her dad, after a long battle with dementia (he was 50 when he had her, so early 70's when passes) it's been tough and sadly she is now suffering some awful mental illnesses linked to this. She had gone to uni in another part of the country but felt she had to come home to spend time with her dad.

The one thingshe is thankful for, is she had older siblings to help and support each other during the illness and now after loosing her dad. At 47 your friend may only have one child and they would then need to cope with whatever illness may come, early in their own life and with potentially no one who really is in the same boat as them.

Each to their own but I'm 39 with young kids and I find it tiring!

I think everyone finds it tiring.

The idea that woman are past-it in mid-40s. Should women stop managing companies/ running countries/ running campaigns/ holding any positions of responsibility past 45 too? Because its tiring? Are women so fragile that should stop doing the things they want to do because it is 'tiring'?

Tell you what, if you want to stop living at 45 because it is 'tiring' you go do that. But accept the fact that other women want to keep on living.

I think everyone finds it tiring

I had both mine in my twenties...I look back in absolute amazement at my energy levels back then. I think if I had a new born and a toddler now, I'd collapse in a heap.

I knew someone who had a baby aged 46, but she already had three kids in their late teens (baby was with new partner). Entirely possible but as a first baby I would worry there would be fertility issues due to age.

It's not in any way comparable. That person's decision to learn to drive is not going to adversely impact another person's life.

It's a huge gamble, and if something does go wrong it's the child who pays the price. All because the parents' desires were the no.1 priority.

I agree that parenting is different inasmuch as it directly affects another person's life, but the way some people on this thread are talking, you'd think that having a child a few years older than the 'normal' age-range is akin to dropping them off a motorway bridge. If 47 is selfishly old, then is 37? What about 27, which is still a full 10 years later than a woman could have given birth and thus been around for her child for an extra decade of their life?

Having a baby at any age is an unknown quantity. I know from personal experience what it's like to have been orphaned as a very young adult (and my parents were 'normal' age range anyway). I know it's very tough, especially when you see and hear your peers talking fondly about their own parents into their 40s, 50s, even 60s; more so when they weep about how unfair life is when they're now 'all alone in the world' having lost their parents at the age of 55. However, I still wouldn't have preferred not to have been born at all, or to have been born to different parents who would have lived to 90.

You read of loads of folk on here who are born to 'normal' age parents, who go on to live to a ripe old age, but who treat them throughout their whole lives with real disdain, hatred and/or abuse - or simply disappear and never ever see them. Given the choice (and, of course, none of us can be), I would always have chosen a short time with loving, devoted parents over much longer with uncaring/spiteful/abusive parents.

Yes, some people are fortunate enough to have the best of both worlds, but there's no way whatsoever of guaranteeing how your own life and that of any children you have will play out.

There are very few parents that are late 40s yet people are getting preachy about it. Look at the stats for the amount of obese or unhealthy weight peope or look at the average amount of exercise most adults do. It is a ticking timebomb. Why are older parents selfish but not those who do not keep themselves fit and healthy? Why is agesim allowed ?

If 47 is selfishly old, then is 37? What about 27, which is still a full 10 years later than a woman could have given birth and thus been around for her child for an extra decade of their life?
Completely ridiculous arguement; comparing op's current age with both 10 and 20 years younger! Of course it makes a difference. Wtf?!

I posted on another similar thread I know a woman who had a spotaneous, apparently healthy pregnancy at 47 Mum is now a fit 58 and daughter is a beautiful perfect 11 year old. It can and does happen everything might be fine, but then again it is rare.

My mum was 40 when she adopted me, she died when I was 40. So I had her for 40 brilliant loving years. I would not have swapped her for any younger fitter mother. I grew up in the glow of her unconditional love which has shaped me as a person. She is not gone as I carry her love inside me and will do until I die.

History repeated itself and I adopted at age 43. I do not have Olympian fitness levels and neither did my mum. I am trying to gift my child the confidence I was gifted.

I am a therapist and I can assure any older parent out there who may have been upset by this thread, that your age is likely to be the least important aspect of your relationship with your child. I have been a therapist for a long time and out of the many clients I have seen, no one has ever spoken about their depression/anxiety being caused by being born to a parent in their forties. It’s not impossible of course, and I would not diminish anyone’s lived experience, but it’s not a common presenting factor.

Other factors such as, strength of attachment & unconditional love or the lack of, are frequently mentioned. Being judged and criticised, not kept safe, come up a lot. Sometimes the impact of deprivation can be important.

So would it be better if we were all able to conceive naturally at the ideal stage of life? Who knows, all I know, is we all have to work with the hand we are dealt and make the best of it.

I do wish I had more energy but I wouldn’t be the mother I am without all the life experiences (some very challenging) I had up to the point of becoming a parent.

We all need to live and embrace the life we have not the fantasy that did not happen. This is sometimes very difficult.

Although I did not birth my child, many adopters are older parents due to years of infertility and years in the adoption process , so I think their views are relevant to a thread about the experience of parenting at an older age.

I wouldn't do it.

You'd be pushing 70 before your child flew the nest, there would be a huge cultural difference between you and your child. Can you imagine being 60 and trying to understand/parent a teenager?

I know there are a lot of grandparents in the parent role, and I can imagine they all say how hard it is.

Plus there's also the potential thing of burdening the child with aging/sick parents before their time. They might still be in their 20s or 30s and having to think about home-helps, care homes etc. I don't think that's fair, especially if they are an only child. As well as possibly being orphaned young.

If you're going to have a baby then you need to look at IT'S life, not your own and whether starting at that age is the best thing. Adoption would be a better idea probably.

This is quite a selfish time when people just expect all their wants to be accommodated but without looking at the bigger/long term picture. It isn't just age though, we are overpopulated so adding to that should always be carefully considered for the good of everybody.

Plus there's also the potential thing of burdening the child with aging/sick parents before their time. They might still be in their 20s or 30s and having to think about home-helps, care homes etc.

This is what happened to me, having to deal with a dad who was wandering off in the middle of the night and a mother who was totally unable to cope. Having to fight to get social services involved before my dad ended up getting killed. He went missing five times, once he went out in his pyjamas in below freezing temperatures. This all happened when I was in my 20s.

It seems impossible to have a rational conversation about this though, because some people get defensive and choose to dismiss and invalidate the real lived experiences of children in this situation.

My friend was a bit on the fence and then decided she wanted children. It never happened but she’s intrinsically a bit selfish. The sacrifices children demand of you wouldn’t have worked for her especially at nearly 50. She’s very happy without them.

Everyone is "intrinsically a bit selfish". That's how the human race survives.

However, choosing not to have children doesn't make you any more selfish than those who choose to have them, because people invariably have children for their own selfish reasons.

@chaosmaker

If you're going to have a baby then you need to look at IT'S life, not your own and whether starting at that age is the best thing. Adoption would be a better idea probably.

This is quite a selfish time when people just expect all their wants to be accommodated but without looking at the bigger/long term picture. It isn't just age though, we are overpopulated so adding to that should always be carefully considered for the good of everybody.

Why is adoption better? If people are saying - yet again - that the mother will be half dead or in a home by then, why is it better for them to be responsible for a child who has already been rejected/neglected/bereaved/taken away from an abusive situation?

Or should older women only have the ones that younger women don't want?

There'd be less of an age gap between you, for a start, Mitzi. It would be very rare to adopt a very young child these days, far more likely to be 8+ at least?

The bit that struck me was that your friend has been dithering for years, if she had always been desperate I'd say maybe go for it but if she's not even sure then absolutely no.

It would be very rare to adopt a very young child these days, far more likely to be 8+ at least?

You really do know sod all about adoption, don't you?

This topic keeps coming up and there is usually an offensive pile-on.

I hope the OPs friend enjoys her baby and gets plenty of support from nice people.

You only need to read one or two of the “stately homes” threads to realize that it isn’t someone’s age that makes them a good parent.