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.

I wouldn't. My MIL had her last child at 47- said child spent her entire childhood explaining "No she isn't my grandmother, she's my mother" to other kids. Then she lost her mother at 19. The whole thing was just sad.

There are two different issues here: whether it's desirable/possible medically, and whether it's OK for a child to have an older parent.

As regards having an older parent: of course there are potential problems, but there are problems with any set-up. As pp have pointed out, many children have been brought up by their grandparents. And with the present life expectancy, and even healthy life expectancy, being what they are, the chances that the child would have to deal with her mother's death or serious health deterioration before adulthood are fairly low. Higher than for the child of a younger mother, but not high.

However, even if donor eggs are used, the chances that she might not be able to get pregnant; or have pregnancy complications that might be dangerous to the baby as well as herself, are , I would think. fairly high. She will presumably need a lot of medical advice and support to be able to get pregnant in the first place, and the medical advice may well be 'don't do it'. In which case, it probably won't happen.

But a lot also depends on her circumstances. Does she have a supportive partner, and a good support network? Why does she want a baby now, having not had one in the past? If she always wanted a baby and was prevented by circumstances that have now changed, it's a bit different from suddenly feeling broody. It does occur to me that the isolation of lockdown might have led to uncharacteristic broodiness, and that this might not last.

Ultimately, it's up to her, her partner if she has one, and her doctor(s).

Adoption is an option, maybe adoption an idea

Adoption is not easy nowadays; and adoption agencies probably would not consider someone of her age , especially for a baby.

personally I probably wouldn't, but it's your friends life and choice.

@HowFastIsTooFast

It seems that a lot of people answering above already have their children and 'wouldn't go through it again at that age'.

Well that's fine, but if you didn't already have them, and you badly wanted them, would your answer be different? This is the situation the OPs friend is in.

Yep. It’s entirely different when you’ve never had kids.

I wouldn't personally but then I only have one DC, I wouldn't want two or more but many do so if she wants to she should.

@OldieMama YABVU for resurrecting a zombie.

Yes, I think that 46/47 is to old for a 1st baby. I know some woman can and do get pregnant at that age but I think that pregnancy can be hard on a body of that age even if you are fit, healthy and not overweight.
Then you need more care during pregnancy and have a very high chance of having a child with some disability. Some disabilities or special needs only come to light after a period of time such as autism.
It not just the baby years you have to get through but image dealing with a moody teenager in your early 60s. Then you or partner have to work right up to retirement age or beyond to put your child through college.
Another thing to consider is what happens your child if you are no longer able to care for them due to bad health or if you died suddenly?
You need to have a good amount available in a life insurance policy if the worse was to happen and life insurance gets more expensive as you age.

I feel the just because you can do something does not mean it a good idea.

*Adoption is an option, maybe adoption an idea

Adoption is not easy nowadays; and adoption agencies probably would not consider someone of her age , especially for a baby.*

I work in this area many adopters are this age. Sadly the number of children needing adoption still far outweighs the number of applicants.

I don't think it's too old in terms of being able to look after the child and give it a good life, but in terms of biology, practically for most people they wouldn't be able to conceive or maintain a pregnancy, and the risks of the baby having certain conditions is greater.

Have a dear friend who had her first and only at 44.
She's now 58.
Adores her daughter but it has been really hard, losing her freedom at that age and physically - broken nights, carrying a small child, dealing with temper tantrums and now teenage moodiness.
A year ago she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.
If your friend is wealthy and can afford night and day nannies maybe.
Ultimately it's her choice of course.

If I was your friend I’d be furious if I ever realised you’d come on mumsnet to gossip about my decision. What business is it of yours what your friend does, it’s their choice and their choice alone.

I think it's unfair on the child

Personally, I couldn't imagine having a child at that age.

I just don't think it's fair on the child either, I'm not talking about when they are younger, but considering how old they will be at various life stages.

I don't consider 47 old per se, just putting it in the context of having a child.

Having said that, some 50 year olds I know, defy their age both in appearance and their physical fitness and energy levels and would knock some of my younger friends into next week!

I thought this would be a thread where you are asking if you should have a baby at that age.

It's a bit odd to start a thread about your friend wanting to have a baby. It's none of your business.

Well if I had to choose between having a 46 year old mum or not being born at all, I know which one I'd choose.

If there is love and your friend is in good health, why not?

Sorry, I can’t imagine the pain she is going through being childless but there’s a reason women’s fertility doesn’t last forever.

I can imagine nothing worse for either mother or child than being a parent of a 13 year old at 60.

Aargh, zombie thread!! The baby is probably born by now :D

I think that’s totally up to her and not really fair to pass judgement.
Some 47 year olds are much fitter and healthier than women 10 or even 20 years younger.
My mum had my youngest sibling at 47 (unplanned) - whilst it was a shock as she thought she had completed her family she wouldn’t have changed it and can’t imagine life without them.

God yes! And nothing to do with you

I'm a for 38 year old with a toddler and a newborn. I'm exhausted. The thought of doing this in 10 years?! For me that would be a hell no!

That should say fit not for

@OldieMama why are you waking up lots of old threads to talk about having your own babies at 40, 46 and how you’re planning another one?

You can start your own thread about but I might caution against it to be honest.

I know a mum who had her first and only at 47. Her DH was 67. She had never planned to have kids, but then got caught out at 47. She was more laid back over contraception, thinking she was going through change. They kept the baby. He is 21 now, and very very loved.