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.

@AllisoninWunderland

So much ageism on here. Especially towards women. No one is judging the millions of men out there fathering babies in their 40s/50s and beyond!

Age is just a number.
Biological age is more important than chronological age when it comes to fertility.
Yes 46/47 might be too late for some women but certainly not ALL.

I’m 45 & still hoping to conceive my 2nd.
I’m healthy, youthful, energetic, financially buoyant, & I look and feel much younger than my chronological age. I plan to live to 98 like my gran or 101 like my great aunt.

Life isn’t black and white. It’s all shades of grey. A child born to a parent in their mid forties is not guaranteed to lose their parent earlier than one born to a parent in their 20s/30s. As we have all learned this last year, life can throw you a curveball at anytime.

Rubbish. It's not 'ageism,' to say having babies in your mid 40s is too old. It's an OPINION. You know, what the OP asked for!

And as I said earlier, I DO judge men the same. People always assume others only judge women for doing it, but most people think the same about men too.

I don't know if you are projecting, or over-sensitive, because you are having babies in your mid 40s... But no way can you think 'age is just a number' when it comes to having babies... It's really not. There are so many reasons for not having babies past 43-44 years old. More disadvantages than advantages for sure.

You may feel youthful and energetic at 45, but that doesn't change the fact you will be nearly SEVENTY before your child leaves university. And in your early to mid sixties while they are still at school.

A 'healthy,' and 'spritely' 45 year old woman, having a baby at 45, can easily be infirm and needing care, before their child has barely left their teens.. Some women (and it is almost always women, I rarely see MEN wanting babies in their mid 40s,) seem so desperate to have a baby in their mid 40s, that they can't see the bigger picture, and all the pitfalls to having a baby at that age.

And there are many... the main one being health risks with the mother AND the baby, and also, the fact that your child could end up being an orphan or a carer, at a time when they should be enjoying their youth...

I always find it amazing how so many women on mumsnet claim to be having babies galore over 43-44 years of age, and 'everyone they know is doing the same' and NONE of them ever have any issues with the child OR themselves. And they all look 29 and have the health of a woman half their age.

Yet in real life, most people can count on the fingers of one hand how many people they know who have become a parent past the age of 43-44. And the few that have, are permanently knackered, they find it ages them, it wears them out, and has a toll on their health.

And, as some other posters have said, sometimes the baby has additional needs too, which is a struggle at any time, but a lot more so when you're middle aged or older...

Most people simply would never do it, and for a number of very good reasons.

@whoshouldItalkto

So if it’s fine to say someone is who naturally conceived is “too old” is it also ok to say they are “too fat”, or “live too unhealthy a lifestyle” or are “too poor.” What about those with chronic diseases like diabetes? Is there a set list of suitable criteria or is it just older mothers who are fair game?

Ridiculous analogy.

Further to this. I know a couple of young women around my DD's age whose parents were 43-44 when they were born. Now they're in their mid 20's, their parents are 72-73, and it's really odd. (Most of their friends parents are in their early to mid 50s...!)

It’s not odd in the wealthy circles I socialise in. I guess it’s a class issue. The 70 somethings I know are slim, fashionable, active, and have a pretty youthful outlook. Many are still working and providing childcare to their 30 something year old kids. Often over much younger grandparents who didn’t always raise their kids in a manner they appreciated when they had their own kids.

Oh great, this thread started last July pops up again with even more opportunities for ageist bollocks. And frankly some offensive things about older mothers.

There are older mothers on MN. Please consider their feelings before you add your opinion to this thread. Some older mums have chosen to conceive late and there are a variety of reasons why and some just have accidents. It’s just life.

Yet in real life, most people can count on the fingers of one hand how many people they know who have become a parent past the age of 43-44. And the few that have, are permanently knackered, they find it ages them, it wears them out, and has a toll on their health.

Maybe in your circle. Wealthy women in mine, as I said, so they’re healthy and able to take care of themselves. Many at 70 something look younger and are fitter than many 50 and 60 somethings I know. As for caring - well in my experience with younger grandparents it was us grandkids who got forced into caring responsibilities rather than our parents. So either way there’s very often a young person impacted.

PMSL! BINGO! The classic mumsnet mantra (from some.....) 'All the women I know in my middle class world of wealthy people, are in their 70s and have teenagers, or are in their sixties, and have toddlers.... ' The kids all go to private school of course, and are already enrolled at Cambridge.'

Followed by...

'These women are all super stylish, and very healthy, they run marathons every day, they own their own business, they go to the gym every day, they look 30 years younger, and are fitter than most women half their age!' (These women who are less fit are lower class of course!)

So predictable.

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion

No far too old. It's possible, but she would be 60 when the child is 13. Very unfair on the child.

I’m nearly 60- why would it be unfair for me to have a 13 yo daughter? I run, dress well, teach IT and tech, know the chart music and what’s going on with Tik Tok etc. I can see that being 80 when she’s 33 may be demanding but I saw my own parents through their final years with young children and managed It’s very personal.

@GrumpyHoonMain @Frenchdressing

So it's NOT OK to say having babies in your mid 40s is too old to have a baby, but it IS OK to say only lower class women have them younger.

Oooooooookay...........

@littlepattilou

PMSL! BINGO! The classic mumsnet mantra (from some.....) 'All the women I know in my middle class world of wealthy people, are in their 70s and have teenagers, or are in their sixties, and have toddlers.... ' The kids all go to private school of course, and are already enrolled at Cambridge.'

Followed by...

'These women are all super stylish, and very healthy, they run marathons every day, they own their own business, they go to the gym every day, they look 30 years younger, and are fitter than most women half their age!' (These women who are less fit are lower class of course!)

So predictable.

It’s true though. All the 70 somethings I know are still working, still doing childcare, still fit and healthy. We can only talk from what we have experienced personally.

[quote littlepattilou]**@GrumpyHoonMain* @Frenchdressing*

So it's NOT OK to say having babies in your mid 40s is too old to have a baby, but it IS OK to say only lower class women have them younger.

Oooooooookay........... [/quote]
No. Only lower class women like you come on MN threads specifically to harrass women who haven’t done what you did. Not everyone could / wants to be a young mum or young grandparent.

We were all just talking from our experience. The facts are that in this country wealthier women live longer and healthier lives. So why don’t you let us share our lived in experiences of life without trying to misrepresent what we say. We let you speak now it’s time for you to listen to us.

Too old.

And to the posters stating that men aren’t judged the same way? A friend of mine had a second child (second family) at 47. He’s 52 with a 5 year old and let me tell you, he looks OLD! And he is mistaken for her grandfather.

He’s a great dad. But he finds it much harder this time round. And I know he worries that this child will be a teen / early twenties and he will he nearing 70!

@sassbott

Too old.

And to the posters stating that men aren’t judged the same way? A friend of mine had a second child (second family) at 47. He’s 52 with a 5 year old and let me tell you, he looks OLD! And he is mistaken for her grandfather.

He’s a great dad. But he finds it much harder this time round. And I know he worries that this child will be a teen / early twenties and he will he nearing 70!

This. ^ In spades...

@GrumpyHoonMain

All the 70-something women you know are still working???

Oh my mistake then....... It must be working class women in your social circle after all.

MOST Middle class/upper middle-class women wouldn't still be working in their SEVENTIES!

Most women in MY social circle, my village etc, have retired by 55.

It's most unusual for middle-class/upper-middle class women to be working past normal retirement age.

People who are wealthy, solvent, middle class/upper middle class etc, would be retired just past middle age.

So the posters saying they know many women in their late 60s and 70s who are wealthy and solvent and middle class, but are still working... That doesn't add up.

Oh and as for the personal insult - calling me lower class.... You just lost the argument. Shame, as you were doing fairly well (before your inconsistent claims about the women you know, and your nasty insult aimed at me...)

Please try to behave better. I know I hit a raw nerve with you, but personal insults are not acceptable. They are very childish, and proves you lost the argument.

'You may feel youthful and energetic at 45, but that doesn't change the fact you will be nearly SEVENTY before your child leaves university. And in your early to mid sixties while they are still at school.'

Oh my god not SEVENTY!!! Anything but SEVENTY!

You know, I had a child at 46. No problems. She’s fine. Yes I’m older but this is our life. Not everyone can have the perfect circumstances. Yes it might be hard going forward but my 35 year old best friend has developed a progressive illness and will die soon, leaving toddler. Life is messy and sometimes cruel.

Stop judging people.

PEOPLE

ARE

ENTITLED

TO

THEIR

OPINIONS!

WITHOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS.

PLEASE

STOP BEING RUDE

THANK YOU

I had my first at 38, second at 42 and now looking at having a 3rd at 46 (IVF, delayed due to Covid). I love being an older mum and I’m glad I didn’t give up my globe-trotting independent outrageously fun 20s to have kids. It wasn’t our choice to have them in our 40s, you live with what life deals you (in our case unexplained infertility). I love the wisdom I can pass on to them, and I love that we are financially stable with a big house and garden and cleaner (not the case in our 20s!). I look young, feel young, we’re both very fit and healthy, so why shouldn’t we have the number of children that we want? Especially if it’s her first, I would support your friend all the way. She’ll know the risks. I think she’s fantastic to be going for what she wants.

My mum had me at 32 and she still died of cancer when I was 30, so in my mind it’s sod’s law when you die. It also taught me that we have one life, this is not a trial run, so follow your passions, live your life. If your passion is to have your first baby at 46 or later then thank God we have the choice these days, even if we don’t have the eggs! I love my kids so much, why would anyone deny her the happiness of a longed for child?