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.

Any reason why she left it so late? Did she just decide or is she only in a stable place right now?

I mean if she's that desperate and there are no obviously hideous health concerns then who are you to tell her she can't have a child. I personally find it too old and think I would've moved hell on earth to have one in some way by 40 maximum, including adoption, but there must be a valid reason.

I'm 60 and pleased that I'm unlikely to ever be a Grandmother. And I'm fit and active. I just don't relish the idea of caring for children now. The idea of having a teenager to deal with in my 60s would be unthinkable.

It does seem a bit selfish, but then having children often is and when you feel that strongly you want one more then life itself.

I think the chances of it happening are fairly low.

I don't think having older parents matters so much now.

If you're trying to be a good friend, then I'd make supportive noises. I'd also try to drop 'So when they're 13, you'll be 60. When they're 23, you'll be 70' into the conversation somewhere. Up to her if she wants to keep going after that.

I think it's too old, as you may be able to tell!

Because , let's be honest - I'd say chances are she isn't an Olympic athlete with a high fitness level who'll spring back to health* it isn't about being an athlete which is in fact very punishing on the body, it is about having naturally good health and high energy. You body age isn't necessarily the same as your chrono age.

It is about trusting your friend's judgement. If you don't it means you don't see the other person as your equal, ie you aren't friends on equal terms/ "gg=ood" friends. She is just someone you patronise. Pointing out pitfalls one thing. Not trusting her ability to make judgement for herself quite another.

If I wanted a baby and it was physically possible I would do it at whatever age i realistically could but only if i was fit, healthy and had family support around me.

oops
Because , let's be honest - I'd say chances are she isn't an Olympic athlete with a high fitness level who'll spring back to health it isn't about being an athlete which is in fact very punishing on the body, it is about having naturally good health and high energy. You body age isn't necessarily the same as your chrono age.

It is about trusting your friend's judgement. If you don't it means you don't see the other person as your equal, ie you aren't friends on equal terms/ "good" friends. She is just someone you patronise. Pointing out pitfalls one thing. Not trusting her ability to make judgement for herself quite another.

Well, if she is physically capable of getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term, is happy to accept the greatly increased chance of genetic abnormalities and increased chance of having twins, confident she could cope, and is happy of the idea of being nearly 70 when her child is leaving school, then there’s nothing to stop her, is there? I would never consider it for myself, but I’m not her, so that’s pretty irrelevant.

IcedPurple
But it is relevant to all the people saying it’s selfish to be a new parent in your later 40s. The route by which you do it is irrelevant once the child is here. People who do or don’t judge me at the school gate have no clue my children aren’t biologically mine.

There’s no perfect time to have a baby, all things (not just biology) considered - but if you start a family at the time that’s most right for your family and your circumstances, that’s surely a good starting point? (To be fair, I’m talking generally now rather than referring specifically to the OP’s ‘friend’ whose exact circumstances we don’t know).

I had my last baby at 39, first one at 35. I was a bit more tired the second time but blessed with less tiring pregnancy and an easier baby and got more sleep by going to bed when baby did in the newborn stage so that made up for it.

No way I'd do it again though. I'm knackered! Although you may think differently if you didn't already have children?

What were her reasons for putting it off?

Yabu for gossiping about your "friend" on MN.

Yanbu far too old

It depends on the individual. My mother had her third dc three months before her 45th birthday & coped absolutely fine. But she has masses of patience and energy.

I had my dc at 26/28....I'm 38 now. The difference in my energy levels from when I had them to now is startling. God knows what another decade on the clock would do.

For all you saying 'too old/no point as she'll be dead soon/etc'

Nobody has said she'll be dead soon

What people have pointed out is that the chances of illness and death increase as we age, and the mother will be hitting 70 when the child has barely turned 21. That young person could lose a parent or have to provide significant care at a time when they should be enjoying themselves, getting their own lives started, going to uni, maybe travelling or living abroad, etc. It will be a massively different experience to that of their friends, and it can be very isolating.

My Mum had me at 44 and it worked perfectly... I think if it's what she wants to do then she should.

Geena Davis had twins at 48. Although she us an Academy Award-winning actress, Olympic level archer and, one assumes, not short of a bob or two. I personally wouldn't do it, but it's not beyond all reason. As usual the mumsnet hyperbole ('Soooo overweight'; 'Horrifying amount of alcohol' 'Far far too old') leaps in. Tiresome.

Even if she buys a younger woman’s eggs Which is yet another argument we could have.

That's a very PA thing to say. There's a chance that she might not yet have reached the menopause herself, but assuming she can't use her own eggs, she might have a significantly younger sister, niece or very close friend who has offered. Yes, it's a major thing to do, and you have to be aware of the risks, but there are folk who willingly donate kidneys to complete strangers.

I agree with Rufus and I think it is ageist. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the risks and difficulties, but some of these posts are so judgmental and snide. It's all very well saying "I wouldn't", but that's often coming from a privileged stance of having met the right person early enough and enjoyed good fertility. Women who have babies in their early twenties will have much less life experience to draw on in parenting wisely and are much more likely not to be financially stable, but nobody wags their finger over them.

As for the PP suggesting that, at 47, she's virtually dead and the child will barely ever know her, that's ridiculous. I think the current average female life expectancy is about 89, so a child could share around 40 years of their life with her before losing her and then (one would hope and expect) being perfectly mature to carry on with their own life from middle age.

I think its fine. If its meant for you it will happen to you.

Lord, no. Just no. I'm sorry for those whose lives have gone differently, but in the general scheme things we just aren't evolved to bear children that late. Not safely, not reliably.

It is possible.
My BIL is 23 years older than his youngest sibling. His DM was 45 a natural pregnancy.
She is an adult now her parents are very healthy 70 y.o's.
I don't know if it is okay for your first as there is a big chance they'll be a young adult with no parents or siblings.

It is about trusting your friend's judgement. If you don't it means you don't see the other person as your equal, ie you aren't friends on equal terms/ "good" friends. She is just someone you patronise. Pointing out pitfalls one thing. Not trusting her ability to make judgement for herself quite another.

But everyone can make a bad decision. I’ve made a couple of really bad ones. And there are a couple more that I would have made had a friend not been kind enough to say “FFS - don’t do that you idiot! You will ruin your life!”

It is easy as a friend to say “oooh - how lovely” when your friend announces that they are not going to let the big cut on their leg stopping them going swimming with sharks. It is hard to be the one who poops the party. But a true friend - a brave friend - does sometimes - not often - some people seem to love pointing out why your great idea is stupid - but occasionally a really good friend will say what you need to here not what you want to here.

I’m 54, I cannot imagine having a seven year old. No way.

A seven year old GC maybe, not a chance on earth would I have a child in my late forties. Far far too old, would only be slightly ok if it was a late mistake and the child had several older siblings who could offer support, otherwise the generational gap is too big.

@IcedPurple Sorry but you are incorrect. I have my family tree going back to the late 1700s. Most of the families in the 1800s had 9-10 children with the ages of the mother there.
My MIL came from a family with one of 9 ( she was born in the 1920s.)

No one says it is harder to conceive in your late 40s, but neither is it impossible. Factually, the ovaries go into overdrive as the menopause approaches which is why there are quite a number of surprise babies in women aged 45- 49 who have given up on contraception.