To think 36 isn’t that old for a first baby

[Youcanbesweet]

Old school friend has told me that people are saying she’s too old to be pregnant.

I was 34 when I got pregnant and 35 when I had DS. The only time my age was mentioned was at my booking in appointment when I was told I was a geriatric mother! We laughed about it though

Couldn't imagine having children in my 20's. Had mine in my 30's and worked out fine

No it's not too old. I do think women trying for babies when they're in their 40s is very selfish though.

I do think women trying for babies when they're in their 40s is very selfish though.

This type of thinking boggles my mind. The average life expectancy for women in the U.K. is 81 so if they did live to that or even past that, their children would be 40 and older.

Also, why are women expected to consider not only children but future grandchildren when they don’t know if their own children will have children or even want them?

No it's OK. People have always had kids until about their early 40s, so 36 is ok. My mum in her late 70s was born to a 43 year old who'd had her first at 37. Obviously it's towards the later end but providing there aren't problems getting pregnant as with your friend it's OK.

Well it’s rude that someone told her she’s too old!

And it isn’t particularly unusual.

But from the point of view of both biology and history then yes it is extremely old for a first baby. Doesn’t mean it’s polite to mention that, but I don’t think we should all pretend it’s brilliant either.

@phoenixrosehere

I do think women trying for babies when they're in their 40s is very selfish though.

This type of thinking boggles my mind. The average life expectancy for women in the U.K. is 81 so if they did live to that or even past that, their children would be 40 and older.

Also, why are women expected to consider not only children but future grandchildren when they don’t know if their own children will have children or even want them?

It isn't about the woman though, it's about the fact that there's a higher chance that the child will be born with a severe disability.

It's a tiny tiny increase which you can't apply to individuals. Might as well not drive 'just in case'.

I was 30 when I got pregnant with my daughter and I was the youngest in my NCT group. A fair few were late 30s and a couple over 40. All first babies. Seems pretty common where I am (South East England).

@AliceAbsolum

It's a tiny tiny increase which you can't apply to individuals. Might as well not drive 'just in case'.

Fair enough, I'm wrong then. I thought there was a really high change.

I had Dc 1 at 18,Dc 2 at 22, Dc 3 At 30 and Dc 4 at 32.
Im 36 now and I'd be ok having my 1st at this age.
Where I'm from ,early-mid 20's is normal.
Where I live, late 30s- early 40s is normal -I personally wouldnt in my 40s have my first born at this age.
Each to own

It isn't about the woman though, it's about the fact that there's a higher chance that the child will be born with a severe disability.

Those risks are still minimal! There's a higher chawnce of poverty if a woman hasn't had a career or solid work history should things go wrong within a realtionship. Everything is a risk!

Fair enough, I'm wrong then. I thought there was a really high change.

Yes, becasue it's years of this misogynistic bullshit that's been trotted out to make sure women are good little wifeys and stick to their primary job of lookibg after men and pumping put kids. God forbird she should be independent!

[quote AngelsWithSilverWings]@LST of course I'm aware that not everyone is the same but when I think of the mums I've got to know over the years I've been doing school runs and almost all are very active and going to the gym or doing 5k park runs regularly at 50 years old. All could quite easily cope with a baby or toddler if they had to even now.

But there are so many posts on this forum from people who had kids in their 20's saying that could never have coped at 35 or older. It's just not true for most people that I know.

Maybe I just live in an area full of unusually fit 50 year olds. Must be the sea air or something!

[/quote]
I have a one year old and I’m training for a marathon. I’m 40 years old. I would be going to see a Dr if I was 36 and felt I was no longer fit and healthy enough to parent a young child due to age.
All of this is stuff about being “too old” is so deep rooted in misogyny.

First time mother. Pregnant at 38. Due to give birth at 39. No problems in pregnancy so far. No miscarriages. I'm not considered to be a geriatric mother - I think maybe I would be if I were 40.

36 is younger than Meghan Markle, who had her kids at 37 and 39 (iirc). Whatever one's other thoughts about Markle, does anyone really look at her and think 'ooh, you decrepit old crone? I'm amazed you can bear a child with that Zimmer frame getting in the way?'

Maybe if you've had 4 kids in your 20s, you don't have quite the vigour and zest for life at 40 as people who spent their 20s and 30s child free. That might contribute to those saying they 'couldn't do it at the ripe old age of 36'.

I'd say lots of people only have it in them to do the newborn stage at one point on their life and once you've done it you can't imagine ever wanting to do it again, whatever age you are.

Similar to @mousetown - early-40s, had 2 DC in the last of my 30s. Currently training for a half marathon. I spent my 20s recovering from a serious physical issue which meant I was in no position to have kids (or walk far, come to that). But now I'm older and recovered I have the physical ability, energy and stamina needed for DC.

We're all different, our physical and mental health, financial and housing position, relationship status, available support networks, etc., generally factor in to our decisions. The opinions of friends who won't be getting involved in the day to day care should not.

@Skysblue

Well it’s rude that someone told her she’s too old!

And it isn’t particularly unusual.

But from the point of view of both biology and history then yes it is extremely old for a first baby. Doesn’t mean it’s polite to mention that, but I don’t think we should all pretend it’s brilliant either.

If you are pregnant you are not “biologically” too old to have a baby. You are also just as rude as people telling women they are too old for babies.

I don't think it's "too" old, my eldest will be 10 when I'm 36, but at his school I'd say the vast majority of parents (he's 6) are in their early to mid 40s currently.

It depends largely on the area you live in I think.

I turned 36 7 weeks before dc2 was born and i was a geriatric mother and refered to as such!!!!

I don't think it's unusual, but I think if you purposefully wait to that age to start having babies and it's only the first, then it is quite old and I would only expect to have one child, 2 if I was lucky. I had all my kids in my 20s, I can't imagine not having even started yet.

@mousetown not in my case. I have RA

I had my son at 35 and don't feel old at all. It was personal choice. Wanted to be financially secure first. No issues with conceiving, got pregnant within 2 months. No one has commented on it. I live in London so it's more the norm.

Totally standard where I live. No one would bat an eyelid.

Biologically it’s not young. There’ll be a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities at that age than at say 26, and if you want more than one you would need to get a move on.

That said, it’s pretty normal these days. Especially in middle class circles. At 36 I don’t feel too old to have a baby at all. If I didn’t have children then I’d go for it. But I have teens, so there’s absolutely no way I’ll be having a baby at 36!