To delay TTC by six months when I’m already in my 40s?

[Wetdayinoctober]

I’m 41, and we have a 11 month old. Hoping to try for another soon.

The complicating factors here are that I need to work until at least may to qualify for enhanced maternity package. So originally were thinking of TTC again in May / June.

However, logistically a baby born September / October would work so much better. It would mean I could take advantage of the summer holidays at work and DS would be nearly 3 which means he’d qualify for some free hours at nursery. However, it would mean I was pregnant at 42, having baby at 43.

On the one hand there doesn’t seem a massively dramatic difference in baby born March 23 and baby born September 23. And we had no trouble conceiving DS.

However I am worried about my age.

Wwyd?

@lottiegarbanzo

You sounds as though you haven't looked a graph of female fertility by age. You're over 40. Your fertility is dropping off a cliff.

I'm not scaremongering, or out of date. Yes, many people do conceive in their early 40s but more women try and fail.

There is no cliff edge for fertility and very minimal difference in fertility for those >35 to those

@Awalkintime

I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/having-a-baby-after-age-35-how-aging-affects-fertility-and-pregnancy

There is a very significant difference in the ability of women over 40 to get pregnant, compared with under 40 (see above).

About 1 in 10 women over 40 get pregnant per menstrual cycle. Compared to 1 in 4 < 40. Then there is the higher risk of miscarriage & other complications. Of course, many women are that '1 in 10' & have no problems. There's no way to know though.

Don't delay at this age. It could mean the difference between another baby or not.
I conceived my first really easily - 5mths at age 39. When he was 1 we started trying again and after 18mths were diagnosed with Secondary Unexplained Infertility.

Our little lockdown surprise baby arrived just before I was 43. But could easily not have happened.

Time is not on your side.
If you definitely want a second DC don't wait.

OP You also need to consider the effect on you and your family of a baby born with serious disabilities. The chances of this increase dramatically as you move into your 40s and is higher the older you get.

@wewereliars

OP You also need to consider the effect on you and your family of a baby born with serious disabilities. The chances of this increase dramatically as you move into your 40s and is higher the older you get.

& how old is DH? Increasing age of fathers is associated with increasing risk of many neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD.

EarringsandLipstick*
My information was from the Journal of American Medical Association in April 2021 and the Atlantic which found that the myth of the cliff at 35 was based on studies in 1700 on church records of how many women had babies over 35. There was a big drop after 35 so they concluded that fertility waned.

No one figured that the life expectancy was mid 30s so that would attribute to the 'cliff edge'.

Studies have recently found a 4-6% difference in fertility before and after 35.

OP have a look at the success rates of IVF at this fertility clinic. Thirds are facts. Your fertility massively declines in your 40s. These stats don’t say whether the pregnancy ended in miscarriage or not so the success rate will be lower than what is stated. Please educate yourself before making this massive decision.

www.carefertility.com/our-clinics/all-results/all-results-nav/care-fertility-manchester-results/

To be clear - a baby born before February 2023 would mean only SMP.

I think everyone understands your dilemma, OP.

But ultimately only you know if (a greater likelihood of) not having a second baby at all is preferable to having one on SMP.

Best of luck with whatever you decide to do.

I conceived my first within 1 month at the age of 32. I gave birth to him last year in August when I was 33. I am now 23 weeks pregnant with my second and I will be 35 when she will be born.

It took us 6 months months to conceive our second, with one heartbreaking early miscarriage in between.

If I was you, I wouldn't delay.

I'm younger than you but I knew I couldn't delay because of my age.

I was also being made redundant while I was on maternity leave with my 1st.

I've since found a new job, but it is hard and inconvenient and potentially dangerous being pregnant whilst on your probationary period.

But I'm still glad I didn't delay ttc, despite all the financial inconveniences and implications.

You can always find a new job, but you can't always have a baby!

Studies have recently found a 4-6% difference in fertility before and after 35.

Till what point? 36, yeah, sure. But 43?

You can challenge the 'cliff' narrative but I can't see any successful challenge to the point that fertility declines and will decline more and more steeply over time.

You really shouldn't wait but genuinely best of luck to you

@Awalkintime

EarringsandLipstick* My information was from the Journal of American Medical Association in April 2021 and the Atlantic which found that the myth of the cliff at 35 was based on studies in 1700 on church records of how many women had babies over 35. There was a big drop after 35 so they concluded that fertility waned.

No one figured that the life expectancy was mid 30s so that would attribute to the 'cliff edge'.

Studies have recently found a 4-6% difference in fertility before and after 35.

I thought that might be the case. The study did not conclude that fertility did not significantly wane once women are in their 40s.

It did revise the idea that 35 itself, as a marker, merited treating women over 35 as 'geriatric' or that there was as you say a 'cliff edge' decline after 35.

That was fairly well known in practice though.

What isn't in dispute, and the study (I've only read about it / abstracts not the full article) doesn't suggest this, is that fertility does decline significantly & progressively in your 40s.

It's not a cliff edge. But the stats being 1 in 10 women getting pregnant per menstrual cycle on their 40s, vs 1 in 4 in their 30s, is pretty significant.

The study did not look (afaik) at miscarriage / serious disabilities in pregnancies to women in their 40s. Both of these rise with age.

It isn't a great idea to be so selective with facts.

Finally, OP is in her 40s. Not just over 35. So all of the above is pertinent.

@Fridgedooropen

Studies have recently found a 4-6% difference in fertility before and after 35.

Till what point? 36, yeah, sure. But 43?

You can challenge the 'cliff' narrative but I can't see any successful challenge to the point that fertility declines and will decline more and more steeply over time.

Exactly.

Well I hope it’s not too late as I want to TTC when I am 40!

**I have successfully conceived one child at first attempt so it is reasonable to assume I am fertile.

This was nearly 2 years ago so a lot could have changed with your fertility.

Studies also conclude it is typical for women to be able to get pregnant between 40-45 - I presume like the french church records as this is when the menopause begins with some.

@Awalkintime

EarringsandLipstick* My information was from the Journal of American Medical Association in April 2021 and the Atlantic which found that the myth of the cliff at 35 was based on studies in 1700 on church records of how many women had babies over 35. There was a big drop after 35 so they concluded that fertility waned.

No one figured that the life expectancy was mid 30s so that would attribute to the 'cliff edge'.

Studies have recently found a 4-6% difference in fertility before and after 35.

But OP is not talking about the difference between 34 and 36, she’s talking about the difference between 39 and 41/42!

@Awalkintime

Studies also conclude it is typical for women to be able to get pregnant between 40-45 - I presume like the french church records as this is when the menopause begins with some.

Again there’s a massive difference between 40 and 45! By the time you are 43 the chances are conceiving are pretty slim- less than 5% within a year. And rates of miscarriage in the 40s are also incredibly high. Of course plenty of women manage - my colleague just had a baby at 45, but If having a second child is important to the OP, she does not want to be playing the odds as they are.

life expectancy was mid 30s

Average life expectancy was mid 30s. This doesn't mean that everybody, or indeed anybody, died in their thirties. What it does mean is that many infants died before their first birthdays, bringing down the average overall.

In other words, if fifty babies died at under a year old, and fifty people died aged seventy, the average age at death would be 35.

@Wetdayinoctober

I think you need to weigh up the pros and cons of starting to try sooner and risking the financial pressures, vs the pros and cons of waiting 6 months and risking not being able to have a second child. Only you and your husband know which would be the better or least bad option for your family.

It's worth being mindful that fertility does reduce with age, and trying to conceive may well take longer than you hope (it might not, but it's important to factor it in to your decision-making that 6 months can be a big decline in a person's fertility). If you can afford it, you could see about having a fertility assessment at a private fertility clinic, as they might be able to give you an indication of how much flexibility you may have re: timing?

Realistically, at 42/43, you're likely to have fewer eggs and the ones you have are likely to be less high quality, than you had at 40 and before that. This can make it harder to conceive a viable pregnancy. There are various approaches people take to try to improve egg quality, so you might want to look into those just now even if you're waiting to TTC - some take time to be effective. If you search the Infertility board, there are quite a few threads there about trying to improve egg quality.

I hope things work out for you, whatever you decide.

YABU if you have your heart set on pregnancy. I'm 35 and it's taken me two years and I'm still not successfully pregnant. You are playing with fire to wait, if you have your heart set on it that it.

To follow up, I was a little younger than you with my first and living in a country where maternity leave is just 16 weeks.

I started TTC as soon as my obstetrician said it was safe and ended up with an 18 month age gap… and was back at work and then FT daycare with 2 under 2.

Yes, close in age is fucking madness (but also has huge benefits). I was exhausted and skit.

But the hardest part it turned out was the unsupportive husband… (now divorced natch).

I know how averages work - yes some will die earlier and some later you don't need to explain that but typically most died around that age.

I started ttc a day after my 34s bday. Took me 10 months. I am classed as 'normal' as you can get by healthcare specialists. I am the average.

I'm blown away that you think you can get pregnant straight away in your 40s and carry full term. Do you understand the probability of that? Taking aside my personal experience, please look at simple statistics and numbers... and evidence-based research.

'I am very fertile' is a bizarre statement. I am fertile, too. There is no way anyone can so surely say 'I'm going to get pregnancy straight away in my early 40s'.

Please wake up and accept that if you don't start ttc now, there is a bigger chance it won't happen to you - than a chance of it happening. Also please accept it may never happen even if you start trying now.
I don't think your confidence here in your magic fertility is really helpful.