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?

@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.

What?

'Studies' ??

'Typical'?

This doesn't even make sense! Of course women can get pregnant in their 40s. But not necessarily easily, and many won't, or may experience complications. Honestly please stop with the nonsense which doesn't even make linguistic sense

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

the odds are in my favour.

Unfortunately they aren't OP. The odds are stacked against you. And I don't say this to be unkind, I'm about to have my first aged 39. We would like two children and will be hopefully begin trying for our second the month I turn 40 when the baby will be 6 months. I'm not so naive to think that even though I conceived the year before that it'll happen as quickly. You don't know you're fertile either, just because you are having periods and ovulating doesn't mean you're fertile, you won't know this until you start trying for a baby again even if your hormone levels are normal. People aren't trying to be unkind, they are being realistic and its fairly rare for women to conceive quickly and without issues aged 42, of course it can happen and I hope you're one of the lucky ones but you need to be realistic about the odds, any fertility specialist would say the same.

I wouldn't wait in my 40s.

If you’re so concerned about finances that you’re delaying TTC in your 40s then I think a second child may be too expensive for you. The government could remove help for parents at any time so you shouldn’t base your plans around that.

I really hope you take the advice on this thread to heart, OP. I think everyone means well here, just advising you from scientific facts and personal experience.

It took me 4 months to conceive DS aged 31. Another 4 years before DD came along (4 miscarriages in between) don't assume conceiving DC2 will be easy. If you really want two then get cracking.

I'm actually quite shocked at the attitude the OP is getting. Not from people warning about fertility dropped so quickly after 40 because we know that's true and in that respect it doesn't make sense to wait.

But the finances don't add up in any sensible way and post after post is telling the OP not to wait based on money.

Do any of these posters actually understand what a huge difference there can be between SMP and an enhanced package? SMP is such a low amount whereas an enhanced package could mean a parent being able to afford to have a whole year off.

Are you the same people who spit out bile about not having children you can't afford to parents struggling to pay the bills or move to a larger home?

@dresstokillmytime

I'm actually quite shocked at the attitude the OP is getting. Not from people warning about fertility dropped so quickly after 40 because we know that's true and in that respect it doesn't make sense to wait.

But the finances don't add up in any sensible way and post after post is telling the OP not to wait based on money.

Do any of these posters actually understand what a huge difference there can be between SMP and an enhanced package? SMP is such a low amount whereas an enhanced package could mean a parent being able to afford to have a whole year off.

Are you the same people who spit out bile about not having children you can't afford to parents struggling to pay the bills or move to a larger home?

To be fair the OP hasn’t overly gone into detail about the family finances- it could be that she has a husband who earns enough and not getting enhanced maternity means no holiday one year, or it could mean they can’t afford to eat.

Please start trying ASAP, OP.

At 40, 5 out of 6 eggs in your reserve are aneuploid, ie chromosomally abnormal. By early forties it’s 9/10 eggs. Prior to 35, it’s only 1 in every 2 eggs is abnormal.

These eggs can’t lead to a healthy birth, they mean either no pregnancy, miscarriage, or a baby born with severe health problems. It’s why the rate of miscarriage goes up dramatically at this age.

Your first may well have been a fluke, but the evidence doesn’t bear out that primary fertility equals good secondary fertility in your early forties.

Just my experience but we conceived DD1 on month 1. DD2 (in mid thirties) took 18 months to conceive with three mc in the middle. I expected we would get perfect timing like no 1 but it was a long, difficult and upsetting process second time round.

I'm actually quite shocked at the attitude the OP is getting.

Because the OP isn't a 25 year old woman with the luxury of getting finances straight first. It doesn't sound like she's on the breadline, or that they'll be out of a home without the maternity leave. The choice could very well be baby now or never, and if the issue is short term financial difficulties around maternity pay and childcare, unless absolutely destitute, many will say prioritise what can't be bought.

Only the OP knows her financial position, if it really is so severe that those 6 months means they couldn't afford necessities, then I suppose she doesn't have a choice, but she needs to understand those 6 months are quite probably more risky to her fertility than they are her wallet, because she doesn't seem to be portraying that understanding here, though I'm sure deep down she gets it to have posted in the first place.

@Awalkintime most people in 18th-c France did not die at around age 35. Half of children died before they were ten, bringing average life expectancy well down. If you lived past that, you had a fair chance of living until your sixties or more: www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/graphs-maps/interpreted-graphs/life-expectancy-france/

I definitely would not wait.

Start trying and leave it to fate.

Definitely don't wait. You can't really plan these things in any event. So you might as well just go for it and see how things pan out.

I'm in exactly the same position as your, I'm 41 with an 11 month old and looking to try for a second. I come from a family where women had babies later in life and I'm very fertile. I got pregnant the first and second time we tried at 39 but sadly both of these pregnancies ended in miscarriage. It took 10 months to conceive my daughter, including the miscarriages, so I was 40 when i confirmed and had her. We're going to start trying for a second next month, but fully accept now I'm 41 that it may not happen. It will be a bit tight financially for us too, but personally I'd rather have a few lean years and another child. It's a very personal decision and you may have accept that the trade off for waiting 6 months is that you may not have another child.

It’s really irritating me the arrogance of people saying they are “very fertile”. I have fallen pregnant also 3 times every time the first try and I still wouldn’t have the chutzpah to say I’m “very fertile”. So so so much of conception is luck and miraculous timing and I find the phrase “I’m very fertile” on a thread with women who have had struggles in extremely poor taste.

@Justheretoaskaquestion91

It’s really irritating me the arrogance of people saying they are “very fertile”. I have fallen pregnant also 3 times every time the first try and I still wouldn’t have the chutzpah to say I’m “very fertile”. So so so much of conception is luck and miraculous timing and I find the phrase “I’m very fertile” on a thread with women who have had struggles in extremely poor taste.

I agree with you. I fell pregnant with my first in the first month of ttc. For the second it took me 6 months with one early miscarriage in between.

I don't consider myself more fertile than other women. I think like you said a lot of it has to do with luck.

I don’t know about the fertile thing. There’s such a thing. Doctors though I had an unfussy womb. Which meant i would get pregnant quite easily with any embryo - the womb was not selecting and so I was falling pregnant easily with poor embryos and hence had mcs. I know of quite a few women on here getting pregnant regularly but mc. One woman got pregnant every month but they were all chemicals. There is a thing of super fertile but it’s not necessarily a good thing at all. With good egg/sperm when younger and more are euploid - yes. At 40 plus it can be a bad thing

I wouldn’t wait.

@Justheretoaskaquestion91

It’s really irritating me the arrogance of people saying they are “very fertile”. I have fallen pregnant also 3 times every time the first try and I still wouldn’t have the chutzpah to say I’m “very fertile”. So so so much of conception is luck and miraculous timing and I find the phrase “I’m very fertile” on a thread with women who have had struggles in extremely poor taste.

Agreed, it's actually worrying me though how little people know about the reproductive system to think purely having a period and getting positive ovulation results from peeing on a stick means that they are 'very fertile'

That’s a very interesting point about fertility levels waxing and waning. I hadn’t realised that men’s fertility also can increase and decrease over time depending on weight, smoking, diet etc. My fertility depends on how well treated my endo is and my ex’s sperm seemed to be lower when he was working (chef) and how fat he was.

my ex’s sperm seemed to be lower when he was working (chef) and how fat he was

Wasn't it Gordon Ramsay who said it was down to hours around hot ovens or something about chef working conditions that affected his sperm count so he and his wife used IVF to have their children? There are definitely lifestyle factors that can affect men's fertility. And then it's all very well if you're super fertile for your age but what if he isn't?

@Loveintherain

I don’t know about the fertile thing. There’s such a thing. Doctors though I had an unfussy womb. Which meant i would get pregnant quite easily with any embryo - the womb was not selecting and so I was falling pregnant easily with poor embryos and hence had mcs. I know of quite a few women on here getting pregnant regularly but mc. One woman got pregnant every month but they were all chemicals. There is a thing of super fertile but it’s not necessarily a good thing at all. With good egg/sperm when younger and more are euploid - yes. At 40 plus it can be a bad thing

Wow so your odds of having a baby with genetic abnormalities must be really high?

@BrunoJenkins yes I had 4 losses in a row , but we never determined if it was genetic though . They didn’t test until last one and then said not enough material was available.
I’ll never truly know tbh but I imagine if you select any old embryo that’s not great. Doctors also thought I had an immune issue. My point is you can seem very fertile in terms of getting pregnant often And easily but it’s not necessarily a good thing

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-19361432.amp