Is 41 to old to give birth

[Lockeddownagain]

Just that really

Of course not.

Funny how we're all expected to be healthy enough to keep working (full time for most!) until we're 66/67/68, but mysteriously, for some, aren't healthy enough to give birth in our late 30s/early 40s?

No. I had my DC at 41 and 43, it was very uneventful and we are all now living very average lives. HTH

Whilst I agree in principle, I don't agree that if you're able to have sex you're able to birth and raise a child hmm

Pp never mentioned ability to raise a child. She pointed out if you are healthy enough to conceive naturally at that age then chances are you are capable of birthing the baby. You don't generally get age related illnesses in your early 40s.

Why do people (a) post these threads and (b) reply to them?

No

Of course not. My DH's aunt gave birth to her first at 41 and went on to have two more after that.

No.. I had an aunt give birth after conceiving naturally at 42. And another aunt give birth at 51 after conceiving naturally. Neither were trying and it just happened.

Some women are just fertile for longer. You’re too old I would say in 70s. That’s perhaps might make you want to think about it. But 41.. of course it’s not too old.

I don’t understand ppl saying “it’s not ideal”. According to who? A woman gets pregnant and because a male Dr decided women shouldn’t give birth over 30 it’s not ideal?

If you look back in your family tree OP you will likely find grandmothers who were getting pregnant and giving birth well into their 50s.

Funny how it’s “not ideal” for women over 40, but geriatric men with their old degraded sperm no one says anything about. It’s absolutely misogynistic.

@Tempusfudgeit

I had my babies at 39, 40, 43 and now pregnant again at 45. Older Mums rock!

It warms my heart to read this. I am 31 and single. Would love to be a mum one day and always worry I’m too late.

I gave birth at 43, no problem, no regrets. But it's a very personal decision.

I think I voted wrong. No I don't think I would want to at that age but also don't consider it too old.

Go for it op! I assume you are asking about yourself rather than judging someone else?

Plenty women I know have had kids in their 40s: both my grans, my mother in law, two of my aunts, three different colleagues of mine...

All conceived naturally and gave birth to healthy babies with no major interventions. The one who was a first time mum had a harder time, all the others just breezed through it.

The kids were all a bit "quirky", for some reason (so maybe not 100% neurotypical, at a sub-clinical level) but otherwise OK.

I read somewhere that a researcher had been looking at thefecundity patterns of one of the large US communities which keep,as much of modern life at arms length as they can.

They found that typically women had their last baby aged about 42. So even though conceptions and carrying to term became less common (but not non-existent) after that age, giving birth aged around 40-42 was normal.

Yes, it's too old.

I didn't used to think so, but all my pals who had children at that age are miserable and hitting menopause while their children are 7, 8 and 9 and need all their energy and love. Marriages sexless and on the rocks. So no, I absolutely wouldn't do it and haven't. I accepted when I met the love of my life at 37 that I wouldn't be having children as it was too late. It's a young person's game.

It's a personal decision though.

Ffs, why do people do this on Mumsnet? Surely it's widely known that women in their 40s have children all the time? And in fact always have done? What are you looking for OP?

@Saradegrey

Yes, it's too old. I didn't used to think so, but all my pals who had children at that age are miserable and hitting menopause while their children are 7, 8 and 9 and need all their energy and love. Marriages sexless and on the rocks. So no, I absolutely wouldn't do it and haven't. I accepted when I met the love of my life at 37 that I wouldn't be having children as it was too late. It's a young person's game.

It's a personal decision though.

Yikes!

It wasn't appreciably any different to being pregnant in my late 20s, or my 30s.

Neither death or divorce is looking imminent, nor am I about to collapse from exhaustion -- I think some of these warnings are a bit on the dire side!

Technically, no. Personally, I think it's far too old and wouldn't want to have another baby at that age.

When I say “very average lives” I mean obviously the DC must be having a terrible time, although their lives appear no different from those of their mates. But I’m sure the PPs above are right, it’s far too old. What is it that’s wrong about me again - just so I know?

I'm 34 and have a 1 and 2 year old. I feel absolutely wiped and exhausted now, I couldn't imagine doing this any older personally. Maybe different if I'd just had one I suppose but I'd never do it again any older.

No. I had my baby last year aged 44.

No. Had 2 at 30 and another at 40. The third one is easier. I have more energy as I’m not second guessing every decision I make and I feel more relaxed. Could do with more space and more hours in the day but that’s a symptom of having too many kids not having them to late.

@Lostmyway86

I'm 34 and have a 1 and 2 year old. I feel absolutely wiped and exhausted now, I couldn't imagine doing this any older personally. Maybe different if I'd just had one I suppose but I'd never do it again any older.

Some 44 year olds are fitter and have more energy than some 34 year olds.

My friend gave birth to her full term second set of twins at 47. Her first set were 17!
All well.

No absolutely not. I'm 40 and we are contemplating trying for a second.