Am i too old to have a baby?

[rmonroe8]

Obviously i know that biologically once you hit 40 it's classed as old to have baby but many still do with no issues but at what point is it selfish to have a baby?
The reason i'm asking is because i've just hit 43 and want another child with my partner who i have been with for 2 years (i have a 16yo and 7 year old from previous relationships)
Sorry if it sounds like i'm being ridiculous but would it be a struggle having a baby at 43? The thought of being 63 with a 20 year old makes me feel like i'm pushing it abit now. I had my last two at quite average ages so i'm not sure how it would feel this time around, has anyone had any experience having a child in their 40s? Do you regret it?

@Naunet I didn't say a man's age is entirely irrelevant, I said that it is less relevant than the woman's age. Which is true both biologically and socially.

Its absolutely dependant on the person. But age comes with risk... to you and the baby. Im 43 and honestly I cant think of anything worse than doing the baby stage/paying nursery fees again. Im so tired working and with my two. I honestly just couldn't do it. Plus as mine get older im needing to increase my hours/days in work to actually have some kind of pension and i wouldnt be in a position to.
At 60 id like to retire or at least drop to part time. I doubt i could do that with a 16 year old at home sitting important exams.

Thanks for telling me (, my mother, other female relations and friends) we were too old.

When I had my DD at 43 I was asked by the midwives in hospital when I was having my next one. Since twins run in my family my response was "never".

No not at all. But they dont carry the child, breast feed or go thru a more risky birth. Its commonplace that they dont reduce their work as the female does for childcare reasons.

But half the things you listed aren’t even relevant to age…

Sure, but is that not up to women to make informed decisions about for themselves?

Absolutely

Of course they are. They are all factors that carry more weight for women than for men, showing why late age pregancy can be considerably more risky and taxing for women than for men of equal age.

I had my kids at 37, 39 and 42. Like others say, it's a very individual thing.

How is a man walking away, age relevant? That can happen to anyone at any age.

I am that age and although I some times wish I had a 3rd, I know for me this age feels too old. I’m peri and for me it has been brutal.
if you have 2 older children and your partner already has a child I wouldn’t have another one if I was you. Now is your time to enjoy your life, not put yourself back to sleepless nights etc. Also you need to consider the potential child’s future. When they are the age you are now you would be 86/87.

A 40something year old man can have a baby and then realise that he's actually too knackered, too old, too unwell to parent the kid and can opt out and walk away.

A women can't.

Seeing as you have asked, YES 43 is too old to have a baby for sooooooooooo many reasons. I know - when you're coming to the end of your fertile years/perimenopause, you get weird cravings to have a baby, (I did,) but they passed, thank GOD, because no way in HELL would I have wanted a 8-9 year old now in my mid 50s!

My 2 left 7-8 years ago - went to uni, and never came back home, (though they're only 20 miles away,) and me and DH have no responsibilities now. And it's awesome. I remember thinking at 50 when my 2 were at uni, 'OMG imagine having a 5-6 year old now, who I'd be responsible for potentially until I was 65! Nooooooooooooooo.

Don't do it @rmonroe8

Course she can, shes just less likely to (at any age).

Also, surely that’s a good reason not to have a baby with a man over 40?

Yeah, no... That almost never happens. Society treats women who abandon their child as absolute scum. Meanwhile men are weekend dads or worse and no one blinks an eye.

I don’t disagree at all, I just think that says more about society than a woman’s age.

Nope, I'd love to be in the same position!

Nothing wrong with having a child at 43 if you've got health and finances on your side, but I'm always baffled at the desire people have to reproduce with new boyfriends when they already both have kids. Why? Is the relationship not real unless you produce a joint offspring?

@Naunet I don't think men past 40 are more likely to walk away compared to 20-30 year olds. Probably quite the opposite.

Maybe that’s one to remove from the list then!

@Blossomtoes

And, yes, I think 43 is too old to parent a child.

I am 50 and I have an 11 year old. Are you saying you think I am too old to parent her? Should social services take children away from mothers over 40? Would you want people sterilised over the age of 30?

You haven’t really thought this through have you?

Moreover you are completely missing the point. The mum’s age isn’t really the main issue here. If she can conceive and carry a baby to term by definition she is not too old.

The point is that she is considering having a child with a man she’s been with for a fairly short time when she already has two older children.

When we had our two DCs my DH was 43 and 46 years old respectively.

For us, for various reasons, having children later in life was unavoidable - we met fairly 'late' and we had very unstable housing and employment for the first few years. So I wouldn't have changed it - because the only alternative would have been not to have our children.

However, as time goes on we become more and more acutely aware of how much age does make a difference.

My DH has had far less energy to play actively with our children than he had with his nieces and nephews in their younger years a decade earlier. He is slowing up, as our children are moving towards their teenage years.

Financially it's not ideal, to be mid 50's and thinking more urgently about planning to have enough retirement provision in the future - and still with youngish children to fund through teenage years and potentially Uni.

And the chances of ill health at some point in the next decade do feel much higher than in the past. My DH's Dad died suddenly at 57 of a sudden-onset condition. My DH is now 56, he is acutely aware of the greater possibility that things might go wrong in the next few years - and what that would mean for our children.

Not to mention, having children late has a huge effect on from a family relationships perspective. Many of our elderly relatives have died in the last few years, it has meant children never meeting their grandparents or their grandparents being too elderly and struggling with dementia to have a relationship with them.

So whilst it's true that clearly a man doesn't have a biological clock running down in the same way as a woman (although sperm quality does decline with age) yes, actually, I do think a man of 43 is also approaching being too old - it can certainly be done, but I think it's far from ideal.

And to go back to the main question - whether a woman of 43 is too old.... Reluctantly (speaking as someone who got pregnant with her last DC at 39 and gave birth at 40) I would have to say I think it's right on the cusp. Honestly, based on my own experience (with miscarriage, pregnancy ill health, birth issues) as well as all the points I mention above re. tiredness, finances, family relationships etc I really wish I'd been able to do it a few years earlier. 43 might be possible and it might be right for you, but it will be harder at that age.

43 is not too old if you are healthy but I imagine your 16 yo would be pretty pissed off.
Focus on your existing kids

@Thepeopleversuswork, I should have said conceive, not parent. Shame I didn’t, I could have saved you a lot of pointless typing.