To not think 41 is that old for pregnancy

[User7778889]

I was lucky enough to have kids in my early 30’s but obviously many aren’t. Dh said that my friend 41 is very old for pregnancy and he worries about her child’s future.

The point is, it was very rude of the OP’s husband to say that. It’s none of his business.

I wouldn’t choose to have a child in my forties, but I don’t have any objection to other people deciding it suits them just fine.

Eh? What do you think this thread and the voting stats are about then?

'YABU' on a Mumsnet poll does not equal stigma, this should go without saying.

Women of 40 are not in any realm or reality 'stigmatised' for being parents. The fact that some people say 'ooh bit old for me, I'd worry about XYZ' is not stigma. Like I say, poor women, single women, very young women, women with children with different dads are stigmatised.

41 is a normal age and seen as responsible.

He's correct, it's too old.

I was 39 with my last child. 41 is only 2 years older. No way am I the oldest mentally, physically or in a few cases chronology than other parents.

I wouldn't say don't do it, it's too old but it's far from ideal if you're being completely honest.

Some people are making out like it's no issue at all and I just don't agree. If you have a baby at 41, what if your child then has a family at the same age? You'd be 82! And people will come along and say my mums 92 and fit as a fiddle but the average life expectancy is 80, you can't get away from that.

Go into it with your eyes wide open.

Each to their own but I couldn't handle it. I became a grandmother at 40 and I don't have the energy I had with mine when they were little.

It's interesting to see the mix of replies: many saying they find 41 too old as late your 50s and 60s are much more tiring vs the older parents in their 40s saying they're still doing great.

Agee with PPs / physiologically far from ideal but actually very common and becoming more so.

Would love to see the studies mentioned above that claim it's better? Seems very subjective.

I’m 36, had mine at 19, 21 and 29. I’d rather poke my eyes out than have another now never mind at 41 but that’s because I had mine young! I don’t think anything bad of anyone else having a child at 41.

Tell your DH to stop being ridiculous. I’m 56, DS2 is 15. It’s fine - more than fine.

They sleep a lot more as teens though!

Agree with above 40s are the new 30s- i have a few family members whi have had children in their 40s, no issues,some kids are grown ups and their parents are healthy/working still.

I think if you're having your first and only at 41, you don't know any different.

I had DS at 26 and DTwins at 37. Jesus H. Christ. The difference. Toddlers in your forties are not fun. I know I've got twins, so that does skew the comparison a bit. I'm very fit and healthy. Probably more so than 99% of people. And I'm knackered.

I know you'll get the people saying how they've had triplets at 52 and are running the marathon, (well, you get the idea) and whilst these people may exist, they are the exception, not the rule.

For me, there's nothing in the world that would make me have another child now, at 41. I've shed a tear several times that if I died at 75, DTwins would be motherless in their 30s, and whatever happens, I will likely not survive my grandchildren much past their primary school ages. But then if I was desperate for a child, with no other children, I'd be none the wiser and going for it.

He's wrong. It's not.

Tell that to Tana and Gordon Ramsey!!

Had my first at 41 - not worried about the future as I’d hope to reach 70+

It was a tough pregnancy though and had a number of issues since, so whist mentally it felt ok, it has taken a physical toll

I’d still do it again though, some people don’t have a choice but to start later in life

@adriftinadenofvipers really? Do you really think it's ideal for a 20 year old to have a dad who is 77? Unlikely he will be around to see him get married, have his own family. Please stop pretending like it's not an issue.

And there's a big difference between having a child at 41 to 57 as in Gordon Ramsay's case! 16 years when you reach the other end of your life is huge.

The women who’s actually become pregnant and given birth is not 57 though.

I don't think it's too old and I also don't think it's for your DH (or anyone else for that matter) to comment on.

It can come with higher risks which have to be accepted by that person.

@TeaKitten no I appreciate that but it's still his dad, I think both parents are equally important. She'll still be nearing 80 when that child is likely to get married, have a family etc

If the dad became a father at 40, then his son will be 37 when his father is 77. That's a stupid comparison. Please stop talking rubbish.

If you are talking about Gordon Ramsey which I am assuming you are, then yes, I agree he is too old, and so is his wife, but the baby has 5 siblings so I am sure he will do ok.

I’m surprised you think 48 is too old given your other posts. What age do you think is the cut off for it being fine?

@adriftinadenofvipers yes I'm talking about Gordon Ramsay! You said it's not too old, tell tell that to Gordon Ramsay. Yes it's great he'll have lots of siblings and an extended family but his dad is very unlikely to be around for most of the important milestones of his life so yet again, my point is that's it's far from ideal and in this instance, I'd say it's pretty selfish to have another child. It's very different if you're having your first child later in life because of fertility issues, not meeting the right partner etc. I've already seen comments re GR saying he's rich, his child will be fine but money doesn't come close to having your parents around

I think you missed the irony in my comment.

I think, for me personally, I'd have had to have a cut off point, for the sake of my sanity. I had miscarriages at 38 and 39, so if it had happened again, I may well have had to stop. I kind of had a cut off age in my mind, but I am not going to share that, because it may well be different for others, and if it's right for then, then that's for them to decide.

I do feel that 45+ is probably pushing it, in terms of maternal and foetal health. No, money is no substitute for parents. I think little Jesse will probably be almost parented by his older siblings even so.

My mum was 33 when she had m brother and a few people said to her that at her age they couldn’t be bothered 😂

I love how men think they have any say about this.

The child will be fine but I would be more worried about why your partner cares.