To consider having a baby at 44

[littleloopylou]

I already have one child whom I love dearly. She desperately wants a sibling.

My partner and I met late in life.

We are financially secure.

I am aware it might not be possible.

I'm 40 will be 41 when baby is born and my midwife has said I'm low risk because I have a healthy bmi and have had non risk pregnancy and births before, she would only have put me at high risk if it was my first baby or I had had previous complications.

I think it's too old for the following reasons.

Giving up freedom and the time to enjoy yourself for probably at least the next six years (or seven/eight if you include trying to conceive and pregnancy).

The higher chances of a child who might have lifelong care needs. Being in your sixties when the child is in their late teens.

Not having the same energy to deal with sleepless nights, toddler phases, teen dramas. Still ferrying them around to activities/work when you're 63, etc.

You know that at 44 the odds of the baby having Down Syndrome are way way higher than during the 20s, don't you?

I think people forget the loveliness of a new member of the family when they say I couldn't possibly do it again at that age as I used to feel the same until we had a surprise when I was 44. We absolutely adore our youngest; i used to think I really couldn't manage that when a friend had a baby after a big gap but it must be mysteriously different when it's your own as we feel so very lucky and all enjoy every minute so much (aged 2 now)
i did take extra interest in my nutrition and the importance of micronutrients (i took choline and other good vitamins and minerals, ate fish , nuts, etc). And yes risks of certain things might be higher in an older mother (including twins !)

Don't do it for your child or because a friend suggested it. Consider finances (you'd be hitting state retirement age when they'd still be dependent) and the higher risks in pregnancy and disability in the baby, if you are able to get pregnant. Which is statistically unlikely. Just being honest!

There’s always a risk with pregnancy, I never said otherwise.

And I wasn’t making a comment about assisted vs unassisted fertility either. I was merely pointing out what I see around me, which is plenty of parents of newborns and babies who are well into their 40s.

If your concerned about the free time element, I definitely wouldn't.

I don't think there is such a thing as free time after number 2.

(I appreciate you might have more family support than I do though, making this much less of any issue)

I think you’d be mad to try. Not just because you’re setting yourself up for heartache and failure, but because pregnancy, birth and baby rearing at 44 is going to be a right slog. I’m your age and I’d rather boil my head than experience pregnancy again, no matter how wistful I might feel that my baby days are over.

No need for passive aggressive responses @Hereyoume

I had a surprise baby at 44. I wanted one, but after a few losses, we were okay with being childless. My pregnancy went well. I didn’t have any tests. Birth didn’t go as planned. But it worked out, thank God. My advice would be to stop contraception & see what happens. Be prepared to have a child with special needs. Be prepared for miscarriage / stillbirth (nobody can prepare for that, but be aware) / you & your partner’s future good health. These were all factors for us.

If you want to actively pursue having a baby (IVF, surrogacy etc…) then that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Good luck!

Age and possible complications aside I think having two children is such a different dynamic and if you’re not 100% all in because you want it (not your daughter or friend) then don’t rock the boat.

There’s no guarantee they’ll get along, there’s quite a gap in their ages even if you did conceive quickly so their interests and friends won’t ever align until possibly adulthood and it puts you into early retirement age with a child possibly still living at home dependent on you.

If you have financial security, family support and the time to dedicate to both kids then great, but none of that is really important if at the end of the day you doubt if it’s the right thing to put your family through.

The baby at 44 may not be an issue, but what about a teenager in your late 50s? Or a still-dependent 21 year old university student when you are 65?
Don't underestimate how tired you will feel in your 50s and 60s, let alone the increased risk of major health issues at those ages.

I'm not sure why you're asking tbh. You must know the risks are significantly higher for things like Down's Syndrome and autism and that it might take a long time to conceive a viable pregnancy. You know you'll be 62 at the youngest when the potential baby hits 18.

Of course you're not being unreasonable to consider it, it's the path life has led you to. Just make the decision and own it. I had 4 children for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever.

I wouldn’t want to plan to be dealing with a 16-20 year old in my early 60s….potential university fees as I’d be looking towards retirement….to me it’s not about the baby at 44, it’s about all the above!

44 is not old in the grand scheme of things, but is very old when talking about having a baby.

Also OP you don't say "we want a baby" you say "my child wants a sibling". Sounds harsh, but we can't always have what we want. Being an only isn't the worst thing in the world, and it might be better - gently - to explain to your child that they probably won't have a brother and sister and helping them get their head round that.

Your existing child wanting a sibling is an absurd reason to have a baby. They will be just fine as an only child, you on the other hand will be the one having to raise this child into your 50s and 60s.

Hard pass.

I tried ttc 2nd child in early 40’s, several miscarriages then a non viable pregnancy due to trisomy issue - not genetic so put down to age, I gave up at 43. Friend however had her 2nd at 45 with no issues.

in your shoes I would chat with a clinic and consider IUI or IVF.

it's not absurd at all.
While it's not going to be on their list of reasons at the moment; being an only child and dealing with elderly infirm parents alone is really crap.

Hi OP, this is one of those things really no one can help you decide - it’s down to you and your Dp. Please take your dp’s views fully into this picture - it’s so important not to emotionally guilt-trip a partner into letting you conceive again.

I had a second baby late in life (43), my mum had her last baby aged 40, and my gran had one child at the age of 23 and her second aged 37 (big gap due to intervention of WW2 in killing her first husband; her second husband was 49 when his child was born). Being an older mum is easier than it ever has been in the past - great medical and social advances to thank for that - and MANY women had kids in their 40s throughout history. But you now have the advantage of choosing, not just falling pregnant because of a family planning failure.

You have to be prepared for failure to conceive.
DH and I decided we wouldn’t go the ivf route at this age personally - We let nature take its course and agreed we would stop trying after 8 months and give up. I was pregnant in three months, similar to my first child. So also don’t be surprised if that happens quickly too!

And you should know what you and dh would do if your foetus has a serious abnormality - late abortion is a difficult thing. Or you have to consider the impact of raising a child that has a disability of some kind - it could help if you’re financially more secure, but hard if you are both hoping for an independent child aged 18.

It will be tiring, that’s for sure. You’ll have to “stay young” in mind and body, as long as you can, and this has to be a conscious approach you can’t take it for granted.

On the other hand, in my family so far we have been pretty blessed. Natural conception, easy pregnancies, kids healthy, all parents have survived long enough to see their kids reach adulthood. I would like to live healthily until 65, which doesn’t seem an unreasonable hope, to see my son into adulthood.

Families come in all shapes and sizes and the pros and cons of older parents will be endlessly debated, at the end of the day only you and your dh can decide.

Speak to a midwife would be my advice. I had 2 babies in my 40s (at nearly 41 and nearly 45) I also had babies in my 20s and 30s. The current medical view would be that you would be more likely to miscarry (I had 4 miscarriages between ages 39 & 42). But if you stay pregnant you are highly likely to a normal healthy pregnancy and baby. Caveats being you should aim to be fit and healthy yourself before hand. I got asked if I was planning another after my baby at 44. The answer was "no" due to the high risk of miscarriage.

I'm 55, I can't imagine having a 9 year old. DH's kids are in their mid 20s and becoming independent - we are planning our retirement and travelling....

I'm doing it and I manage. Having a sibling is absolutely no guarantee at all that they will help you with your parents when they are elderly. Most people I know with siblings get no help at all from them.

I had DD when I was almost 43 (we have a ds who was born when I was 40.) Neither have special needs as far as we are aware. My body is a bit wrecked and free time is non existent. But I wouldn’t change her for the world.

Even if you did want one I'm afraid the odds at your age are extremely slim so I would probably give up on the idea altogether. Sorry but it's true.

While I appreciate you're speaking from your own experience and it doubtless is pretty crap, having a sibling is no guarantee of help. Everyone I know struggling with elderly relatives at the moment has a sibling/s who is entirely useless, live in far-flung countries, or just don't involve themselves in extended family life.