I am too old, aren’t it?

[OrangeKettle]

I think I know the answer I’ll get from everyone.

I was in an emotionally abusive marriage. I used to read posts on here, with women in a similar situation, and know I should leave, but couldn’t. Eventually I managed to. It was the best thing I ever did. It took me years to realise what had happened and that it wasn’t normal, and to start getting over it.

7 years later, I met someone who is the complete opposite. The kindest, generous, nicest, helpful man ever. Looks after me constantly. We’ve never had a cross word. Hard working, supportive, etc. We now live together too.

I have two children from my first marriage. One is early teens, one is slightly younger.

My partner has no children. He wanted them but has accepted he won’t have any with me. He says he’d rather be with me than not.

I would love another child. I know he would. He would also be a fab dad. Not like my ex.

However…. I am 44. He is 7 years younger. I am in a better situation (mentally) and still very active. I have periods every 28 days. Still ovulate at the “right” time (despite having coil, I still get periods).

But, it would be wrong, wouldn’t it? I’m too old, aren’t I?

If there is no medical reason not to, go for it! I am biased, I had my son (first baby) at 46 😍

Well no...medical constraints aren't the only consideration here.

@OrangeKettle Whatever you do, don't have the baby for him from some misguided idea that you owe him a child/the experience of fatherhood. It's his choice to be with you and since you already have children, and since it's more than likely you'll end up doing the far bigger share of childrearing, and since it's potentially detrimental to your existing children's wellbeing, I do think you ought to approach the idea circumspectly. As it stands now you get the best of both worlds - a stable, happy relationship with a decent man (as far as we know), and ample time/resources to look after your children who need you and will likely need you much more intensely in the next 10 years than they ever did as little ones.

I do think it's also a little different to have one's first child at later age, than adding one in having already done it previously.

I agree with you @HappyDane . So many people are saying they had their child at 112 and it’s been great and they might live until they are 178 so what’s the problem. They are not looking at the history of the two existing children who are reaching their teens after having grown up with an abusive father. A lot of the trauma from that will come out when they are 15+ and it’s going to be very disruptive for them to have a toddler to consider then. It’s a happy home at the moment, why risk losing that.

I had my only baby when I was 38 & my partner was 46. I don’t think you are too old, your body will not let you get pregnant if you are.

some people think you have to be really young to have kids, my mum had me at 40 & is still going strong. Many people I know have had younger parents that are sadly no longer here.

your body will not let you get pregnant if you are.

That’s patently not the case. The incidence of miscarriage, stillbirth and birth defects wouldn’t increase with age if it was. My body would have “let me get pregnant” but my liver was shot for most of my fertile life and I’d have died and probably the baby as well.

No not too old, I had my youngest when I was 42, but....
Be prepared for judgey pants. I was 18 and single when I had my eldest and I would say the judgment was about the same with my youngest. You literally get described as "geriatric".
It's also a lot more tiring being heavily pregnant when you're older.

I was a geriatric mum with my third at 36
The age for a geriatric mum is Quite young at 35

How serious are things with your partner? Serious enough to consider having another baby at 44? Not that you're too old, it's more about everything getting pregnant/ raising a child entails.