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?

Again, you're completely off point. I haven't commented on those things and nor have I called them prejudiced because they're not (they're a fact of medical science). Read my reply to itwasnevermine above - sazzy6258 made ageist comments (underlined in my reply to itwasnevermine) and I replied to those remarks because they are ageist.

I am your age and also had a long and abusive marriage and have two older kids. I have finally found peace and my kids are thriving again now that they have gone NC with their dad. I could not even contemplate throwing another child into the mix even though one of my kids is now in her early 20s and doesn't live at home. I just want to focus on them and their wellbeing and they still need me and my attention. I want to be able to go out to restaurants with them, take them on holidays and just do adult things. A baby would definitely prevent that and a disabled baby would absolutely knacker me.

It sounds like you have finally formed a heathly and comfortable life for you and your kids, enjoy what you have and don't risk disrupting that. It really could go either way, but it will for sure take time away from your existing children who probably also still have some healing to do.

If you you both want it, I don't think you're too old. I know someone in similar circumstances who had a child at 47 and brings huge joy to their lives. I would like to another hand I'm 43 but it's not happening. We aren't trying ivf or anything, but if it happened naturally I'd be happy.

Very thoughtful and well-considered post, thank you. 😊

This. I think 44 is too old to have a baby

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.

This sounds like something a man who's unbothered says, then reminds you later that he wasn't that fussed. I wouldn't be embarking on that journey at 44 with someone who says this.

Totally agree with this. And as several posters have said, it's not 'ageist' to say it. And it's ridiculous to say it is ageist!

Of course you’re not too old. Don’t bow down to societal norms. The again, I’m in London and it’s completely normal where I live for women to have children in their 40’s.

If your bits still work and you have a good set-up at home then go for it!

The bits you've underlined don't make your case:

You need to think about the child, when they are due to start school,

This is true, something that needs thinking about.

you would be nearly 50 and starting to hit the menopause.

Also true, no one would dispute.

When they are due to leave school you will be hitting 60!!

Also true.

My friend growing up had older parents and hated it as they were so out of touch with everything.

This is the poster's experience she's relating, which was true for her friend.

If you want to make a case for ageism or someone just being plain wrong on here, I don't see how this does that. The poster disagrees with you and you've balanced out her take with your own, but this isn't the evidence you think it is.

It's not just about age though.

You are happy as things are, as is he, as are your children. Even if a pregnancy went well and the baby was healthy, you are still blending a family with somone who has never had children. Being good with your children as your partner is very different from being a first time dad managing a baby and the changes that come with that, along with step parenting two older children.

You would have one child living with both parents whilst your older children have a dad (is he the abusive one ? ) that they don't live with. How will they feel about that as time goes on ? How will you deal with inheritances (as an example) and making sure they are all treated equally within the family unit ? Will his family treat all your children equally at Christmas and birthday etc ?

Don't undervalue what you currently have.

If it's ok to offer a male perspective, I've found myself saying things like this in the past, as others have said it's a 50% enthusiasm and I think needs more examination.

If it's ok to offer an opinion, spend time having time and fun with your two children, keep driving them to parties and, in a few years time, enjoy being to go out on dates because both the kids are doing something rather than be stressed over a five year old.

Throwing accusations of 'isms' around whenever people are discussing the reality of life is really irritating and there's no need. Obviously people know it doesn't apply to every single situation. It's still fine for people to say that being the child of older parents is/can be hell, and conversely for people to say they don't think they would do it again, or that they don't recommend others do it. Indeed it's also completely fine to hold the opinion that it's selfish. OP has asked for opinions, and people are giving their opinions, from varying perspectives. That's how discussion works.

Not necessarily, you might just need to try and accept that it might not happen, there is an increased risk of miscarriage, and also have all your prenatal screening as there is increased risk of Downs etc.
If you're happy to take that risk, and feel like your older children would cope then I would say go for it.
Lots of women your age do have children naturally.

No offence intended, but I doubt this VERY much. If you do have a 53 y.o. friend who is pregnant, it's extremely unlikely that it was a natural conception.

Yes extremely unlikely! Before the days of IVF, around 50 women a year in the U.K. had babies over the age of 50. And you can bet that almost all of them were actually aged 50 or 51!

This. It's ridiculous to call people 'ageist' purely for stating biological facts.

That's prob as most people still use contraceptive incase they got preg

I know j did. Def didn't want a baby at 48/50😂

Tho due to issues I had having no 1 I prob wouldn't get preg

Then again they say after ivf some do become fertile and say now be careful

But know of a mum getting preg at 45/46 as ttc and natural preg after a few mc

But very few women had babies over 50 even before contraception was available. 45/46 is a completely different ballpark and a far greater number of women have babies between 45 and 49 than at over 50.

I didn't take her comments individually but as a whole and I didn't dispute the facts of her maths - that would be stupid. The summarising statement of her comments is that her friend's older parents were "so out of touch with everything" as if this applies to all older parents by default - that is ageist and if you can't see that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

When I wanted to be sterilised at 42 my gynae was reluctant as I had no kids and told me that women in their late 40s were deciding to have children. It's not medically impossible so it's about how you feel.

Biological fact is I had kids on 40s and am very healthy, happy and in touch with them
...more than quite a few younger parents of teens. So I think it is ageism

And when your children are 25 and facing getting married without you there?

It's always fine until it's not.

It's all very well saying this. Yes, it's not impossible. I know a woman of 51 who naturally conceived. She wasn't trying and thought she was in menopause. So yes, it does happen.
However, it's not just about how OP feels, it's about the quality of her eggs (and her partner's sperm), it's also about whether her hormone levels can support a pregnancy. The chance of getting pregnant at 44 is about 4% according to some sources. If she does get pregnant, there's about a 50% chance of miscarriage. So if she wants to try, that's fine but she needs to be aware the her chances are low.

I have a teenage niece with older parents - just forty when they had her so not hugely so. She was teased at primary school and asked if it was her grandparents. Both parents young at heart and not out of touch. Both great parents too but it didn't stop her being teased about them.

@MissionaryMumtoOne wait till they're in poor health and you're realising you only got 25-35 years with your parents as opposed to the 40-50 you thought you'd get.

My grandmother (who I never got to meet) passed in her 30s suddenly in good health. My other grandmother is in good health and lives independently in her 90s. We never know how long we will have with our parents. It’s always a gamble.