Is 45 too old to have a baby

[Catontoof]

is this fair on a child?
I am seriously considering this as I feel like
therr has been a huge hole in my life.

I had my one and only at 44 (conceived close to my 44th birthday). Wasn't my choice to leave it that late, I had multiple losses and wasn't sure it would ever happen. It did, natural conception. Yes, risks are much higher, I had lots of scans, NIPT, you name it. He's happy and healthy and I feel so blessed it happened! It hasn't been easy, but it has kept me young (if I may say so). I'm making better choices to stay healthy, losing weight etc. I have to keep fit. :-) As long as you are aware of all the potential risks incl. miscarriage risks, the decision is yours only. I will say though that it will help if you have a caring family and your kid will have cousins etc., so they won't be alone later in life.

Thats not true. I am 44 and don't look it. I got to travel and enjoy my 20s and 30s without being tied down. Better to do it earlier in life. So glad I didnt have children young and am not a grandparent already.

Yes it is imo
its more grandparent age
Maybe in your circle it is. I don’t know any grandparents who are 45 at all

You are right, it must be the circles you more in
All my team except me who is over 45 have grand children. My manager at 56 has six grand children, my deputy at 60 has nine grandchildren, the oldest being fourteen. Our principal has four grandchildren and he is forty nine.
Most of my friends around fifty have several grandchildren. These are professional people who have a great career and with the exception of two are still working.

Our friend has bought her grandson up since birth. She is 60 next month, he is fifteen. She is barely coping, trying g to work full timecand deal with his teenage attitude. She us on the verge if asking for social service support.

None of us can predict how our lives will turn out. On balance of how we were doing financially, health etc I think the ideal time for us to have had a baby was 30-35. Unfortunately it took us 8 years to conceive so we were both nearly 40. Both of us are aware that we are older and trying to get fit, strong and eat well.

I get quite emotional about it at times. Having our DC 10 years earlier so I could have 10 extra years with him would be amazing. Life just didn't work out that way. Hopefully we all life long and healthy life's.

Absolutely! I had a baby at 24, then another at 32 and the difference is massive in terms of how I’ve felt I’ve “managed”.
Like many PP’s have stated, it probably isn’t the reason you feel your life is lacking.

I wouldn't be thinking so much about having a baby and a toddler in your forties...but about the fact that you'll be in your 60s with a a teenager

😂

I had my only baby at 45. He is 15 now and I am 61. Like @TheBellsAreRinging I had multiple losses beforehand. Being "in your 60s with a teenager" isn't exactly terrible. I enjoy his company every day and we do loads of things together.

Yes. There is a reason why women rarely fall pregnant for the first time naturally at that age. It’s a LOT of strain on our bodies during pregnancy and labour, but it’s also VERY hard work for the next 10-20 years. You will be 60 before they are an adult. It’s not good for you and it’s not fair to the child.

As someone who has just given birth mid 40s it's not "incredibly unlikely to be successful". In fact I was in the hospital ward next to a woman older than me who gave birth the same day.
Midwives were constantly reassuring me that my age was very common these days. The waiting rooms throughout the pregnancy were full of women of all ages.

The potential for "issues" is vastly overstated and exists with younger parents too. Is it statistically more likely? Sure but still not that likely and there's no age that is a guarantee.

There are drawbacks - bodies are older and tireder. Advantages too: you can likely afford the help you couldn't in your 20s. I see plenty of parents in their 20sworking themselves into a frenzy over small things. In your 40s you've matured and are generally far more laid back.

OP it's up to you and how you feel. On mumsnet people are very anti older parents.

There are countless threads on here from MNers who expect their DMs to provide childcare so they presumably don’t think it’s too old!

I suggest that what you’re experiencing is a natural surge of maternal hormones as you’re nearing the end of your fertility.

The combination of menopause, elderly parents and a young child is not something I’d enjoy. In addition - do not under estimate how hard it is to parent teens. I could handle another ten newborns right now but not one other teenager.

I was 41 when DD2 was born, she’s now 5 and I think it keeps me with a younger mindset than if I’d had my girls earlier. Both DDs were conceived naturally, although I did have 2 mmc as well.

If you still feel you have the energy to give then don’t let a list of people on MN tell you otherwise!

That said, if you feel you have lots more to give, would you consider fostering or even adopting? That could complete your family with less concern about your current age.

I had my 3 before I was 26, so yes I think 45 is too old. I'm 34 now and so glad I didn't have them now as I don't think I'd cope! It's not my decision though, it's yours.

I had another child at 44 (just turned when I gave birth), this was DC no5. It was a much more difficult pregnancy and birth than I expected (last one being 10 years ago), my blood pressure was all over the place and the nausea was worse than all of them and this was the only birth where I was induced and had an epidural. I wouldn’t have changed a thing though - she is worth every second.

Now I am also thinking of another child at 45 years, but realistically the success rate is 1% - 3% so I am not holding my breath. I would love for my baby to have someone else to grow up with who isn’t 10 years or older.

In my opinion, if you really want another child - go for it. It is your choice after all, but set expectations low. I know I am.

I'd go for it, but not to fill a gap in my life.

A lot of nasty judgement and supposition on this thread.

I know a 48 ( almost 49) currently pregnant with her first. Donor egg, doesn't actually live with the father yet, baby already identified with some health issues pre birth, elderly parents and a disabled sibling. No she hasn't got a clue about what is involved with babies either.
She is at least financially stable. But my god from the outside it is truly terrifying to see.
I am unfortunately not feeling very optimistic for my friend on this one and nor is anyone else.But obviously nobody has said a thing and we are all positive about it around her.
She will be 60 when child is still at primary school.

@Commonsense22 I thought the risk of miscarriage was much higher in your 40s

How does your existing DC feel about it? My Teens would be absolutely horrified if I had another baby and have basically said as much.

I am 39 and a Single parent to 2 older Teens. I couldn’t think of anything worse than starting again at 40+ if I’m being honest. I didn’t have a great relationship with my children’s dad and I’d be terrified of making that mistake again and being left holding the baby on my own, especially now I have established my career. IMO 2 years isn’t really enough time to meet someone and get to know them enough to want to have a baby with them in order to meet your 45 deadline.

I think it's fine tbh, I had my 2nd at 43 but I am a single parent so will be easier if you have a loving helpful partner. I'm 53 now and she is 10 and until now it's all been fine and dandy. No real issues to speak of and she's slotted in just grand.

I know someone that had their last child at 46, and someone that had first child at 47 and second at 49. Another had one at 47. The kids are all ok.

One was natural, one ivf and one egg/sperm donor. I worried I was old at 37 having a baby but at the school gate now (Im 42) I am nowhere near the oldest Mum.

speak to a clinic, understand your options, and also include adoption as an option, there is no upper age limit for this, although you would be unlikely to adopt a baby.

it is your life and it is up to you

I was born late 1960s and that's not my recollection at all.

Don’t have a baby for your other child. Your existing child would be 15/16/17 when the new baby was born. They will be busy out with their friends when it’s a baby….. by the time it’s a toddler and old enough to play and interact, their elder sibling likely will have moved out, gone away to uni, or be working full time. Busy with their own adult life.

This new baby will grow up like an only child, just like your first has.

My husband was that new baby. His two much older siblings were very much not interested in him as a child……and moved away to uni when he was very young. They don’t have a sibling relationship like those who were similar age growing up. More like distant cousins than siblings.

Only have another child if you desperately want one for you, you are very fit and healthy and full of energy, are very financially secure, feel well able to do another 18 years of parenting.

I don’t think it is too old.