Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Is 46 too old for a baby?

565 replies

Thebirdsang · 02/06/2025 11:10

I never thought I'd be starting a thread like this. I'm 46, and have been long time single and really had accepted that despite a yearning to be a mother for much of my adult life, that my ship had sailed as I'd never met the right person.

Until that is that I met my absolute soulmate. Totally unexpectedly. Recently talk has been had about babies, mostly from him. I've kind of brushed it off, because I'm too old. Or am I?

We are financially stable, have good jobs, homes etc. I guess that comes with being older. But is it too risky? Is it unkind on the child? Is society just too prejudiced?

What even are my chances at my age. I still have clockwork periods and my mum was mid 50's before menopause hit. However I am aware that my fertility will be greatly reduced.

My partner is a couple of years younger if that makes a difference.

Thank you for your opinions! I'm very torn.

Am I being unreasonable to consider trying for a baby at 46?

OP posts:
Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

Blondeshavemorefun · 02/06/2025 11:32

Not unreasonable. Low chance you will get preg naturally at 46 but it’s not a never

so could do ivf if no money issues as more chance will get preg then ttc every month

equally if doing ivf could think about donor eggs - not sure your views on de

I was almost 44 when had mini blondes. Mother Nature wasn’t nice to me so took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf so many thousands

but worth every penny /pound

I think I’m a better mum as have a stable home /house /good job so no real money worries but obv need to work

have more patience and don’t want to be in the pub /clubbing every weekend as I did they in my 20/30’s

good luck

if you do ivf welcome to message me as bene there. Worn the r shirt as such

PeapodMcgee · 02/06/2025 11:32

A quick Google indicates the average person around your age has a 4% chance of pregnancy every month (vs approx 25% at age 25), so on average it could take two years to conceive naturally, instead of 4 months. Then the risk of miscarriage is over 50% (vs 10% age 25).

With a new relationship especially, the risk this is just your ovaries trying it on for a last hoorah before perimenopause, is significant.

Just enjoy your life.

Mistyglade · 02/06/2025 11:32

I had DS at 38 and it’s a push to be as active as I’d like 9 years on. If you’re exceptionally fit and active then maybe but otherwise I don’t think it’s wise,

TheMasterplan23 · 02/06/2025 11:32

Only you know if you could manage it.

I had my first at 18, 2nd at 27 and 3rd at 29 and now they are 25, 17 and 15 and I couldn’t imagine changing nappies and getting up countless times in the night. I also enjoy the freedom I now have as they’re all old enough to mostly sort themselves out.
Saying that though, it’s because I’ve been a mum for 25 years now and I’m knackered 😂

I think you’ll know, deep down if it’s the right decision for you. If you don’t…do what my nan always suggested - flip a coin, while it’s in the air you’ll know what you’re hoping for!

Iwantasteak · 02/06/2025 11:34

Unfortunately, yes, I think it's too old. Maybe you could look into fostering/adopting a child?

jeaux90 · 02/06/2025 11:34

Yes too old. I am 53 and have a 16 year old so will need to keep working until she is out of university. It’s the practical and financial stuff you really need to consider not just whether it’s physically possible. Then the risks, there are plenty.

Fuzziduck · 02/06/2025 11:35

Of course you can, and many do.

ItsSoFoggy · 02/06/2025 11:35

I think you need to think how the child will view it in years to come - they will be quite young when they might be expected to care for elderly parents and they will likely be an only child so it will all fall to them. Even if you think you won’t ask for help, they might feel obliged.

The flip side to this is that they will get any inheritance a little bit earlier than others and they will be alive, which obviously won’t happen if you don’t have them!

You also need to consider if you would cope if they had any disabilities.

I know 2 people who were born to parents roughly the same age as you - both resented their parents when their parents were elderly and thought they had been selfish having them. But that won’t be everybody’s story.

MauraLabingi · 02/06/2025 11:36

I would say try it for a year IF you are healthy and reasonably expect to remain so. No family history of serious disease or early death which has any kind of genetic link.

I had kids over ten years earlier than you and STILL consider myself an older parent. To mitigate the downsides and risks, I keep a healthy weight, exercise, avoid too much sugar, alcohol and UPFs, and so on. Basically cutting the chances of avoidable cancers and other illnesses related to a unhealthy lifestyle. I think at 46 you would both need to be absolutely dedicated to this kind of lifestyle, to give your child the best chance you can of reaching adulthood with both parents still fit and well.
Being healthy will also really help with the tiredness 😂

Olika · 02/06/2025 11:36

You can always try and see what happens as long as you acknowledge that it might not happen. Personally I wouldn’t try at 46 anymore because of increased risks of various things and also because of how hard the first years are once the baby is here.

SheridansPortSalut · 02/06/2025 11:36

Yes

FancyCatSlave · 02/06/2025 11:39

I don’t know anyone personally in recent history with a successful first natural pregnancy post 45. Lots of pregnancies and lots of TFMR and miscarriages.

I had DD naturally at 41 and I know plenty that were 40-44 so it’s not impossible but be prepared for a lot of heartache and potential for issues that are not picked up by testing if you use your own eggs.

I know of many more successful with fertility treatment though.

I went from breastfeeding a 2 year old to perimenopause so a lot can change in a short time at that age.

PeapodMcgee · 02/06/2025 11:41

Don't let your boyfriend pressure you. If he definitely wants his own children he'd be better to look elsewhere, instead of using you.

PowerhouseOfTheCell · 02/06/2025 11:41

There is getting pregnant at 46 and having a baby at 46. Chances for the latter are not in your favour naturally. Obviously, you'll have people on here announcing that their aunt twice removed had triplets at full term at 48, but think of those massive families, e.g. Duggars and even they didn't manage to have babies into their mid/late forties despite having a baby every 18 months for decades

Orderofthephoenixparody · 02/06/2025 11:42

A friend of mine at 45 conceived naturally. It's not impossible but the chances are slim over 40.

CherryAlmondLattice · 02/06/2025 11:42

Yes, it's too old but not impossible.

theundercut · 02/06/2025 11:43

I had my second and last just before I turned 43 and I do think its too old, yes.

Especially as they will be an only child.

And you will be at least 47 before you give birth and probably older.

There is a lot of ageing that will happen to you between now and 60. I feel a lot older at 52 than I did at 46, when I was only just starting to notice the very first signs of ageing. You injure more easily, recover more slowly, start to quickly stiffen and ache. It will be harder to keep fit and active if you work and have a young child too. And you really need to keep activity up at these age as you lose fitness and mobility so rapidly if you stop being active for even quite short periods of time.

And of course people start dying in their 40s and 50s. Its frightening how many people I know who have died at these ages.

You also have higher risk of a child with additional needs and you need to think about how that will affect you and what will happen to the child when you die, which is likely to be early in their life.

I just wouldn't if I were you. For the child's sake too.

babystarsandmoon · 02/06/2025 11:43

I think it’s too old.

Confusedbylifeingeneral · 02/06/2025 11:44

I wouldn’t. Even early forties is pushing it. It is sooooo tough physically and mentally.

HippyKayYay · 02/06/2025 11:44

A friend of mine just got pregnant (unplanned) at 49. So it's certainly possible!