Can you get pregnant at 52?

[Pregnantposibility]

I have not had a period for 2.5 years; we use condoms but it came off while having sex. Any chance I could be pregnant? Should I get a pregnancy test just in case.

Hopefully the answer is not. As no way we want a child at this age plus all the risks it could carry.

I am 54. Still having regular periods though. Just had some hormone tests because I was convinced I’m perimenopausal. Turns out I’m just a grumpy cow and still not really perimenopausal. Doctor initially laughed at when I asked for a test. Told me I was definitely menopausal. I mentioned the periods and he was surprised but still said I would be (peri)menopausal.
I’m not really. He was hesitating to say that I could still get pregnant but did tell be to keep using contraception.

Again- I'm 54.

I was complaining to my mum about this (periods only stopped at 59). She told me that her mum (my grandmother) actually did get pregnant at 51/52. Apparently it was massively embarrassing at the time because of her age. Mum remembers dates clearly because they told her directly after her Oxford entrance exam, and mum said it rather took the wind out of her sails. My mum was born when grandma was in her late 30s so pretty definite about dates. It all ended in a late miscarriage but it’s fascinating to know it still happened!

I can’t decide if this is a good thing or not. I mean I’ve been having periods for 42 years now and I’m bored.

vanishingly slim but not impossible. Do. test it it makes you better but I wouldn't lose sleep over it esp if periods stopped 2.5 years ago.

Thank you all; hopefully the majority of you are correct. Last time I had an internal exam they said I still had some follicles and could get pregnant and that in my case I will officially menopause after 2 years; so I guess I am safe; but you can never be sure; I may get a pregnancy test just in case and report back.

When was this internal exam and do you mean vaginal ultrasound?

How do you know you’re ovulating each month? A period is not proof of that.

If you haven't had a period in 2.5 years you are post menopausal. It would be very unlikely you could get pregnant at 52 and post menopausal. If you were concerned, a test is easy to do. But I don't think I'd be rushing out for the MAP.

If you're definitely post-menopausal (which you are) then there is no chance whatever that you're pregnant.

I'm genuinely yet to come across this in all the years I've done family history.

Where it 'happens' it's a Kat Slater scenario and then claimed as a miracle baby.

If it’s just happened get the morning after pill?

I think loads of those tales of GMs giving birth very late are probably an older DD's teen pregnancy.

It wouldn't be completely impossible theoretically, but is vanishingly unlikely, especially as OP hasn't been having periods for so long.

DH was asked if he might be pregnant before a recent surgery.

I’d say the chances were vanishingly slim, what with him being 60 and male.

Apparently, they have to ask.

Yes

No period in 2.5 years? YOU ARE NOT PREGNANT.

My Aunt is an OBGYN with 35+ years experience and the oldest Mum she's delivered a baby with was 49. Again, that's after 35 years.

You always get people saying my granny had one at 54 etc but really, it is vanishingly rare. Like, almost non-existent.

That sounds like IVF though. You couldn't accidentally pull off that many pregnancies in a row - having avoided it until then, surely.

Oh for goodness sake! The world is getting too ridiculous for words.

I wish he'd said yes.

I'd never thought of that as teen pregnancy cover-up. But I suppose that must have happened on a few occasions.

I can feel in my cramping. Not the exact moment as some can, but the day.

They always say that though op. It's one of my first memories after the birth of each of my dc: I had hardly glanced at the baby before some midwife or other would come running in shouting "You realise you can STILL get pregnant even breastfeeding!!!"

Which is true but they seemed to have a fixation with saying it.

Then my mum would arrive to see the baby and say the same thing. And all I could think is how frisky do you all think |I'm actually feeling right now in this state.

Ovulation pain and hormone tests.

They're probably just covering themselves.
The responses here say that you are NOT pregnant. It sounds like you need to take a test anyway to reassure yourself.

Genuinely every single time I've seen it and raised an eyebrow at the mothers age on the census compared with when her 'child' was born you see the same thing; when you dig deeper and try and track the child's birth on the GRO indexes it comes back as a birth outside marriage (so family name but no maiden name).

I tend to double check census and birth records when I'm trying to trace down family lines to DNA matches and it is surprisingly common. The other thing you often get is on an earlier census the child is referred to as 'son' or 'daughter' and then the next one ten years later you see them referred to as grandchild. Usually after the daughter has subsequently married.

There most definitely WASN'T many women having babies after 50. It just didn't happen.

It only is happening now due to interventions.

I'm guessing the cover ups are less common now?

There's much less 'need' for it as such.

Simply because it's not uncommon or unacceptable to be a single mother. Certainly it's not going to put off potential 'respectable' suitors.

We don't have conversations about young women 'being left on the shelf' nor the complications of being unable to have a bank account or legally unable to own property. Where you have unmarried daughters there is a tendency for them to be the eldest and have helped raise siblings and then effectively end up 'aging out' of the dating pool - they weren't regarded as 'useful' due to their age, so we're not going to produce the desired offspring.

You have to see it through the lens of a father or brother being responsible for his daughter until she married and there being massive financial insecurity for women who weren't married because pay was so much lower for women. Marriage was viewed as long term economic support for a woman. Parents wanted to marry off daughters so they would be looked after after they'd died - being seen as 'loose' restricted options as it made a girl 'less desirable'.

By the same token you see women who are suddenly widowed at a young age either remarrying very quickly (usually to a widower with children - to the point that it almost look transactional and arranged so he gained a hand to look after his children whilst she regained financial stability) or falling into abject poverty very very quickly.

It was rare for women to have financial independence unless widowed and/or left with a good inheritance or pension. It just doesn't happen because women couldn't do things like own businesses unless widowed.

The exceptions to this are few and far between.

I have a couple of entrepreneurial women in my family - both had businesses of their own but both needed a man for the paperwork.

I think we take this for granted to a large extent in 2025.

Absolutely. It was an absolute rarity because of the nature of maternal care at the time. It's only a bit more common now because of IVF etc.
I've known 2 people who believed their grandmother to have been their mother, when in fact the mother was the "sister" who had the baby as a teen.
Both people now in their late 60s.

I would say there was a high chance of fertility treatment in that scenario.