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.

To be surprised at someone being pregnant at 44

515 replies

Onempretime7788 · 08/02/2026 00:16

I would have thought post 35 was rare

OP posts:
ittakes2 · 08/02/2026 09:31

PrettyPickle · 08/02/2026 09:25

What decade are you living in? If you had asked that question in the 70's you may have been bank on but currently speaking, births to Mothers over 35 accounts for 26% of children born each year according to the national statistics. Women are allowed to have a life outside of being a Mother now!

Its not just being allowed to ... fertility help has advanced / the use of other women's eggs / suragacy is more common place.

EvelynBeatrice · 08/02/2026 09:32

Slightyamusedandsilly · 08/02/2026 09:16

Babies at 40 and up may be getting more common now due to delayed maternal age but that doesn't mean that physically, it is the best choice. The human female body is designed to be fertile for approximately 25-30 years. From teens to 40ish. Yes, some people are fertile from 11 and some are fertile up to 45ish. But the middle of that time frame is the most physically sensible time, biologically.

Pushing reproduction to the very end of the fertile window inevitably results in some of those pregnancies having problems. And some people waiting that late have problems conceiving because they're at the end of the fertility phase.

So some of those post 40 babies will be IVF, or from couples who have had fertility treatment.

What we want socially and culturally doesn't always mesh with our biology. Even socially, having a teenager heading off to uni as we are hitting retirement age doesn't seem logical. Having elderly parents to look after while we're still caring for children isn't the best time planning. Surely having a family young enough to have grandparents around who can assist and enjoy them makes more sense (I know not all grandparents are involved)?

This would mean far fewer female doctors and lawyers. Both careers have very long periods of university and post university training. On top of that, competition for scarce jobs can mean that it’s a long time before you’re even able to settle in one location or have a secure career / environment in which to even think about children. And the need to
move around makes it less likely that there will be any grandparent or other family support nearby.

changenameagain555 · 08/02/2026 09:35

@Boots89 sorry my post was a bit rude. I tried to edit/ delete it but can’t.
it’s great that you’ve lost weight. I just mentioned it as weight can be linked to fertility/ insulin resistance etc. I think the point I and GinaX were trying to make is no-one really knows what their fertility is like until they start trying to ttc.
now I also delayed ttc until “time was right” at 32 but it did mean we only had one child instead of two due to secondary fertility. I just think people have to accept that there is a risk of not having a successful pregnancy and the older you are the higher the risk. That’s why people advise getting on with it but it depends on how bothered by that risk an individual is. Good luck 🤞🏻

Theroadt · 08/02/2026 09:35

A goady post aimed at older mums - who don’t generally get a good ride in MN at the best of times

Thatcannotberight · 08/02/2026 09:37

Seo2022 · 08/02/2026 06:00

I had my first just after turning 46. No fertility treatment. Pregnancy and labour were fine. I must be a unicorn going by this thread.

Greetings from another unicorn. DS 2 born when I was 47. Very healthy 14yr old now. Uneventful pregnancy. I even managed to hike across Dartmoor carrying him in a back pack once he was old enough. 🤣

Bex000 · 08/02/2026 09:37

Unusual but not rare, I had first baby just before 40th birthday and a slightly surprise second baby at 46, both uncomplicated natural births and pregnancies.
Two grandmothers who had last babies in mid 40s and both lived till mid 90s so clearly good genetic stock!

Waitingfordoggo · 08/02/2026 09:38

Of course women have babies in their 40s, even though statistically, a healthy pregnancy and birth become less likely as we age.

I had mine in my late 20s and I’m glad that’s how things worked out for me. I’m late 40s now and a baby/toddler/preschooler to look after would not have worked well with my perimenopause symptoms.

101Nutella · 08/02/2026 09:39

I don’t think it’s that rare.
more studies are showing that sperm play an important rate in pre 12 week losses , placental health and whether the mum develops preeclampsia.

so I personally think misogyny in healthcare might have really affected education in fertility. Although women have menopause, if you have eggs, your hormones are functioning and you have healthy sperm available, you have a good chance of being pregnant over a wide span of ages.

why we’ve allowed ourselves to think over 30 is ‘well old’ is a shame. I think personally couples trying to conceive should have fertility MOTs and advice on supplements (men as well) plus anout reducing alcohol etc to make it more likely they’ll conceive etc. science based rather than this outdated ‘use by date’ because it’s more nuanced than that.

PrettyPickle · 08/02/2026 09:40

Runnersandtoms · 08/02/2026 09:20

According to the government statistics, the average age for first time mother is 29.6, compared to 29.0 in 1938.

I think it must be area/class dependent though, hence why many people view it is unusual in their area/circle of friends to be having a baby under 35. The more highly educated women are, the more likely they are to delay have a baby due to studying, building a career or wanting to be in a better financial position. They are also more likely to be aware and careful about contraception.

In other areas/groups there are large number of teenagers/early 20s having babies and that is seen as normal. Arguably people with a lower level of education are more likely to be ignorant or careless regarding contraception, and women are more likely to have children if they are not focused on a career.

Sorry, where are you getting that from (assuming you are British?) . The Office for National Statistics (ONS) holds historical fertility tables going back to 1938, and these show that the mean age of mothers overall at that time was around 26. For first‑time mothers, the age was slightly lower, typically estimated at around 24–25.
ONS did not separately publish “age at first birth” in 1939, but demographic historians and ONS‑linked analyses consistently place first‑birth age in the mid‑20s before the post‑war baby boom.
Even that surprised me as according to my anecdotal info, women where marrying and having kids much younger then but I was wrong there.

sittingonabeach · 08/02/2026 09:42

@PersephonePomegranate people aren’t threatened by women having a life before children but just stating that risk factors increase as you age. Yes, that poster may get pregnant first time of trying, no miscarriage, tests all clear and nothing like autism in resulting child. But the risk of not getting pregnant in your first or even your 12th cycle increases as you age. Age of dad is also important.

Being healthy obviously helps, but many women with regular periods still have fertility issues

Yes, many women have children at an older age but some of them will be having some form of fertility treatment

Ponoka7 · 08/02/2026 09:42

PersephonePomegranate · 08/02/2026 09:23

Some people seem to be threatened by a woman having a life of her own before having children.

Or we've had experience of never having a live birth over 36. Or knowing having regular bleeds doesn't mean good egg quality or ovulation. Or, unless you've got the money for private treatment, the NHS will tell you to wait and see, until past the age were you have a excellent chance of getting pregnant.

What the posters should have said, was to get a fertility check. Unfortunately issues with both sides, means my DD's friend won't have a child with her DH, at 34. She won't leave him and doesn't want IVF, after another friend's experience of it. She thought that she'd be ok until 35. The fertility clinics are full of women who thought they had time.

Fancycrab · 08/02/2026 09:42

TheIceBear · 08/02/2026 08:16

The dramatic turn actually takes place closer to 40 than 35. It’s based off very old data that it falls off a cliff at 35. Unfortunately for me I got pregnant first try at 32 with my first and was basically infertile by 34 and needed IVF . But i know my situation is unusual because i looked into it extensively because of my situation. I watched nearly all my friends and family get pregnant no problem after 35 including my own mother who had no issues having me at 38. It’s important to be aware there may be issues if you leave it longer. But some women will have issues closer to 30. Most women can still have a healthy pregnancy before they are 40 when you look at the actual data.

I was told the sharp drop comes around age 37-38. I had IVF at 36 (no fertility problems, lesbian couple) and got pregnant first time.

PrettyPickle · 08/02/2026 09:42

ittakes2 · 08/02/2026 09:31

Its not just being allowed to ... fertility help has advanced / the use of other women's eggs / suragacy is more common place.

Fair point but I was speaking from the perspective that its no longer viewed a womans primary aim in life is to be married and have kids before all else!

Runnersandtoms · 08/02/2026 09:43

PrettyPickle · 08/02/2026 09:40

Sorry, where are you getting that from (assuming you are British?) . The Office for National Statistics (ONS) holds historical fertility tables going back to 1938, and these show that the mean age of mothers overall at that time was around 26. For first‑time mothers, the age was slightly lower, typically estimated at around 24–25.
ONS did not separately publish “age at first birth” in 1939, but demographic historians and ONS‑linked analyses consistently place first‑birth age in the mid‑20s before the post‑war baby boom.
Even that surprised me as according to my anecdotal info, women where marrying and having kids much younger then but I was wrong there.

Apologies, I meant to share the link.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/population/have-kids-settle-down/

Clearly states 29.6 now compared to 29 in 1938

VeganStar · 08/02/2026 09:47

Had my DD at 44, three months before my 45th birthday.
i’d had two miscarriages some time before and had given up all thoughts of ever carrying full time at my age. I was 40 before I started trying due to the path my life had taken up to that point.
Then one day I discovered I was pregnant. Happy delirious days.
My beautiful DD is 24 now and is going to follow my lead in that she is going to leave having children until later. I hope she’s not too long or I’ll be too decrepit to be able to help out if needed. 😱😂

MxCactus · 08/02/2026 09:48

Boots89 · 08/02/2026 00:29

Why I'm not on deaths door lol. I've just lost 7 stone and enjoying a few nonths of that first! I only want one baby so all will be well. I'm a young 36, look young, feel young, no health issues, very regular periods I'm good!

How old is your DP? If he's 40 or over your chances of conceiving are very slim. If he's 20 you'll probably be fine

(People always discount male fertility in the age conversations!)

SouthLondonMum22 · 08/02/2026 09:49

I had my first at 36 and twins at 38. Both pregnancies conceived the first month trying too.

Bombinia · 08/02/2026 09:49

I live in an area where the majority of first time mums are in their 30s, I worked in maternity and am used to seeing "older" mums, but over 40 is definitely outside the norm though it's a growing demographic. However it does come with increased risks.

Regardless of changing cultural norms, we can't change the fact that biologically it's better if we have babies in our 20s.

So yes I would internally raise an eyebrow at a 44 year old being pregnant, in terms of it being late in life for that and the poor woman is going to be knackered, but I wouldn't judge. I had my youngest when I was 39 and honestly now he's 11 I can't imagine having a younger one around as well! I'm so tired!

Flowersforyourchocolateprettyplease · 08/02/2026 09:50

Lardychops · 08/02/2026 04:29

Shudder…44 to start all that lark - sheesh !!
I’m 50 and currently road tripping on Jamaica with my DH
I leave at home my 27 year old daughter , married mother of 3
A 24 year old son about to move in with his girlfriend and their baby
Twin boys of 21 both well established in their trades and one about to go off travelling

Christ on a bike, if someone had said to me I had to have a baby at 44- not for a billion quid or a gun to the head !

She will be nearly my age when the kid starts school man !

No judgement here mind- maybe having a few quid/secure housing/ career sorted before hand is the way to go bit I just can’t get past running around after a 5 year old at 50 that isn’t your grandchild ( which I do lol, but it’s a different kettle of fish )

Easy to say when you have 4 healthy children.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 08/02/2026 09:56

MyCupOfTea32 · 08/02/2026 06:37

The ONS publishes live birth data by parental characteristics.
the most recent full data set published is 2022, in which there were just over 600,000 maternities. Of these, the modal age for having a baby was 30-34 (just over 200,000 live births), just over 121,000 babies were born to mothers 35-39 and just under 29,000 women aged 40-44 had babies. So not really rare, just less common. Around 2500 people over 45 had babies that year.

as with many things, it’s a statistical distribution around the average (in this case 30-34).

Doesn't say how many over 45 had fertility treatment my guess would be a lot.

ShowMeTheSushi · 08/02/2026 09:58

Pregnancy after 35 isn’t rare, it’s just life happening on someone else’s timeline. Some simply haven’t met the right partner yet, and infertility is more common than people realise.

sittingonabeach · 08/02/2026 09:59

Looks like economic factors came into play for older first time mothers in the 1930s. The average age for first time mothers decreased in the 1960s.

Grapewrath · 08/02/2026 10:00

It would certainly be too old for me, but it’s becoming more common. I wouldn’t think anything of it under 38 but over that I’d probably consider the parent to be ‘older’

TheIceBear · 08/02/2026 10:00

Ponoka7 · 08/02/2026 09:42

Or we've had experience of never having a live birth over 36. Or knowing having regular bleeds doesn't mean good egg quality or ovulation. Or, unless you've got the money for private treatment, the NHS will tell you to wait and see, until past the age were you have a excellent chance of getting pregnant.

What the posters should have said, was to get a fertility check. Unfortunately issues with both sides, means my DD's friend won't have a child with her DH, at 34. She won't leave him and doesn't want IVF, after another friend's experience of it. She thought that she'd be ok until 35. The fertility clinics are full of women who thought they had time.

Agree having regular periods means very little. Even having a fertility check won’t tell you what your egg quality is like. I had periods like clockwork at 34 and a very high egg count for my age and needed ivf (which thankfully did work). Actually irregular periods can sometimes be indicative of something that’s easier to fix such as not ovulating which can be induced with oral medications.