To try and get pregnant at 46

[Whywoojjh]

I’m 46 and would like to try for my first child is this too late? I’m also 47 in July

It's a difficult one. I adopted at 44, he's nearly 18 now. I come from a long lived family, my mother is still alive and living independently at 92. I haven't found it hard at all and don't feel too old. I have really loved it all. But I do worry about him being alone in life at too early an age. And as my dh is 10 years older than me, he has a really elderly father for his age. They are very close though. And my son seems happy. But I think we were a bit selfish. We just wanted a child so much as we are from big families and had happy childhoods.

A 20 year old with a 67 possibly boardering on needing help parent.🤔

What's the point? There are about 10 a day, at least. MNHQ doesn't seem to care. So long as it keeps the site moving and the revenue coming in.

The question is, who is responsible and why are they motivated to do it? But we won't ever get an honest answer to that.

Can I ask, if you wanted a baby so much why didn’t you have one before you got to your early 40s?

I’m not sure my desire for a child could ever be so strong that I’d go through all that! Especially if I knew the child wasn’t going to be biologically mine. Good on her though. I’m sure her daughter is very well loved and cared for. If she knew she had this intense desire to have a child though, why did she leave it SO late? I mean, leaving it till early 40s is late but 49 is kinda bonkers, especially cos she needed to use an egg donor. Why didn’t she do it a bit earlier with her own eggs?

But you’re judging someone else for having a different stopping point?

@CityToCountryMouse that person obviously had no thought about the resultant child, having no genetic link to her at all

people
dont have children earlier for all different reasons. I’ve seen terminally ill people have children so I think the desire can be quite strong.

She’s still the child’s birth mother. It’s not like surrogacy where the baby is removed from its mother. She’d still go through all the early bonding stages and could breastfeed if she wants to.

@Fearlesssloth speaking as an adopted person I think it is wrong to purposely create a child that has no knowledge of their genetic heritage

The child would get access to knowledge of their genetic heritage once they are 18 and can even meet their egg and sperm donors if they want. The law in the UK is that all egg & sperm donors have to be non-anonymous

What terminal illnesses are people having a baby with? Surely if people are unwell to the point they are going to die soon it would be highly unethical to put that body through a pregnancy and then the baby to only have their parent for a short time?

Yes things get in the way but at 46? If you want to have a baby then at some point you need to make a it a priority in trying. Rather than just leaving it to your late 40s when you have biology working against you.

It really isn’t. Chances of IVF working for 46 year old with own eggs are virtually zero.

Yes because at some point the best interests of the child does not mean towards a yes. OP clearly recognises that in even asking the question. I really think it should be less of a problem to recognise that sometimes the right answer isnt to have children even if you really want them. I obviously do understand that is tough to hear. It is a medical risk too for mum and child. It is just a reality of life. It isn't always about satisfying personal wants. Obviously OP can take proper medical advice and make her own decision. If she has a support network, people who could care for the child if she cannot (either through ill health or death which is statistically more likely), other family or close friends so the child will not be more likely left alone in the world young, and had finances sufficient to give the child the support they need beyond uni even though likely she will be retired/less able to work then maybe that will lean more to a yes. I get that people can die at any time but have seen friends with older parents have to care for them when still young themselves, and then grieve the loss of them, and not have the same financial or physical support as other peers when they really needed it (I.e. childcare help, uni help etc) and have seen how that has negatively impacted them which may be why I feel as I do. But then I also made the decision to only try for a certain lower number than I'd have liked due to age, finances and circumstances too which I appreciate lots of people do not think about and focus instead on what they want from a family not what might be best for the child.

Deciding to have a baby and actually having one at 46 are two different things.
The chances of getting pregnant and then staying pregnant biologically are low at this stage.
The pregnancy could be potentially very risky. How is your health in general? And why have you decided now to have a child?

The oldest women I have looked after was in her mid 50s having had IVF abroad. She was very unwell during her pregnancy, and the baby was born very early as a result of this, which meant a long stay on the nnu and ongoing disability for the child.

@Fearlesssloth but that is 18 years when you don’t know

I agree completely that sometimes the answer is not to have a child. Where I disagree is in the idea that random strangers can know that based on a single post with no context. You’ve made the decision that your journey was the right one for you, based on your detailed knowledge of your circumstances. But let’s be honest, IVF is only ever about satisfying personal wants, it’s not about a child’s interest because that child doesn’t yet exist. You could have chosen to adopt, that would have been in the best interests of an existing child.

Yes there are downsides to older parents, but many of those downsides you mention (childcare for example) are as much an issue for younger parents. And older parents are more likely to be financially stable than younger ones.

I’m not particularly advocating for older parents - or against them. I just think it’s another frontier for people to judge themselves as better than others. Nobody has babies for altruistic reasons, it’s pure biological selfishness. And that’s totally normal!

At age 47, there is a 1-3% chance of falling pregnant, and a 1-2% chance of having a live birth, as miscarriages are high in this age group. Also a high incidence of chromosomal abnormalities.

If you use IVF at that age, there is still a low rate of pregnancies and live births, something like 1-4%.

I know of someone who had a child at 49 and there are actually hundreds of live births to women over 50 in the UK each year.

Looking back at my family tree to the 1700s and through to the mid 20thC, a lot of women had children up to around 45.

I think that if a child is planned, wanted and loved, the age of the parent is not relevant if the parents are healthy and can provide a loving home.

But a small chance doesn't mean don't try.
And it's up to the individual but screening for birth defects is possible if you decide to terminate.

no I agree however I’d still sign myself up for a child free life at the age of 46 and make peace with it and enjoy everything there is in life that I could get. I decided for myself that if I were to not have another pregnancy before 32 I’d not be doing it. I’d hate to be the child at 20 with a 66 year old mother and then potentially having to bury them into my 30s would be sad especially as a lone child with no one to lean on.

Historically a lot of those births were actually grandmothers putting themselves on the birth certificate after a pregnancy out of wedlock of a daughter in order to avoid that stigma so not very accurate data.

Fair enough x

I disagree that the age of the parent is not relevant. It’s very, very relevant, especially as many older mothers are going it alone so will therefore be the child’s one and only carer. Grandparents will also be much older if they’re still alive, aunts and uncles will likely be a similar age to the mother too. Cousins will be much, much older than the child. Having a baby in your 50s is completely unfair on the child IMO. The child’s family support network will be tiny and they may end up completely alone. Having everyone think your mum’s your nan the whole time is going to be embarrassing for the kid, being in your 60s when your child is hitting their teen years is really not ideal. Adopting ok, you might be providing a life that’s more ideal than the child’s previous circumstances, but deliberately creating a life where you’re not providing that life with any even semi guaranteed long-term support is selfish

I had my second baby at just short of 47. He was a frozen embryo from an IVF cycle when I was 42. He is 15 now andI am 62. I don't regret having him for a second, have not found it too tiring and I think having teenagers at our age gives DH and me a younger outlook.

However, I woukd have preferred to have my two younger. (It wasn't for lack.of trying!)

The advantages of being an older parents are that you are probably more financially stable and you have hopefully benefitted from having more life experience.

The disadvantages? Life insurance is now costing us a small fortune, we will have to keep working at least part time.till after he finishes college (ie till about 69/70), and I do find that we tend to get a bit more tired now but this is relatively recent. His cousins are way older (now late 20s/early 30s).so no connection for him there, and he only has one very elderly grandparent now. We have virtually no family back up but do have contingency arrangements if something happened to us. You do need to consider these things along with the added risks for baby and mother.

I think it all depends on your own circumstances, to be honest.