Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Is 45 too old to have a second child?

49 replies

kickdeechick · 12/12/2011 20:25

I had my first child two years ago aged 43. The pregnacy and birth were straight forward and we now a beautiful little boy. He was naturally conceived. My question is, is 45 too old to have another baby? My main concern is the chance of genetic problems.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

suebfg · 12/12/2011 20:33

I'm not qualified to answer that question but am having similar thoughts - I'm 40 and have one DS and part of me would like another.

I'd look at it from the perspective that having a child is never risk free, no matter what age you are.

Hopefully there will be someone on here with more medical knowledge!

bigpigeon · 12/12/2011 20:34

Who has a right to tell you that you are wrong. If you can conceive naturally then the answer clearly is that you aren't too old. If you are concerned about genetic problems then maybe you should do a bit of soul searching about what you might do if you got a positive test result for an abnormality and how this would affect the dynamic of your family. No easy answers but only you can make them.

baubleybobbityhat · 12/12/2011 20:38

I don't suppose there is much difference between 43 and 45 in terms of chances of genetic problems. I imagine the stats for that are easily googled.

OlderNotWiser · 12/12/2011 20:42

A friend of mine did. Beautiful baby girl! Id go for it, esp since pregnancy 1 was straightforward

HoneyandHaycorns · 12/12/2011 20:44

Friend of mine had her second at 45. All went well and the baby is gorgeous. No complications for either of them. :)

Are you in good health generally?

ChineapplePunk · 12/12/2011 21:13

No, it's not too old, kickdeechick. And the fact that your first pregnancy was so positive and complication free has cheered me up. I am 41 and due to have my first child (also a little boy) in April.

Original poster

kickdeechick · 12/12/2011 23:44

Congratulations- I hope it all goes well. Little boys are great too- LOTS of fun!

OP posts:

stuffedauberginexmasdinner · 12/12/2011 23:53

And little girls aren't?

ThatVikRinA22 · 12/12/2011 23:59

my friend had her son at 45. hard work but worth it and not that much different i would imagine to 43.

(i couldnt do it, but when i am 45 my eldest will be 25 and my youngest 19! - i did it the other way round - at 45 i am going to LIVE!!)

Alligatorpie · 13/12/2011 04:08

I just turned 40 and am pregnant. I think if you are in good health and want to, you should go for it. I got pg the first month we tried, but I think we were very lucky!

hermionejgranger · 13/12/2011 04:29

My mum was 42 when she had me and 45 when she had my sister. No problems as far as I know - and because she was an "older" mum she was well monitored throughout. Go for it!

MamaChoo · 13/12/2011 04:39

I think its more a matter of whether you can hack the sleepless nights!

kiteflying · 13/12/2011 05:53

I am 44, expecting second DC. We held our breath until the nuchal scan but had given a lot of thought to whether we could live with a Downs positive result from that scan, as neither of us could face aborting the baby for anything that was not life threatening. Do spend some time thinking about how you would handle any issues, but don't let it put you off trying.

PositiveAttitude · 13/12/2011 06:57

I would just like to put another side, here. I have a friend who is now mum to a very troubled 15 year old daughter. She had her DD when she was 45. Her Dh has serious health issues and she has now been diagnosed with a long-term life limiting illness. It is very sad. I know this can all happen at any time in life, but I can't help thinking that if the parents were younger they would be able to cope better with the DD and if they did not have the teenager causing so much stress for them at their age now they would not be so ill.

Just something to think about really. I don't want to put you off in any way, because I would say "Go for it!" and wish you all the best, I just wanted to say its not all about how you are now, genetic problems, etc, but how will life be for everyone for the next 18 years!

PositiveAttitude · 13/12/2011 10:48

Oh dear, I didn't mean to kill this with negativity!

ThatVikRinA22 · 13/12/2011 11:18

i thats true at any age through positive.

i got to know my friend, who had her son at 45, because we both have boys with ASD.

I know that sometimes, she found it hard going, because now she is 65, (looks late 40's though - i her genes but thats another story...)

but she has had more time, more patience, and more money to give him the things he needs than i have.

one thing i would say is that her husband is a lot younger than her, so she did not worry too much.

im sure these are all things we all weigh up, when we decide to have children.

MiauMau · 13/12/2011 16:17

There's also positive stories, my grandma had my youngest uncle at 41 about 49 years ago with no fancy equipment and all turned out fine. As someone said good and bad things can happen at any time. If you feel like you can deal with it physically and emotionally, just do it!

claireinmodena · 13/12/2011 19:14

In terms of genetic anomalies, the risk increases rapidly with every year from about 35 up. At 40 the risk is about 1/100.

Whether you are happy to accept that risk is only for you to decide. Good luck with your decision!

BelleRomford74 · 14/12/2011 06:19

I was 31 when I had my 2nd dd (now deceased) she was born with many health issues caused by congenital Cmv (Cytomegalovirus) a viral infection passed on by me during pregnancy. During her 23 months with us I made friends with many dozens of mums with special needs children caused by many different things from genetic issues to birth trauma & the mums are of all ages & walks of life. I would say the vast majority are of the most common child bearing age mid 20's to late 30's so despite what the medical profession say I would not put age as a significant factor or having a child with special needs... in the main it seems mainly down to bad luck!

RealLifeIsForWimps · 14/12/2011 06:36

But Belle, that's because there aren't that many new mums in their 40's, so statistically, of course more mums of children with SN are going to be in their twenties/thirties, simply because there are a lot more of them.

I agree with you that there are many SN where maternal age is not a factor, but there are some where it is proven to be the case- Downs Syndrome, for example. There's no point in denying that. Would be parents have to accept the risks and be comfortable with the implications, which may be that you are going to have a child who remains dependent on you/ requires a lot more input for longer than a NT child would.

There's also the fact that miscarriage rate at 45 is 50%, and miscarriage can be emotionally devastating.

I guess I'm not saying "don't do it" but at the same time, you need to go into it armed with the facts, and realistic expectations.

MelanieLane · 14/12/2011 07:06

I would go for it. Statistics get worse but they are still on your side I should think. At least, they are for each individual thing that could go wrong. FWIW, 41 for my last one, no probs. Amazing NHS care.

belgo · 14/12/2011 07:28

If I were you, I'd quit while you're ahead.

Statistics are not on your side - increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth, a whole host of genetic problems. There is a big difference with each year past 40; big difference between 41 and 45.

You need to ask yourself: would you be able to cope with a disabled child?

Of course there is a chance everything would be fine, but I still stand by my first sentence.

olittletownof · 14/12/2011 08:46

maternal age is only one factor for downs. For my age, my risk is 1:120, after an integrated test it went to 1:7010, it's just numbers.
You are still far more likely to have a child without SN than with. If you want to extend your family and have thought through all the possibilities and are comfortable then go for it, whatever the age it's always a lottery having a pregnancy and child. Good luck.

belgo · 14/12/2011 09:00

The risk isn't just for Down's syndrome.

If you google risk of having a baby after the age of 45 it is really quite terrifying.

But of course there are always women such as Kelly Preston, the wife of John Travolta, who have healthy babies in their late forties.

kiteflying · 14/12/2011 09:25

Don't forget you could use donor eggs if you want a second child but can't face the risks of using your own eggs. Most of the celebs who have children in their late forties are using donor eggs.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread