Is 43 too old to have a second child?

[sharew]

I'm having a difficult internal debate over this

I'm pretty sure it is but part of me thinks give it one last shot

I've had a couple of losses already and maybe should call it a day..

I think some people age quicker than others, some are tired in their 40s others are feeling brilliant.

We had our first 34 and our last at 43 so not far off of you now. All are equally as healthy as each other and both my husband and I are very fit so haven't felt a difference between having the first one and the last other than we have 5 children so of course it's harder with more children.

But in saying that we were working hard to build our careers in our 30s and winding down in early 40s so perhaps that's helped.

If you are fit and healthy, go for it.

My mum had me at 45 !! Use to be called a change of life baby in the old days!!

Times have change most people don’t seem to have there first now until there 30 so I would say if you feel healthy and can afford another one just go for it.

Good luck

@Marchitectmummy are you really going to try the "they did it in the olden days argument" previous generations did all sorts of shit we don't do today which is why we have a higher live birth rate and life expectancy etc. People did not have the information to make an informed choice or the birth control options to action that choice, I wonder how many of those women actually wanted to give birth? I wonder how many died in birth or had children with issues or who died themselves as a result of unwanted multiple pregnancies and a lack of medical/scientific information. It isn't a plausible argument as to why a woman should get pregnant in her 40s today, just as getting married at 14 shouldn't be allowed to today even though they did it in t'olden days.

I did consider fostering but during my initial research into it i found out that i would not be given much of a choice on who i get to foster. So i gave up on the idea. Silly as this sounds I want the adopted or fostered child to blend in with the family and want to be able to choose who i adopt or foster and keep the child for good. People get paid to foster and i sometimes wonder if this is the reason people are not given much of a choice on who they can foster. I think i am allowed to choose the age group and gender but nothing else.

I completely understand statistics and risk of pregnancy in early 40s @foodname considering I'm currently 15 weeks pregnant and have read everything I can on the subject being a first time mum. If you reread my post I haven't once said OP will be fine based on the fact I am so far and so was my friend. I just wanted to give some positive examples considering there is so much negativity about people having babies in their 40s. The media particularly likes to share alarming statistics. I think it's such a shame if it puts people off having a much wanted child because they're scared of what might happen. Especially considering a positive outcome is still more likely than a negative one, even in early 40s. Of course anyone planning a pregnancy needs to consider risks but I don't think it's the place of other people to assume someone is too old just because they are over 40.

@Catconfusion I can understand why you need positivity given you are already pregnant, but OP isn't, and with all due respect you are in the very early days. You can find every positive story that's ever happened, it doesn't change the statistics, and that's all anyone can consider when they are making the decision. Of course it's just statistics, it doesn't mean it'll happen, but weighing up risk (at any age) is important, and there is such a large amount of ignorance around the topic
shrouded in hope. The biggest difference between you and the OP is this is your first, I totally understand taking the risk and thinking positively when it's your first, but OP has another child to think of, a child with issues would hugely impact on her first, so it isn't a simple a decision. It is idiotic to tell the OP to just go for it, thankfully she seems to have her head screwed on to not be egged on my internet strangers.

I knew a lady who had her DS at 43. Her DS was 5 when I knew her. It was a surprise pregnancy and she kept referring to herself as old (I was 15 at the time and never thought of her as old. She was far more with it and caring than my own mum who had me at 32) so I say go for it.

Age isn’t on your side so please bear this in mind. There might be heartache but fingers crossed.

@foodname no I haven't said anything about previous generations.

@Marchitectmummy sorry wrong person tagged, should have tagged @SirVixofVixHall

@foodname no I don't already have a child so cannot comment other than to say we are planning to have a second child at 42 if we can because I don't feel that's old. I would personally not let the increased risks put me off. Of course it would be incredibly sad if something did go wrong for our other child and us too but we would get through it together as anyone of any age would have to.

Despite your criticisms I feel my views are completely relevant considering I'm 40 and having a baby. Op wanted opinions. It's not egging her on it's creating a collage of different standpoints so she can make the right decision for her as a grown adult. I don't think anyone on this thread appreciates their opinions being trashed. I certainly don't appreciate the insinuation that me being 'early on' in my pregnancy somehow makes me unqualified to comment. Second trimester isn't that early on and everything is looking great so no reason to think something will go wrong.

Anyway I won't be interacting with you again I just wanted to stick up for myself and anyone else you've been critical of on this thread.

I'm 40, and 37 (plus 5) weeks with my first. I find it really upsetting to read some people's poor attitudes to having children later. I would have loved to have conceived earlier but my very long term relationship ended four years ago and I thought it was game over until I met my current OH. I hope this pregnancy results in a healthy, happy little girl when I am induced on Tuesday due to GD. However I resent the feelings from some that I shouldn't try for a second over the next couple of years. There is no reason to suggest that despite the risks involved (and there are risks at any age) that women in their early forties shouldn't have the option to try if they are willing to deal with any negative outcome.

@Missbdhfc no one is saying you shouldn't have a second, but just that you should be aware of what decision you are making. It'll be a different decision to your first one because now the risks won't just affect you but your first child too, it's just fact (like any other risk e.g finances, just look at the "should I have a third" threads), take it as you will. We all interpret risk differently, for me I won't take that risk, I appreciate others will but I do resent others putting their lackadaisical approach to risk on others with joyful proclamations of "go for it!" with no regard for the facts whatsoever. If you're going to take a risk just admit you are. We all do it some degree.

@Catconfusion your opinion is completely valid, but pretending there aren't risks or minimising them is not, that's the difference. Im not criticising anyone's opinion on motherhood at whatever age, that's personal, I've not made any comment on the social aspects, but I will challenge anyone who dismisses the fact that the risk does increase, quite dramatically 40+. As I say in my post just now we all take risks differently, but there's no point pretending we aren't taking them.

I wish you all the best in your pregnancy.

@Missbdhfc congratulations on your pregnancy. I completely agree it's shocking how negative some people are. Similarly I had a long term relationship end and I only met my DH only 2 years ago. We feel so blessed to be having a baby together and excited about hopefully having a second. It's not false hope or exaggerated expectations, there's no reason to suggest it won't happen. My obstetric doctor seemed surprised when I asked about my risks as an older Mum. She said there's a slightly increased risk during the birth but nothing to worry about as they see mums in their 40s all the time and I'm fit and well. I'll also be monitored more closely. Of course we have to accept the increased risk but if we do then other people should accept it too.

Good luck on Tuesday. Please let us know how you get on. I really hope you have your two children. No reason to suggest you won't! Xx

Hello, may I ask did you get pregnant naturally? I’m desperate for a second and I’m 43 and it’s just not happening.

I don't think its too old to cope with a baby and young child. But I would worry about the risks of health problems for the baby. So I wouldn't plan to have a baby at 43. Too much risk.

It's not too old know. But you need to be realistic about your chances, and whether it's what you want. If you really want that DC2 then I'd give it all you can, but maybe seek a fertility MOT at a clinic to see if there's anything specific beyond your age?
For me the issue would not be having a baby at 42, but having a 7 year old at 49, or starting the teenage years at 55 - that doesn't appeal to me, but that said, if it was the only way of having a second, I'd still totally do it.
It sounds to me like you want a second, and so I think you should try but also not pin all your hopes on it.

@Missbdhfc
Totally agree with you. Having a baby at 40 is marginally more risky, but no big deal these days at all. Best of luck for next week, and hope you are able to have more in the future xx

I think people let their life experiences cloud objectivity. I don't think 43 is old: DH is 41 and I'm 38 and we're about to have our second and we're completely the norm where we live.

In my own family, my mum was 40 when I was born, my granny was 40 when she was born, and one of my great-aunts had 3 children at 40, 42 and 44 (she married late). A cousin of mine recently had a second at 45. So it doesn't seem at all strange to me. But equally, risks do go up: personally, if we didn't live in an era with lots of testing and screening I would have more reservations the further into your 40s you go. And I think if you have kids you should make a commitment to keeping yourself fit and healthy: my granny lived to 95 in full possession of all her faculties, fit and healthy and able to walk, my mum is pre-diabetic in her 70s with many health issues that are lifestyle and ignores doctors advise. Which drives me mad, but she would have been the same at any age.

I think as you get closer to 50, the more of an issue it is, and I don't think its 'fair' to have a child past 50, which many men do. You do get more tired, the risks of death and illness go up. Between about 43 and 50 I think it depends a lot on circumstances.

I'm a hypocrite because I'm 42 and 10 weeks pregnant, but rationally I think that over 40 is too old. It was very much a 'heart' decision for me, and I fret a lot about the risks, and I feel regret that I won't be as healthy and energetic throughout the child's life compared to my older dc. But we decided to take the risk anyway because it was something we longed for and it just felt right, and I think to be honest that's how most couples will make their decision. I had a TFMR at age 41 due to genetic issues so the possibility of disability is always at the back of my mind (and I'm aware that not everything can be screened for or even diagnosed at birth).

For me it would be too old, but only you know what's right for you! My back and joints are knackered and with my family history I reckon I'll need looking after by around age 70, at which point I'd hope my children are starting their own lives and not worrying about me.
If it feels right for you, go for it- plenty of "older" parents out there and no issues whatsoever.