Too old to have a baby age

[svg23]

This has been done to a thousand times but when is the tipping point between being quite old to have a baby and being too old...

Biologically probably early 40s but with ivf 48-50. I'm mid 40s and pregnant with my first after many years of IVF. I know a lot of people here would way I'm too old, but it is a personal choice. I come from a culture where family take care of one another, this baby is awaited by loving grandparents, aunty, cousins who are very excited to meet her.

I've made provision in case we are gone sooner than we'd like and the child is young. We are mortgage free, have decent income and savings, and most importantly marriage is strong. Known each other for almost 30 years. I believe we are in a good place to be loving parents compared to many who say I'm too old.

Don't let other opinions affect you. It is so personal and there's more than one way to live life.

I had my last baby aged 42. I didn't feel too old and pg and birth went smoothly. Had a private nipt to check for abnormalities early. I'd had a mental cutoff at age 40 but continued to ttc without putting effort into it (no fertility treatment, no tracking, no timing - so just opting not to use contraception). I think it was older than ideal (more for future age when dcs are adults) but I didn't feel done. After that birth I felt completely done and DH had the snip. I work v pt (1 day a week) and dc has been in preschool from age 2 and that makes a difference - would not want to be working ft hours and have no downtime from childcare even in my 30s.

We know a couple who had a baby when she was 44 and he was 51, he’s not in great health and she had a lot of pregnancy and birth complications. He’s an only child and I do worry about this scenario as it seems quite common now.

Yes, potentially difficult times ahead for this child.

No I’m not, you’re using the statistical outlier of a marathon running 60 year old to somehow prove there’s zero difference between a 20 year old and a 40 year old in terms of energy levels. Yes you get outliers but statistically my scenario works and yours doesn’t.

This website is very middle class and middle class mums are usually older, so these threads do draw a bit of outrage and ‘but my friend had twins at 55 and lived to 103’, but it doesn’t change facts.

It’s ok for the moment but they live in quite an isolated location, and I wonder what it’ll be like at 16 with parents in their 60s living there. I do understand the feeling of wanting a baby at any cost, but I feel the doubts are downplayed and it’s only when the kid is in their teens or 20s that the worries creep in.

My mother was considered a 'geriatric' mother when she had me at 31 in the 70s. I had my last at 46 which I assume makes me 'archaeological'.

It has been really hard for me to accept that I can't have a child, but I really do think it is so important to look at the longer term. A child of mine would have no aunties, uncles or cousins either, as my partner does not have siblings either. I potentially have a lonely life ahead of me, but I won't inflict that on a child too.

I think around 35. I always said I didn’t want anymore kids past this age so that I could still enjoy my older years without bringing up a baby.

I’m 35 now and pregnant. Wow, the difference between this and my other pregnancies is insane. I am so, so ill and exhausted this time. I feel like I’m about to drop dead and I can tell that my body is too old for this.

I would think differently if I didn’t have kids, or if I was struggling to have kids though. In that case, I don’t think any age is too old.

Wrongly I thought I was too old at 35 to try for a third, my one regret in life. I have two friends that are 54, one has a 5 year old and the other a 3.5 year old and I am so happy that they got their longed for children. My SIL died at 46 leaving her 12 year old without a mother, my FIL was mid 40s when my DH was born and lived to 92. None of us know what is in our future. It none of my business what age someone should have a child at or not.

I adopted a baby at 50. I have children ranging from 35 to 10 and I am now 60.
I honestly haven't found it any more tiring than when I had my oldest children in my 20s. Though I am aware I am v lucky to be blessed with good health .
Everyone is different of course and only the parents involved can really decide if it is right for them or not imo.

Nature perhaps if you’re unfortunate and develop a condition, but more likely they’ve not looked after their bodies that well in the run up, so they start breaking down at 40.

I agree, some people do age quicker than others. It's not the actual number in my opinion as some of us will live to 95 (I'm a carer and it's surprising how many elderly women I visit that are 90+) I'm 39 and pregnant, I already have 3 older children (15, 16 and 18) and nobody can ever believe I have children that old as I look early 30s. So I don't think I'll look out of place with a newborn whereas someone else my age might.

It's 100% personal, in my opinion.

😂😂😂🙌

My perfect baby who I had at 33 has Down’s Syndrome (I was given a 1 in 1,900 chance in the combined test back then).

I am currently pregnant at 43 with DC#3. My NIPT results have come back low chance and even the combined test (which I assumed would come out as something like 1 in 70 given my age and history…) has been returned at 1 in 2,300. Clearly, I wouldn’t have trusted the CT alone, but this time it’s backed up by the NIPT so 🤞. I assume from my results my PAPP-A levels must be pretty good.

In my circumstances also I know we’ll be more hands on caring for DD1 even when she hits adulthood- this idea of a child-free fancy-free 50s and 60s is never gonna gonna happen for us, so what’s one more?!

My mum had her third child at 37. She always said she felt very old and things were harder for her then, so personally I've always thought as before that age as my cut off. But she will have been influenced by already having had 2 children in her early 30s. I've nannied for a lot of people who had their first child 38-41 and I didn't think anything negative about that for them. I think it completely depends on your own circumstances and how you feel.

How do you know your life will be lonely unless your planning to spend the rest of your life indoors not speaking to anyone? You have a partner and friends. I don't know any adults who rely on their aunties, uncles and cousins to allievate their lonlieness. In fact everyone I know has much closer relationships to friends than cousins. I've worked in elderly care and there's absolutely no correlation between family size and loneliness. Every single adult I have refereed onto services to help with loneliness has had children and other family members.

And in relation to the question, I think it's a personal decision. None of us have a crystal ball to look into the future.

For me it was about 35 because I have a strong family history of a pregnancy complication and age is also a factor. That was the level of risk that I was ok with.

Other than that I think that you have to consider how old you'll be when they're teenagers. I really didn't like the idea of being in my late 50s or 60s and still responsible for teenagers.

I never understand this "all alone" comment. People speak about only children as if they live on a deserted island with no relationships in their lives. I know plenty of only children of all ages. Some are in their 60/70s now with their parents long gone and some have families of their own, some don't. Absolutely none of them are sad and isolated and alone. They aren't any different than those with siblings. People don't exist and socialise in their tiny nuclear families for the rest of their lives, people make meaningful relationships outside of this and this includes people like me who don't have close relationships with their siblings or who have siblings who live far away.

40 I would say is a normal age to sadly lose a parent. It's sad whatever age it happens but none of us have a crystal ball to tell when it happens.

Are you sure? Did she have a teenage daughter by any chance?

Thank you. Yes, I know it isn't guaranteed that I will be lonely. That's why I said 'potentially a lonely life'. I know I have to work hard to ensure I am not lonely - perhaps more so than those who have a ready made network of children, siblings, siblings in law etc.

It's reassuring to hear that in your experience, lack of family doesn't automatically mean a lonely old age. Thank you for sharing that.

It's not about the baby as such, it's about how old you want to be when you're wrangling teenagers. A baby at 45 means you'll be 62 when they're 17...... absolutely no way. At 40, you have no concept of how tired you'll be by 60 (and ready to retire)!

@Cynic17it’s all so dependent on individual circumstances too. My eldest has a learning disability so I know I’ll potentially still be wrangling a 29 year old when I’m 62 (as well as a hopefully more independent 26 year old!) so might as well add a 19 year old into the mix. I’ll probably be tired either way 😉😴

To be fair if you read some of the threads on the childfree board or if someone is posting about not wanting children then they get told they will be lonely in old age, have no one to care for them, they shouldn’t expect anyone to have them round for Christmas, they will be a drain on society as it will be other people’s children looking after them etc etc.
Its often very much drummed into childfree/childless people (whether it’s true or not) that they are facing a lonely future.