Help! Justine's going on Channel5 News to talk about the mahoosive rise in the number of women giving birth in their 40s. Your thoughts on the reasons behind this increase would be most appreciated

[JaneGMumsnet]

Hi there,

Some of you may have read about today's ONS survey results, which reveal - amongst other things - that the number of mums giving birth in their 40s has trebled over the last twenty years:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sharp-rise-in-women-over-40-having-babies-7932667.html

We've been asked what you folks think about this - what the reasons behind this rise might be -and would love to hear your thoughts so that we can reflect your views as accurately as possible.

Thanks in advance,

Jane

On one hand, both my maternal grandparents were born in the early C20th to women in their early forties (after twenty years of solid pregnancy/breastfeeding in each case!), so it's not a novel thing. On the other hand I'd be very surprised if fertility treatment hasn't allowed the number of late pregnancies to increase. What would be interesting is to see the patterns long term and whether rates of 40+ births reduced when contraceptives became accessible, then increased again more recently.

I wanted kids in my late twenties, but my now-DH spent all that time saying "But these are my career years!" and taking jobs all over the place. So we waited until our early thirties. If our relationship had collapsed, who knows when I'd have had kids.

I had my first at 23, have just had my last at 28 and am due to start uni next year to do a second degree and retrain in what I actually want to do with my life. I'm glad I can start that career knowing that I won't be taking time out for mat leave.

I think much of it is down to career. Sure sometimes people have not met the right person and relationships are more fluid these days. Better contraception means you can test drive someone for a few years before deciding if they are the one for life and family or not. But out of my university peers I am the only one with children even though almost all are still with/now married to the same person they were with when we all gaduated. They are all still trotting out the old "in a few years" line. Job and expectations have changed, there is so much more around now than there used to be and we don't really find out about most careers until well after school and with an education system that forces us to specialise at an early age that means almost everyone I know from uni has gone on to do a second degree, sometimes small tweaks sometimes complete changes. That means they graduated age 21 ish. Then they worked for a year or 2 in various jobs then decided they want to retrain so another 3 years then they need a couple of years or more in their new career to establish themselves and thus reach 30 just getting settled into work an still thinking "in a few years".

Then there are expectations. While you are young, dual income, no kids you have holidays, nice things, freedom to spend your money how you want and I think a lot of people don't see how they can afford kids so they always want to move another ung up the ladder before having them. Then when they get there they want to move another rung and so on. Many of my friends are simply too busy having fun, travelling, going out. I do worry sometimes that in a couple of years they are going ot turn round and wonder where the time has gone.

My BIL turned 30 this year. Ok so not old yet but he thinks he can't have kids before he earns more money (he and his dw's joint income is way more than ours), then until he buys a 5 door car and so on.

Is part of it fear? the later you leave it the more you are used to having control over every part of your life so do you leave it even later out of fear of losing that control?

Absolutely agree that this culture of "blaming" women for being selfish career biatches is disgusting.Women in the 21st Century work because they need to EAT - not because they want "careers" FFS. We tolerate "lad" culture way beyond adolescence nowadays. Many men in their mid-30s still regard themselves as too young to settle down, while their female equivalents are only too aware that their fertility declines sharply after 35. I honestly believe that it's men who are unwilling to make the financial and social-life sacrifices that parenthood requires. The vast majority of women know exactly what the parenthood deal is about and are willing to make these sacrifices. Men still want their flash cars, expensive holidays, lazy weekends and free time for hobbies.

It must sound as if I despise men and that truly is very far from the case. But I currently have 3 friends in their early 40s who are going through the misery of infertility treatment. All have been with their partners for between 6 and 10 years, and every one of them had menfolk who delayed marriage and/or TTC because these late 30-something "boys" weren't "ready to settle down" or weren't convinced that their partner was "the one".

There's a lot of talk of first babies in 40s but the women I know having children at that age had children young and now those have grown and maybe they have a new partner they are having more children.

I blame the rise of the manchild. I had my first child at 35 as it took me until then to find the right man (and very right he is too).

It's hard to find a man who wants to settle down who would make a suitable parent. Many friends my age are still single - I'm not sure if we are getting fussier or if men are getting increasingly terrified of commitment.

I just wasn't interested. By the time I'd done studying (7 yrs in total, did PhD), I wanted a life! I'd met DH in the final yr of my PhD, so that wasn't a problem. My mother was telling me about our family's history of early menopause for years, but it didn't bother me because I didn't want children. When I was 37 we were on holiday just after DH and I had both been having hard time at work and had the 'there must be more to life than this....' conversation. DS arrived 1O months later, and DD 3 years after that, just before I was 41.

In short, I wasn't ever interested and, I think, there were no expectations of me. I think my generation of girls was the first to be 'allowed' not to have children without it being a big deal (born 1970), and equally be allowed to pursue careers first (or instead of), even in traditionally male areas such as engineering (like me). I was busy doing other stuff. I knew about the fertility issue, and I appreciate how enormously lucky I am to have had my DC at 37 and 40, when they never on the long term plan, until they were IYSWIM.

And not only but also, if you want to rely on your parents for childcare, then you have to wait for them to retire! We are, I think, the first generation most of whose mothers worked. A mother who retires at 60 means that their daughters will be 40 something when children are born! Later retirement will mean later babies.

That makes sense RubyGates although women now having children at 40+ will be 80+ if their daughters do the same.

I think there needs to be a massive shift in the media perception that it is women who are 'choosing' to have children later. No, no, no!

I have a lot of friends who had children / are trying to have children in late 30s or 40s, me included. The number one reason is: 'I didn't meet a trustworthy man I could imagine fathering my children until I was 35' ...or variations on that theme.

Believe me, I would have had children younger if I possibly could have! Choice? Don't talk to me about choice.

The problem is, the public discourse on this topic almost exclusively frames the issue in terms of 'women's choice to have children later in life'. This leads to 'solutions' being suggested in terms of:

• lecturing women about their shrivelling ovaries,
• bashing them over the head with frightening medical statistics, etc.

Not exactly helpful if you are 36 and surrounded by immature men who can't / won't commit to a relationship. Because if their body clock starts ticking they can always find themselves a 25 year old to settle down with. This is not a myth, by the way. My 34 year old male colleague has described his approach in exactly these terms. Obviously I hit him on behalf of all women.

It takes two people to make a baby. Let's make sure the issue is discussed in this broader context.

Two generations back it was quite common for women to have the last couple of babies in their 40s. I imagine that first babies at that age were uncommon, though, but people married, started work and considered themselves to be adults at a much younger age.

We started our family when I was 28, and were the first in our peer group to have children, apart from one religious couple who married straight after university. For years we were looked upon as decidedly odd at the various reunions and get-togethers. A few of dh's friends, in particular, made it clear that they thought he was a fool. But we got together at 18 so had been an item for bloody ages by then.

I think IVF is a bit of a red herring - it can get around specific problems, but it can't reverse the ageing process, only donor eggs can do that.
The effect that it might have is of a very few uninformed women thinking it's the answer and hence delaying birth in the erroneous belief that IVF is a safety net - the lucky ones will therefore have babies later than they otherwise would have. And of course some women who in earlier decades would have tried and failed to get pg in their thirties due to specific fertility problems now eventually do succeed in their forties after years of diagnosis and treatment.

Spot on, FannyP!

There seems to be a peculiar sense of entitlement going on. It's almost as if these men won't commit to their partners because secretly they all secretly believe they could meet a horny Supermodel tomorrow who'll be desperate to get her fake nails into him, that someone "better" (skinnier, bigger tits, more compliant) is waiting for him just around the corner.

I have a 42 year old male friend who says he is desperate to meet the right girl, get married and have kids. He is (on paper) extremely eligible, kind, lots of money, OK looking, very very intelligent, paid off his mortgage and runs his own successful business. He joined an online dating agency last year. And guess what? He only wanted to meet women under 35, because he'd "looked at the figures and done the research", (he is a mathematician ) statistics prove that women's fertility declines sharply after 35 and he didn't want to risk "investing" in a barren woman relationship that might not result in children.

So if any baby-mommas fertile women under 35 out there are desparate enough interested - I'm more than happy to pass on your details. He loves cats and is vegetarian as well, if that makes things any better rings your bell.

oh lapsedpacifist he can have my sister, dear god she is desperate (and 32 so spot on age wise). it can stop her chewing my ear off about why the latest cad has told her repeatedly why he just wants to be friends with her whilst-she is stalking him

honestly please - take her!

I had my first and only baby at 40. Why? Why not...

Didn't meet the right man.

Was in bad places in my life previously.

Had health issues.

Lots of reasons.

Might it be to do with second marriages/relationships? People having a family with first partner, then wanting to cement a second relationship/bring new families together by having another child?

I had a baby aged 40 (almost 41) and it was through IVF, However I had been trying for 2 years or more and was obviously pregnant for 9 months too. So I am a classic example of someone who tried fora baby late but got caught up in the IVF waiting list system. I was put in that position through 'unexplained infertility' so may have eventually had a child naturally had I kept trying without help but I was lucky enough to sneak in for NHS treatment just before my 40th birthday.

I had been with my previous partner for 12 or so years and he had spent quite a few years saying 'we can try for a baby ina couple of years' which of course never happened. Even though we had jobs, our own house and a good life there was no way I was going to get pregnant 'by accident' I needed his agreement and willingness. As soon as I told him I was leaving he started promising me we could have children but it was too late by then. Fortunately I went on the meet someone (I was 36) who wanted a baby as much as I did but we decided to wait a little bit before trying as we wanted to be sure our relationship would work.

My career had nothing to do with me not having children, I have had the same job for over 12 years and haven't climbed any kind of career ladder.

I'm another one who wasted spent my 30s with man-children who didn't want to commit.

Lord Winston was on Women's Hour the other day saying that it is possible to delay fertility so that women are more likely to conceive when they want, rather than when their basic biology currently determines they should. Here

A combination of things I think...
I gave birth when I was nearly 31 and nearly 36.
Lots of mc between so not exactly planned.
Women may not meet the man they want to have a child with til their late 30s.
Women are putting off having children til their late 30s and then are shocked when they have difficulty conceiving yet its well known that fertility decreases rapidly after 35....
Maybe the increased availability of IVF as an option maks some women take a gamble on their fertility?
I think it's lots of reasons really....

Oh and I was classed as an old mother on my pg notes!!

Man-children. The virtual sole cause. Why is the focus always on women? I don't think I have ever read an article wondering on men delaying having children.

As an aside, if all men had children in their forties with women in their twenties, women would no longer be able to have meaningful careers.

But let's keep bashing women for delaying children. While simultaneously bashing 'gold-diggers', people on benefits, single mothers, selfish career mothers, feckless younger mothers... have I missed your genre of mother? Let me know..

My first thought on this is always to say 'It's the men, stupid'.

In every individual case there will be a multitude of delaying factors. Mine included several years of therapy to deal with issues from my own childhood, traumatic relationship breakdown and being made homeless, studying, meeting man who was convinced he didn't want children. In the end I had my children at 41 and 44.

But the headline of the story is that I wanted children for 15 years before it happened and the reason it took so long is that it took that long to get a man to say 'yes'.

Why focus on women? Because can father children until they die. Women can only bare children for a certain amount of time.

That's why focus on women.

Did I really have to explain that?

I don't think anyone is the "blame". That's too easy.
There are so many reasons...life doesn't always pan. They way we think when we are in our teens/early 20s...or at least mine didn't.

I never wanted kids. I was with an EA partner. I was with him for 15 yrs before I decided to have a baby as a last ditch effort to please him. I had DS at 37. That's why I was an older mum.

P.S it didn't save the marriage though

Women have always had babies in their forties, just last babies rather than first ones. Obviously fertility treatments are allowing women to give birth who otherwise might have remained childless, but in my case I had my babies in my forties because my (younger) husband wasn't ready when I was. My friends who left it late did so for similar reasons- feckless or unwilling men, or no man at all. My DH does now regret not having them sooner by the way, and we didn't get togther until my mid 30's anyway. I was lucky and got pregnant ridiculously easily and had my dds at 41 and 43. I would have loved to have had them earlier though, I think having them in your 20's is great, but the man who wants a baby in his twenties is a rare beast imo.