When is it too old to have a baby?

JupiterKid

I was reading up about the new film Bridget Jones's baby. Renee Zelwegger, who plays Jones, is 47. There are a lot of risks and complications with a pregnancy at that age.

On the other hand, plenty of women have babies well into their 40s and all is fine. The average age of Irish women having their first baby has been steadily rising over the past 20 years. Many women start a family in their mid/late 30s for a variety of reasons, often linked to establishing their careers first.

A. Good friend of mine in the USA had a baby at 42 and all was well. My grandmother had my mother (who was the youngest of her siblings) at 41 and this was back in the 1940s.

But you do hear of women having babies using implanted eggs in their 60s. Is this right? They would be in their 70s/80s when their children are teenagers.

Of course men can and do father children at any age. But is it right to become a dad at, say, 70?

So is Bridget Jones a bit too old to be having her first baby?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Bridget isn't the same age as Renee.

Ted111

Bed is the new 30.

Mzo1978

I was told all the complications when having a baby in later years are on the first child so I would have thought so. I had my first at 27 second at 33 and I plan on having another next year when I'm just gone 39 I'm nervous but my gp assured me even at 39 I'm OK after having 2 previous

Commotion Ocean

I think in Ireland if a woman has a baby over 35, it's considered a geriatric pregnancy. Christ :P

LordSutch

45/46 naturally (if you're blessed), otherwise you can be any age, with a little help . . . .

Turtyturd

Was only discussing this with my OH earlier. I am 34 and she is 32 and currently pregnant with our 3rd child. This was pretty much the final chance for us as I had a cut off point of 35 in my head. There's a lot of factors why, mainly medical, but there is a part of me which doesn't want to be too old when my kids are growing up. Also when I was growing up most of the kids who were little sh!ts seemed to have older parents who couldn't control them.

The Diddakoi

dfeo wrote: »

I think in Ireland if a woman has a baby over 35, it's considered a geriatric pregnancy.

elderly primigravida - term referring to a woman older than 35 years who is pregnant for the first time !!


"Elderly multigravida. Second or more pregnancy in a woman who will be 35 years of age or older at expected date of delivery."

Imagine that written on your notes.....

Outlaw Pete

Speaking of geriatric pregnancies. Geri is currently pregnant at 44.

foggy_lad

I know several women who had 4 or 5 kids(no twins) by the time they were 25, but they weren't going out to work because they were housewives. Different times back then though, now for most couples both have to work full time to pay for a house and their lifestyles so they are too busy or enjoying life too much to have kids.

Gael23

For a woman it's 40.
Two women I know had babies at the same time both at 40, one was fine and the other has profound Down's syndrome. Those were both natural pregnancies, I know of someone else who had a perfect baby through IVF at 45.

gifted

When it hurts to get up on the middle of the night to feed the little fecker....














I honestly don't know how she did it lol lol

Outlaw Pete

Al Pacino's ex (the mom from National Lampoon's European Vacation) had twins with him when she was almost 50.

myshirt

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Speaking of geriatric pregnancies. Geri is currently pregnant at 44.

I see what you done there. Nice.

Realt Dearg Sec

Gael23 wrote: »

For a woman it's 40.

What is 40? Too old? According to whom?

myshirt

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Al Pacino's ex (the mom from National Lampoon's European Vacation) had twins with him when she was almost 50.

This woman doesn't even have a name?

Is this some veiled John Steinbeck reference to the placing of women in society, quite like 'Curley's wife'

I'd aim for an age where you're unlikely to be mistaken for a grandparent. If you're going to be a pensioner by the time a kid hits college, thats a huge generation gap to overcome even if you're young at heart, and age is just a number, and 60 is the new 30, and you're down with the kids, and all the other cliches.

Realt Dearg Sec

myshirt wrote: »

This woman doesn't even have a name?

Is this some veiled John Steinbeck reference to the placing of women in society, quite like 'Curley's wife'

Keep yourshirt on.

Scientifically the risks do increase with age and fertililty lessens. Unfortunately for many many people it just isn't possible to start a family when they would like to. I'm delighted I didn't have a child in my twenties. I'm delighted I don't have a child now. Sometimes I do get broody but the reality is that if I do decide to have a baby I will be close to 40. Perhaps in years to come I may regret my decision but you can't live your life like that. Doing something now just in case you run out of time down the road.

I'm very lucky to not experience that empty aching feeling that so many others have for their own baby. At least that's how I imagine the feeling must be and my heart goes out to them. Life can be cruel.

Outlaw Pete

myshirt wrote: »

This woman doesn't even have a name?

I don't remember the name of the actor that was banging Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan either. Such is life.

If you want her name, Google it. She was in Neil Jordan's 'The Miracle' also.

bisounours

Had this discussion recently with my cousin in her late 30s and her partner is 53 who are "thinking" about children. I asked whether her partner was planning to retire in his 60s or work at least until 75 as that's when the child would be off to university. Love and all else aside, to look at this from a very practical perspective.

bisounours

bisounours wrote: »

Had this discussion recently with my cousin in her late 30s and her partner is 53 who are "thinking" about children. I asked whether her partner was planning to retire in his 60s or work at least until 75 as that's when the child would be off to university. Love and all else aside, to look at this from a very practical perspective.

Perhaps money won't be an issue for them and her partner can easily retire sooner than that.

Samaris

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What is 40? Too old? According to whom?

It's not arbitrary :P After approximately 40 (there is some variation, of course), the risks of various issues increase out of proportion to the rate at which they were increasing through your late twenties and thirties. I'm not sure exactly what the rate is, but the chances of a Downs' baby is something like five-fold. Mind you, the rate at which you get a false positive in testing for Downs' also increases with age. This is to do with the increased chances of chromosomal abnormalities in general - most of them are fatal to a baby, Downs is one of the rare ones that isn't.

Apart from that, there is a greater risk of pre-eclampsia (which can be fatal to the mother), diabetes, miscarriage, more difficult delivery (you're less elastic with age, so to speak). There is also some correlation between being over forty-ish as a father and a baby having autism.

The risks associated with pregnancy for the mother is increased further if she is a primagravida (first pregnancy).

Having said all that, my mother was forty and my father forty-eight when I was born (I was a bit of a surprise), and I came out reasonably normal.

bisounours

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps money won't be an issue for them and her partner can easily retire sooner than that.

Not relevant to this discussion but I suppose the side story here is her partner isn't too fussed - given he's already in his 50s and didn't have any with his previous wife. My cousin is in the mindset of if she doesn't she MAY regret it. They're not rolling in money. Principally my concern is if they have a child because she wants one, and they have one, that he doesn't end up resenting her because he WILL have to work longer.

bisounours

bisounours wrote: »

Not relevant to this discussion but I suppose the side story here is her partner isn't too fussed - given he's already in his 50s and didn't have any with his previous wife. My cousin is in the mindset of if she doesn't she MAY regret it. They're not rolling in money. Principally my concern is if they have a child because she wants one, and they have one, that he doesn't end up resenting her because he WILL have to work longer.

It's very tricky. It's also a possibility that if your cousin has a baby because she's afraid she will regret not having one, then they both may end up resenting the child.

Oh to be 21 again and carefree

Sligo1

The risk for having a baby with downs at a maternal age of 30 is about 1 in 900, at 35 is about 1 in 350. At 40 this increases to 1 in 100. And at 45 it's 1 in 30.

seamus

dfeo wrote: »

I think in Ireland if a woman has a baby over 35, it's considered a geriatric pregnancy. Christ :P

Yeah, pretty much.

40 is really the risk point. The statistical incidence of genetic disorders like Down's and the serious fatal ones is logarithmic and takes a pretty big leap from 40+.

Women who become pregnant after 35 are automatically advised to get a genetic screening done to check for abnormalities. Not that you can do anything about anything you find, but nevertheless it's automatically advised after 35.

I would say getting pregnant at 40+ ethically requires you to monitor the pregnancy more closely. IMO it would be reckless to just let nature decide what happens, and you should get whatever tests and screening you can to allow you to make an informed decision on the future of your child. Especially if you already have children - any special needs child you bring to term could realistically become a dependent on your other children in 20 years. Is that fair?

Worth noting for men that it's also not as simple as banging away into your 70's. Studies have shown that the genetic quality of sperm also degrades around 40 and continues to degrade, leading to increased genetic defects in their children. The likes of Ronnie Wood having kids approaching 70 is highly irresponsible IMO - from other perspective too, such as these kids' father potentially dying of old age before they hit their teens; or worse developing dementia.

mzungu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't remember the name of the actor that was banging Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan either. Such is life.

If you want her name, Google it. She was in Neil Jordan's 'The Miracle' also.

From memory, was it Beverly D'angelo?

Gael23

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What is 40? Too old? According to whom?

It's when the risk of Downs Syndrome increases hugely.

Borzoi

The likes of Ronnie Wood having kids approaching 70 is highly irresponsible IMO.

On the scale of things that Ronnie and the Stones have done that are irresponsible- this wouldn't even register

valoren

I would take it that the menopause is nature's clever way of letting you know that timthriall Babies is finished.
The average age for that is 51 I believe.

I would see the 'risk' here as a product of time not of potential complications due to age.
As in you shouldn't risk leaving it too late as you never know when the menopause will happen.
The earlier you try to conceive then the more time you have obviously as you only get 12 chances 'launch windows' per year to get pregnant.

Taking 51 as the menopause.

A 25 year old has 312 chances of conceiving.
A 42 year old has 108 chances.

OldNotWIse

Don't think anybody has the right to judge. I know so many people who struggled or are struggling to have children. Once the child is loved. So much pressure from the media and society to have kids now. It's not fair on women. We are expected to have it all - career, house, kids and if you don't tick the boxes by the time you're 35 you're a no -hoper.

I got my fertility checked (I'm 32) and was told I'd "better go" before 37. wtf?

eviltwin

Depends on a lot of factors, there are women aged 40 in far better condition than women in their 20's. I finished my family at 32, I'm 39 now and feel the window of opportunity is gone. I wouldn't be prepared to put myself through the worry but think it's up to each individual. I wouldn't judge a woman over 40 for having a child.

turbowolfed

My mum had my youngest sister when she was 42 years old and my dad was 45. I'm 21, the eldest, and there's three other kids in between me and the youngest. In my family's experience, I know that that pregnancy really took a lot out of my mum. She didn't have any major complications thank god and my sister is perfectly healthy, but she was very drained and it was quite hard on her. Harder than i would have remembered it being for her on any of the other times.

In my personal experience, there's eighteen years between myself and my youngest sister, and while I obviously love her to pieces there is a disconnect due to the age gap. I often feel like more of an aunt or an outsider than a sister really. Also, by the time my sister is in college both of my parents will have retired.

It's kind of pushed me to sway more on the side of having kids younger in life. Or perhaps, confining the period in which you have kids to a say 10 year period or so so they all grow up together.

cbyrd

Janet Jackson has just announced her pregnancy, she's 50.
If you're healthy I don't see any reason why not.
I'm currently pregnant with number 6. I'm 42, I'll be 43 when this one arrives. I go to the gym 3 or 4 times a week and I'm fitter than I was in my 20's when I had my first. It's early days yet but hopefully everything will be grand.
I think being an older parent you're a bit calmer and there's no reason for an age gap if you're keeping up with what's going on in your kids life.
Your attitude helps aswell, I don't feel any older than I did in my 20's and I've been told I look a lot younger than I am..
This is definitely my last.

eviltwin

cbyrd wrote: »

Janet Jackson has just announced her pregnancy, she's 50.
If you're healthy I don't see any reason why not.
I'm currently pregnant with number 6. I'm 42, I'll be 43 when this one arrives. I go to the gym 3 or 4 times a week and I'm fitter than I was in my 20's when I had my first. It's early days yet but hopefully everything will be grand.
I think being an older parent you're a bit calmer and there's no reason for an age gap if you're keeping up with what's going on in your kids life.
Your attitude helps aswell, I don't feel any older than I did in my 20's and I've been told I look a lot younger than I am..
This is definitely my last.

Congratulations, I'm completely in awe of you with six. Sometimes I struggle to mind myself let alone my two.

I think there is a huge difference between having your first kid post 40 vs your 3rd etc. Experience counts for a lot. My 44 yr old brother in law is due his first child at Christmas and is convinced the baby will fit into his very ordered life. It's like looking at a car crash in slow motion and once the baby arrives - impact. He hasn't a clue how his life is going to change.

Musketeer4

Chronological age and biological age are not one and the same.

For example you could have a 45 year old man or woman who has always exercised, eaten healthily and generally looked after themselves who might be in a better biological state to have a baby that a 28 year old who's been abusing their body with inactivity, alcohol, cigarettes etc for 10 years.

Even from a genetic point of view different people can just naturally age at different rates.

It's not as simple as just oh, over 35 risk is x, y, z. That's just an average catch all for the general population. Each individual is well, individual.

CountingCrows

There is a rapid change after 35

Frequency of Down syndrome per maternal age

OldNotWIse

CountingCrows wrote: »

There is a rapid change after 35

Frequency of Down syndrome per maternal age

I wouldn't mind if I had a child with DS. There are other risks though, I think another poster mentioned, such as blood pressure, diabetes etc.

CountingCrows

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Don't think anybody has the right to judge. I know so many people who struggled or are struggling to have children. Once the child is loved. So much pressure from the media and society to have kids now. It's not fair on women. We are expected to have it all - career, house, kids and if you don't tick the boxes by the time you're 35 you're a no -hoper.

I got my fertility checked (I'm 32) and was told I'd "better go" before 37. wtf?

Who's judging? Going before 37 is sound medical advise based on statistics.

OldNotWIse

CountingCrows wrote: »

Who's judging? Going before 37 is sound medical advise based on statistics.

Society as a whole judges a woman who has not had kids by a certain age. Even couples who get married but decide they don't want kids (or maybe cant) are judged. You see it even in the media, constant headlines about celebrities showing off bumps and speculation about who is pregnant and who isn't and why she isn't. I remember when my best friend got married (she already had a child with someone else), my mother saying, "oh they'll have a kid now" and I was puzzled and asked her what made her think that and she said, "sure why else would you get married unless you were going to have kids?" - er maybe because you love each other lol.

CountingCrows

People seem to take offence these days when they are told having a child after 35 isn't ideal despite medical evidence. Of course there are exceptions but broadly speaking this is sound advise.

cbyrd

eviltwin wrote:

I think there is a huge difference between having your first kid post 40 vs your 3rd etc. Experience counts for a lot. My 44 yr old brother in law is due his first child at Christmas and is convinced the baby will fit into his very ordered life. It's like looking at a car crash in slow motion and once the baby arrives - impact. He hasn't a clue how his life is going to change.

This made me laugh!

Leogirl

I had my first and only at 38. The surge of hormones were a factor in me developing very aggressive breast cancer while pregnant. So now having more babies really isn't an option after chemotherapy+ hormone treatment. They also think there's a high risk of it happening again. Wish I'd started younger to be honest but I'm delighted to have one.

OldNotWIse

CountingCrows wrote: »

People seem to take offence these days when they are told having a child after 35 isn't ideal despite medical evidence. Of course there are exceptions but broadly speaking this is sound advise.

I'm not disputing the medical evidence, I'm talking about the attitude of society towards women who don't have / cant have / don't yet have / don't yet want/ don't ever want kids. I set my own personal "cut off" at 35 years ago when I was young and idealistic. I just assumed life would go as I planned it. It didn't. I never thought I would go back to college at 30. I did. And I'd rather wait until I'm in a position to actually give a child a proper stable upbringing before I do it. So, things change. I'd be nervous of course pushing it past 35 but that's life.

I know of a woman who had her first (and only) at 50. She actually thought her pregnancy symptoms were menopause. They never planned a child and never wanted one however this one came along and she has turned their lives upside down lol.

eviltwin

CountingCrows wrote: »

People seem to take offence these days when they are told having a child after 35 isn't ideal despite medical evidence. Of course there are exceptions but broadly speaking this is sound advise.

It's not ideal but no medics say don't do it. Just be aware of the risks.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

A cousin of mine had 1 child just shy of 40, and 2 children after 40.
2 of her children (the younger 2) are autistic and they will need constant care for the rest of their lives. They're non verbal, as well as having uncontrolled epilepsy and a host of other health issues. She blames herself, and the fact she had them late in life, though I'm no medical expert so I can't say if it was a contributing factor or not.

Myself, I wont have any children after 34. I don't want to be an old parent, I have some issues myself and don't want to put my body through anything more than nessessary. I want to enjoy my later life, and not worry about teenagers running amuck or putting them through college.

Musketeer4

Risk of a problem pregnancy or an abnormal fetus do undoubtedly increase with both maternal and, to a lesser degree, paternal age. However, there is still every chance of having a healthy happy baby. Additionally there is actually no need for babies to be born with abnormalities. I know I'm likely going to get some people's ire up now but with the level of screening and tests available today a couple can decide that if a fetus is found to have a significant genetic anomaly they will terminate the pregnancy and then hope that the subsequent fetus will be healthy.

babyboom

I am the child of older parents. My brothers are 12 and 14 years older than me. My mother had me at 43. I absolutely hated having older parents when all my friends' parents were way younger. Don't get me wrong, they were great parents but with old fashioned ideas etc. However, the biggest downside to having children when you're older is the burden on that child at the other end. I am 46 now, my mother is 90 this month. Both my brothers live on the other side of the country and the responsibility for caring for my elderly mother has fallen to me. I have already been through my father's long and protracted illness, and subsequent death, when he was in his 70s and my children were young. When he died my mother then became almost totally dependent on me. The stress on myself and my husband and children is huge. I've had less time for my own family as I am constantly back and forward to my mother's to do her shopping, her housework, take her to appointments and stay with her whenever she ends up in hospital. I think that's the part of the scenario that people often forget. It may be easy enough when your children are young to thing that being an older parent is fine but it is completely disregarding the affect that might have when you are older yourself and are more dependant on your children. I know that this is only my personal experience but I think it's something worth considering.

Woodbrook80

My mother was 43 when she had me we were fine thankfully I was number 7 though
I'm now 37 after having my first baby while I'm fine but going to have second and final soon as feel you need a lot of energy for babies and recovery

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

babyboom wrote: »

I am the child of older parents. My brothers are 12 and 14 years older than me. My mother had me at 43. I absolutely hated having older parents when all my friends' parents were way younger. Don't get me wrong, they were great parents but with old fashioned ideas etc. However, the biggest downside to having children when you're older is the burden on that child at the other end. I am 46 now, my mother is 90 this month. Both my brothers live on the other side of the country and the responsibility for caring for my elderly mother has fallen to me. I have already been through my father's long and protracted illness, and subsequent death, when he was in his 70s and my children were young. When he died my mother then became almost totally dependent on me. The stress on myself and my husband and children is huge. I've had less time for my own family as I am constantly back and forward to my mother's to do her shopping, her housework, take her to appointments and stay with her whenever she ends up in hospital. I think that's the part of the scenario that people often forget. It may be easy enough when your children are young to thing that being an older parent is fine but it is completely disregarding the affect that might have when you are older yourself and are more dependant on your children. I know that this is only my personal experience but I think it's something worth considering.

I understand what you're saying but I am taken aback by it, that somehow your parents age is impacting on your life. My mother had me quite young, she was 25 or 26 when I was born. She died when she was 44. When she died, I was 18, and I had to take care of my little brother and look after my dad. At 24, I became my dads sole carer because he was diagnosed with a terminal illness and it quickly spread to his brain, leaving him unable to walk or remember things, even who I was at times, he couldn't be left alone at all not even at night time because we didn't have a bed for him with rails, and he would take seizures and fall out of bed or fall to the ground with absolutely no prior warning. I was 25 when he died.

My parents didn't have me when they were old, but that's just how things went. They were both gone by the time I was 25. I know how tough it is being the only one to look after a parent that needs you, but it isn't their fault. People get old, they get sick. And they would do that, and probably more, for us if we needed them to. Lord knows when I broke myself up and was in a cast, my father was there to make me my three meals a day and ate his off his lap sitting with me on my bed so as I wouldn't be lonely eating by myself.

It is comforting that when they're gone, you know that you did your absolute best by them and that they were loved and cared about. I know personally I don't know how I'd have dealt with knowing my dad had died and I had never so much as made him a cup of tea or came to visit him.

It does suck, the situation that you're in, and it's a horrible feeling being felt like you're torn in two, but it's not your mum that you should be resentful towards, that could have happened at any age at all.

Have you looked into respite care or other help? I'm sorry I don't really know anything more into the help with care side of things as nobody helped me, and he passed away before anyone could direct me towards someone who would help, but surely there is something out there. I hope things get better for you.