When is it too old to have a baby?

OldNotWIse · 13-10-2016 10:57AM

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 · 13-10-2016 10:58AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:13AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:18AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:29AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:45AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:47AM

There is a rapid change after 35

Frequency of Down syndrome per maternal age

OldNotWIse · 13-10-2016 11:48AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:50AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:52AM

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 · 13-10-2016 11:58AM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:02PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:02PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:05PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:12PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:20PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:20PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:46PM

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 · 13-10-2016 12:58PM

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 · 13-10-2016 01:15PM

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.

charlie_says · 13-10-2016 01:18PM

I'm starting to wonder if it's massively selfish for a mother to have a child after the age of 37 due to the increased chances of medical issues and possible lifelong disabilities. Particularly after 40.

I don't imagine that's a popular opinion though as many equate their only chance at true fulfillment in life is to have children. It doesn't help the way society subtly infers that there is something wrong about childless couples.

osarusan · 13-10-2016 01:21PM

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'd be pretty angry with your older siblings if I was you. I don't really see how it's all that relevant to the parents being older or younger though.

If your mother had been 10 years younger when she had you, you'd be 56 now and still helping out with housework and appointments and hospital, rather than spending time with your own family.

"the burden on that child at the other end" is going to be there regardless of age, unless you ignore it, as your brothers seem to have done to some extent.

babyboom · 13-10-2016 01:25PM

I am very sorry LexieOnRale that you lost both your parents at such a young age and had to take on that responsibility. You sound like a lovely, caring person. But your situation is the exception rather than the rule. My point is, that by having children at a later stage in your life, the likelihood of your children having to care for you is greater. Most children, at some stage, do have to take part in caring for elderly parents, but usually when their own children have grown up. I was in a situation where I had very young children and was looking after a quite elderly parent. Now my children are 19, 16 and 12 and they have a different set of needs yet I'm still looking after another elderly parent. I love my mother and want the best for her but I have a child who suffers from severe depression and another with learning difficulties and it is very difficult to spread myself around. My mother is in fairly good health at the moment and needs help but not full time care but that day is coming and I dread it. I'm sorry if that sounds selfish but I am very very tired at the moment.

13-10-2016 01:35PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

I had similar plans ONW. 30 was the age I had hoped to have a family by. The whole shebang in fact, husband, house, people carrier, job sharing. None of that happened and I'm pretty happy about that. I barely recognise 25 yr old me who wanted those things. If I have a child I will be over 35 and that's a choice for me and my partner alone to make. Like you say, that's life.

I would caution anyone with definite ideas in their twenties about how they want things to go in their thirties. Hopes and aspirations are so important. I have lots of them. But be aware that anything can happen and it probably will.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-10-2016 01:48PM

I think it's ok to be selfish and put yourself first, but that day will come to most people. In fact, the only way to avoid it seems to be God forbid they die extremely suddenly, or you just don't give a flying f u ck, and do what your brothers have done.

Your kids will always be your main priority. Always. And in 10 years time, one of them might be living at home with you relying on you to mind their kids as their relationship has broken down and they've nobody else to help, or your child with depression may need you that little bit more than your other children. I suppose, it's never a good time to have to take on the role of being carer to an ill or elderly parent.

There is never going to be a time in your life where you have reams of time to dedicate to a sick parent, without running yourself ragged or sacrificing parts of your own life. And I suppose what I was very conscious of at the time was making sure my dad didn't feel like a burden at any stage, because he most certainly wasn't.

But it was hard. He was becoming unsteady on his feet and he realised that before we did. He didn't trust anyone else to walk with him to the bathroom. At night time he knew I'd be into hospital to see him at about 6:30/7pm. He would wait until I came to use the toilet. The Physio would come to get him back on his feet, and get him walking. He wouldn't do it. I would come in, get him up and he would fly it. I was often left wondering why the Physio would tell me he made no progress with his walking when he could walk quite a bit of distance for me. As he got more ill, he went completely off his food and refused his medication - I suppose he realised it was just dragging out the unavoidable, he wouldn't take it for the nurses or the care assistants, so I had to be there for breakfast lunch and dinner to get him to eat. If I wasn't there, he wouldn't eat. I would hide his meds in yogurt, so he'd take them too. He called for me constantly. He didn't call for my brother, or anybody else. Even when I was there, he'd still yell out for me.
But he tried protect me right up to his last few days too. 7 days before he died he got mad at me for no reason and he told me to go home. I left for a few mins and came back in as usually he didn't mean what he said and wouldn't remember sending me home so would call for me again. I came back in, and he looked straight at me - as clear and as with it as he ever was and he said "Alex, I told you to go home". I knew it wasn't the illness talking then, it was my dad. I was devastated, of course, that he was so angry with me. Then he slipped into a really deep sleep a few days later and we didn't think he would wake up. But he did. Every single family member we had was squished into his room, he woke up, and I talked to him. He seemed happy to see everyone but again it was "Alex, you don't listen, i thought I told you to go home". At the time, my heart broke. I sat outside his ward crying my heart out. But my dad knew he was dying, he knew I would never be strong enough to deal with that. An he didn't want me there. As sick as he was, he tried to protect me as much as he could.

But that's what families do. His age, my age. Your age, your mams age -- it doesn't matter. That, God forbid, could be any of us much sooner than we realise. It happens to everyone and the only way to avoid it is not giving a crap and walking away - which is what your siblings have done. They're the ones that you should be angry and frustrated with. Your mum I'm sure would never want you to feel like you're trapped, and I get that - honestly I do, but it's not her fault and even if she had you ten years earlier, you might have been the one to have kids later in life or have something else going on. It's never the right time. And it's your siblings at fault, not your mam, or you.

BrokenArrows · 13-10-2016 01:57PM

If your probably going to be retired before they turn 18 then you're too old.

ted1 · 13-10-2016 01:58PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What is 40? Too old? According to whom?

Science, there is a much greater risk that the baby wil have a genetic disorder like Down syndrome etc

ted1 · 13-10-2016 02:01PM

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?

It's not the media, it's science , realistically your body is designed to have baby's in your mid to late teens.

BrokenArrows · 13-10-2016 02:24PM

Someone having a child when close to 50 is very irresponsible.

So before they even finish school you are getting close to 70 and the chances are you will be dead before they even graduate from college.

A bad case is that you have poor health in your mid 60's and the kid needs to spend their time looking after you when they should be spending their time being a kid.

mackeire · 13-10-2016 02:30PM

Anything over 99 is definitely to old to be having children.

When is it too old to have a baby?

Comments