Is it madness to have another baby at 42-43?

[johnl1153]

What does everyone think?
Do you have any positive experience to share?
All perspectives welcome.
Both very fit and healthy for our ages, we have one little boy together (7) I’m not bothered about the age gap at all.. but Ive heard late 40s are vastly different, plus there are risks in pregnancy with women over 40. that’s what’s scaring me off. Although societal norms have really changed, I’m wondering if it’s too late.

 

[kennycool]

@johnl1153 I will say as a 30 year old with a 75 year old dad it’s not been super fun that I’ve had to deal with his aging at the same time as having my own baby. That aspect of it has been hard on me for sure

Edit since this comment blew up: my dad had a health crisis this year that required my husband and I to empty out and sell his house and then find him elder care. It was a fucking nightmare with a 15 month old in tow.

 

[erigsby]

@kennycool This gets glossed over a lot. You'll see some sixty year olds on the slopes and a few seventy year olds scuba diving or playing tennis. But an eighty year old is statistically not going to be able to share the same outdoor hobbies. And physical decline is so unevenly distributed. A seventy five year old may be a husk of their younger selves or be enjoying free skiing. Its a bit tough realizing that I likely won't even be able to golf with both of them by the time my kid is old enough. And that small complaint pales in comparison to if your parent requires elder care while you are having kids vs the traditional model of having parents help out.

 

[kennycool]

@erigsby Exactly! And my dad was really active in his 60s. Health took a turn in his 70s. Some people die in their 60s. You just can't know.

 

[niun]

@kennycool Well let's be real, your parents can have a health crisis at any age. And being part of a family involves sacrifice on everyone's part, not just the parents/grandparents.

 

[heloise23]

@niun Yep! My husband and I both had dads with severe health issues starting in their 40s. They died at 60 and 64 when we were in our 20s, long before we had children (and I was fully responsible for settling my dad’s estate). No guarantees in life. We are trying to stay as healthy as possible (with success so far!) and build community for our family in case the worst happens.

 

[scrooge]

@johnl1153 Defs not madness , but you will feel the difference . I’m 38 and feeling it compared to my earlier pregnancy’s which were easier on the body .

 

[malek1986]

@johnl1153 I’m 42 and have been trying but have had 3 miscarriages since I had my son (he’s 3 this summer). I had him at 39.

 

[rach4jesus]

@malek1986 Sorry to hear this as an older mother trying wishing you the best

 

[malek1986]

@rach4jesus Thank you

 

[flyboy1818]

@johnl1153 I don’t think so. My grandma had my mom at 45 in 1946! I feel like that’s crazy for that time frame but not anymore! My grandpa was 60!

 

[heloise23]

@flyboy1818 My dads bio mom was also 45 in 1959. She had 4 older adult children!

 

[sisi]

@flyboy1818 The age women are at last birth has actually gotten drastically younger from historical norms - when you look at historical populations before the age of modern birth control, the average age women has their last child was 40-41 - meaning half were even older than that. So through most of human history, having kids into your 40s was the norm. We have this odd narrative that having kids older is this modern thing but it’s not true - in the past women on average had ~8 kids from around ages 23-41. Now we start later but also end drastically earlier because we’re only having about 2 on average. So having a child at 45 is definitely later than most can, but actually much more unusual now than historically.

 

[anamikads]

@sisi Interesting!

 

[kyredneck]

@sisi I think the massive difference between now and history is that we have many more women having their first babies well into their 40s. I agree it wasn’t unusual to have children in your 40s back in the day but with the advent of reproductive technologies, the primary pregnancy is getting later and later. It’s not that unusual to care for women in their 50s having their first babies now.

 

[sisi]

@kyredneck Yes, as I said in my comment, first pregnancy is later as well as last being earlier. But it means the average going from 23-25 to 27-30, not 40+. The reproductive technology causing that is birth control. ART can’t improve egg quality, which is the main limiting factor in fertility at older ages. The chance of IVF working with 44-year-old eggs is about 5% with multiple rounds, and less than 1% at 50+.

Women having babies past 50 are nearly all using donor eggs, so they are not having biological children at that age. The idea that it’s “not unusual” is also just really not true. It’s a tiny fraction of a percent of mothers - I’d call that very unusual.

 

[chery49]

@flyboy1818 My great-grandma had both of her kids in her 40s. This was in the 1920s.

 

[inchrist1]

@johnl1153 It's not too late. Many women have healthy pregnancies well into their 40s.

 

[sisi]

@inchrist1 Many women do, yes, but many women are not able to. Before birth control existed, the average age women had their last baby was 40-41, so at 42-43 less than half are going to be able to have a baby. In this study only about half of women at that age who had a previous pregnancy have conceived in a year - and that’s just getting a positive pregnancy test, as miscarriage rates at 40-44 are 51%. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a baby at that age, it’s just important to be realistic about the chances and risks, because there is a real tipping point after 40.

 

[tmanocd]

@inchrist1 Agreed.