Is 43 too old for a baby

Loretta

ladypinkof66 wrote: »

Gosh did she manage to conceive with her own eggs at 53 ? There might be some hope for me and others yet.

Yes, There was no assistance of any kind in those days, whether to get pregnant or not get pregnant it just happened! In some ways life was simpler then, you just got on with it

Morglin

Aliss08 wrote: »

Hello all,

I've been lurking on this forum for a while and have to say that you all seem like really "normal" decent people so, if possible, I would like your unbiased opinion.

I won't go into detail as to why I am now thinking about trying for a child but let's just say that my circumstances have changed recently and for the first time in my life I can put myself first. My husband and I have been together for nearly 20 years and we have both suffered a lot of heartache over the years. We are both only children and have lost our parents. Firstly would it be right to have a child who would have no immediate family except for us? I worry about the baby's future if anything were to happen to us although I have a very good friend who I know would be there for any children that did come along in the event of our deaths. I'm not at all materialistic so would be happy to leave work to bring up a baby and just have one salary.

I could go on and on but I'm sure you have the jist of my dilemma. I really would appreciate any unbiased opinions.

Thank you

You run the greater risks of having a baby with disabilities than a younger mum, and it may be that having a baby will exhaust you more than a young mum.

But, if you can conceive (and many women over 40 can't), then it's up to you.

I wouldn't as I was a granny by then, and even they exhaust me - but a baby has to be an individual choice.

Lin

Cissi

Loretta wrote: »

Yes, There was no assistance of any kind in those days, whether to get pregnant or not get pregnant it just happened! In some ways life was simpler then, you just got on with it

Yes, it does occasionally happen that women in their fifties conceive naturally, but the key is that like your MIL they have all been pregnant many times before (at least 11 in this case, and quite possibly a number of miscarriages in between as well). Unfortunately for all those hoping for a similar miracle for their first (or even second or third) pregnancy, this just doesn't happen.

It's believed that there are several possible reasons why women who have already had many children can still conceive much later than the "norm":
1) they are obviously very fertile to begin with
2) their bodies - and crucially, their egg supply - have been given a long rest with each child born. Typically a woman doesn't cycle for almost a year after childbirth, particularly if she is breastfeeding, so that's a break of at least a year and a half per child (including the pregnancy). So after 12 children, at 53, Loretta's MIL would only have had the same number of cycles as, say, an average childless 35-year-old. This meant that her egg reserves were still good enough to conceive. (This is of course simplified. The absence of cycles alone doesn't explain everything or else women on the pill would also experience extended fertility - but then their hormones have been messed with in other ways).

I feel that it's important to point this out, because I've seen too many women simply wait too long to try for a baby, or to see a doctor about their fertility because stories such as these crop up every time the subject is raised, and they think they have a lot more time than they really have.

To the OP, again: no, 43 isn't too late in my view, but very soon it will be, so if you're serious about this, don't hang about! And my advice would be to perhaps consider seeing a fertility specialist if nothing has happened after 6 months of trying (for women under 40 they generally say 12 months) - if you'd at all consider going down that route, that is. Even with IVF, chances drop dramatically with every few months at this stage. Harsh words perhaps, but intended to save potential heart-break later

UKTigerlily

I don't think it's too late, my Step-Aunt had her youngest at 45yrs old & now has a very happy & healthy 8yr old little girl who has just become an Aunt herself (Step-Aunt's 3 kids are all about 8yrs or so apart)

bagby

If you really want one go for it. Dont worry about being too old - my husband was a father at 19 and when they were in their teens they thought he was old and didnt know anything & he was in his early thirties, he then went on to have our family and he was 37 and 44 when they were born and they still think he's old and doesnt know anything - but they are may be right!! Im 49 with a 12 year old and can still run around with him so its up to the individual person. I love having all my sons friends around the house - livens the place up.

Kay_Peel

I won't go into detail as to why I am now thinking about trying for a child but let's just say that my circumstances have changed recently and for the first time in my life I can put myself first. My husband and I have been together for nearly 20 years and we have both suffered a lot of heartache over the years. We are both only children and have lost our parents.

You speak of heartache, loss and a change of circumstances. You say that you don't want to go into the reasons why you are thinking of having a baby - and I respect that, I don't wish to pry - but I get the feeling that you are uncertain about a lot of things, not just your age.

You have been given some positive assurances about having a child at 43. You have been given examples of the negatives. But, for me, the most important thing to consider is the reason why you want to become a parent now. I would ask the same question of any woman contemplating pregnancy whether she was 16 or (God forbid!) 66 years old.

I wouldn't dream of giving you my unbiased opinion - it's such a personal matter. It would be biased anyway - we can only go off our experiences.

My mother was 19 and I made her a grandmother when she was 46. It's been lovely to have such a young, attractive, lively mother and I couldn't imagine anything else. So I'm biased.

It sounds like you have a lot of doubts. If so, then I'd say don't do it.

galvanizersbaby

Cissi wrote: »

Yes, it does occasionally happen that women in their fifties conceive naturally, but the key is that like your MIL they have all been pregnant many times before (at least 11 in this case, and quite possibly a number of miscarriages in between as well). Unfortunately for all those hoping for a similar miracle for their first (or even second or third) pregnancy, this just doesn't happen.

It's believed that there are several possible reasons why women who have already had many children can still conceive much later than the "norm":
1) they are obviously very fertile to begin with
2) their bodies - and crucially, their egg supply - have been given a long rest with each child born. Typically a woman doesn't cycle for almost a year after childbirth, particularly if she is breastfeeding, so that's a break of at least a year and a half per child (including the pregnancy). So after 12 children, at 53, Loretta's MIL would only have had the same number of cycles as, say, an average childless 35-year-old. This meant that her egg reserves were still good enough to conceive. (This is of course simplified. The absence of cycles alone doesn't explain everything or else women on the pill would also experience extended fertility - but then their hormones have been messed with in other ways).

I feel that it's important to point this out, because I've seen too many women simply wait too long to try for a baby, or to see a doctor about their fertility because stories such as these crop up every time the subject is raised, and they think they have a lot more time than they really have.

To the OP, again: no, 43 isn't too late in my view, but very soon it will be, so if you're serious about this, don't hang about! And my advice would be to perhaps consider seeing a fertility specialist if nothing has happened after 6 months of trying (for women under 40 they generally say 12 months) - if you'd at all consider going down that route, that is. Even with IVF, chances drop dramatically with every few months at this stage. Harsh words perhaps, but intended to save potential heart-break later

Is this just a theory about the egg supply - I thought from an age point of view it was more to do with the quality of the eggs rather than the quantity.

The guidance I have heard is that for seeking medical assistance when trying to concieve is 12 months for women under 35 and 6 months for women over 35 as this is the age that fertility starts to decrease rapidly.

redstararnie76

Hi,
This is really a decision that only you can make. Just remember that age, like all things is relative.
My mother had me, her first child, when she was thirty (in the seventies). She was told then that she was an 'old' mum, and had to have special monitoring etc. When I had my first child, I was nearly thirty, and I was the youngest in my antenatal classes, and I certainly wasn't considered 'old' by the medical professionals around me.
I don't think it matters what age you are, particularly, but remember many of the doubts and concerns you are having will be shared by just about anyone considering having a child. It's a big commitment and it changes your life (hopefully for the better!). If you and your partner do want to try for a baby, by all means speak to your doctor, start taking folic acid, but above all start trying - it will probably take a while.

jamespir

i dont think any age is too old i draw the line at 60 + tho

redstararnie76

Oh, I just remembered being told several years ago that ' about 16 was probably the ideal physical age to have a child, but mentally the best age was around 40!'