I dont see anything wrong with it. So I was surprised that the BE poll said 50/50 result.

I dont think 40 is too old. Maybe over 46 but 40 doesnt seem too old to me, if they parents are young spirited, healthy, stable etc

I am 28 so its not from a personal point of view (although my mum was 41 when she had my little brother and it made no difference to his upbringing etc)

Just wondering what the 50% who thought it was too old's reasons were

(not an arguement just genuine curiosity)

I agree with you,my gran was 41 when she had my mam there's a 20yr gap between my mam & her brother my mam has said it makes no difference to her,I think it is maddening when you see in the papers woman who are in their 50's 60's having ivf & having babies but thats just my opinion xoxo

i dont see anything wrong with it if thats personal chioce, i myself would not want to be still having kids at 40 and i intend on not having anymore once i turn 30 in 3 years time. Its all personal choice and i think if someone wants to have kids at 40 then good on them but its not for me.
Now i read in the paper yesterday about a 66 year old having triplets, now i think thats just plain wrong!

I agree for my mum she fell naturally so her body was obviously still ready for pregnancy (despite 3 previous IVF's she fell at 41 naturally after giving up - typical).

(when i saw that poll last week i knew you would do a post lol)

I personnally dont think 40 is too old, a lady i use to work with was TTC for 20 year and finally fell when she was in her mid 40s, she is a wonderfully mother!!

I agree with cloclo 50s and 60s i think is too old!! a child wouldnt have their mother for a huge part of their life and i dont think that is far. I find it hard to keep up with LO let alone 60 yr old?! The fact that they have to ahve IVF at that age is just natures way surely?

Maybe the 50/50 split is for the OVER part and not 40?

xx

i agree, i was very surpised to see the BE poll results it's hovered around 46-49% saying that over 40 is ok. i don't see a problem with it at all, but a few years back had i been asked the same thing my answer may have been different. i remember when i was about 11, my mum was 39, she'd ben with her new bloke (still together now) about a year and i remember her saying that she would have loved to have had a baby with him, but, she had been sterilised shortly after having me (charming!) and that she regretted it, she would mention it every now and again until she was about 45 i guess, and i remember thinking, 'what? no way! ur far too old!', not sure if its cos i was a teenage and age perception changes as u age anwyay, or if its cos it was my mum...however my SIL had a baby at 39 and then another at 41 and i didn't even bat an eyelid, mind u, she's now 44 (so i'm guessing thast techinically classed as middle aged) but i don't see her as being 'that old', i don't if its cos i've grown up since i was 14 (lol) or if perhaps she's a 'young' 44, and i don't think her age would even cross my miond if she had another baby now...but, in a few years (46-47), and definately over 50, i think i would find it hard to understand. i also think that perhaps in the cas eof my sil i don't see her as 'that old' because my brother is (her husband) is 10 years her junior, so i may associate her more with ebing 34, not 44, iyswim? although i do know how old she is and i don't think it makes a blind bit of difference to heer parenting, but she has said herself that it was much easier when she had her first (she was 27) than it was her second and third (39 and 41), the pregnancy and recovery she said were much tougher because her body was older, and she was much much more worried and tense re something going worng as she knew her age could contribute to it going awry. xx

I think the female body goes through the menopause for a reason, excuse me for being blunt but every woman reaches a stage when her eggs are past their best. If you can naturally fall pregnant in your 40's great, if not then it is for a reason. I don't agree with fertility treatment to women over 50 and 60 because the child could very likely be orphaned at a young age or become a carer to a sick parent. I know this not always the case but I don't think it is fair on the child.

Blue Gecko and Jensen 24 days

I am grateful that I met the right man early in my life, and was able to have children with him in my 20s (and hopefully more in my 30s!). Had I not met anyone until I was late 30s, of course I would be trying for a baby and therefore couldn't judge anyone for having a baby in their 40s.

It does annoy me that when male celebrities who are in their 60s and 70s have babies with their trophy wives, they are applauded and celebrated. To me that's just as wrong as a woman in her 60s doing it.
Having said that, if I had met a 60 year old and fallen in love with him (doubt it - haha), then of course I would be trying for a baby.... It would be a selfish act though.

40s not too bad, but 50+ i have issues with. my youngest brother (half) is 3 and a half and my dad is 53 this year and i just think it was irresponsible of him to have a child that late in his life. when my little brother is 16 and needs lifts places with his mates my dad is going to be 66! even when he starts school my dad will be one of the oldest parents there and i feel sorry for my little brother as young children can be really horrible and i can see him getting teased relentlessly for his 'granda' looking dad picking him up!

fair enough i understand people divorce/can't have children with a partner etc but i think in my dad and his wife's case it was just a selfish decision to have another child (their oldest is now 9/10). they had one when my dad ws a sensible age (his wife is my age!!!!) but i personally don't think she put the ideas/needs of a child first when deciding to have another. i may think differently if i didn't hate her with a passion lol or if my dad was full fit, well, able bodied etc but he's not, there's a very good chance my brothers are going to lose their dad while they're still children. also my dads wife was actually talking about starting to try for a third baby last year, which i just think is ridiculous. but thats just my opinion on my screwed up family.

as i say i think anytime in your 40s is fine if you're fit and healthy and in a position to have a baby but once you're 50+ you need to weigh up whether its the right thing for a baby, not just yourself. xxx

I agree with the posts about having IVF after reaching the menopause- there is a reason you can't have a baby that late!
My nan was 42 I think when she has my mum, but my mum was 21 when she has my sis and 22 with me, so I know it from both ways

Personally I wouldn't want to have one later in life, but that is just me

xx

personally for me (not for any other women in the world just personally) 40 would be too old for me to have a child. my reasons being-i had my dd1 when i had just turned 20 and Lizzie just before i was 25 now i wouldnt want the sleepless nights again 20 years after doing it first time round, bloody hell its hard enough when your full of energy!
but if another women wanted to have a child at 40 it is entirwely her and her partners desicion.

also whilst im here-its polls like this that cause upset to people about are they they old or too young to have children. why cant all the journilist just except we are all just very happy to be mummys-regardless of our ages!!

Woman of 40 who are trying to have a child have probably had no choice, it is unlikely that at 25 years old they were settled and in a good place and thought "nah, I won't have a baby now, I'll wait until I'm forty and my eggs are old and it will be near impossible for me to get pregnant". The majority have probably only just met the right man or have been trying unsucessfully for years and have finally fallen pregnant. Some people want a baby so much that their age does not matter to them.

Those of us who have chosen and have sucessfully had a baby in our 20s and 30s should count ourselves lucky. There by the grace of god...

my mum was 42 when she had me and i had fantastic child hood she kept up with the younger mums etc but now that im 32 and have my own children she struggles to keep up with them she is very young for her age but still struggles and i am soooo jealous of people who have mums that can help out etc so i do think its too old and i wouldnt put my child in that position this is from my own experience and im sure someone out there has had same as me and their mum can still do things in her mid 70s but mu mum cant so 100% say no.

Interesting thread!

I am one of those women who had babies in her twenties (first marriage) and now again in her forties(second marriage).....and I do not think that 40+ is too old to have a baby. Its interesting that most of the comments are about the mum being 40+ and not the dad. My DH is 50 next birthday, so does that make him too old as well???

Becoming a mum again in my 40's IS different to that of being in my 20's, but not for any negative reasons, its brilliant and we just feel totally blessed that we were lucky enough to have created an expression of us both in one person, regardless of our age.

My husband was widowed with three children, aged between 9 and 22 and you just never know what life will bring, so I respect that some opinions are fixed on ' i wouldnt have a child in my 40's' but a life changing situation may just alter that mind set .

Also, rather than cringing at the 'embarrassment' of being an older parent, my DH and I have both been mistaken as the grandparents (not that we look old) but if we have been out with our daugther, (my step daughter) who is 27, everyone assumes that our lo is hers.......but thats just how judgemental society is and we just laugh and it causes more embarrassment for them when we tell them that lo is ours. And then we get the 'oh was lo planned?!" and 'oh, was lo a surpise?!" - that bit i find rude!

If your body and heart are capable of the prospect of a baby in your 40's then I think its a fabulous time to have a baby.

Given the choice, I wouldn't wait until my 40s to have children, but the dice didn't roll like that for me.

I didn't meet a man worthy of having children with until I was almost 35. By the time we'd been trying long enough to find out we were infertile and had to have IVF, I was 37.
Our son was born when I was 38 and I'll be 40 when our second child is born.

Sometimes I feel absolutely knackered. But I don't know how much of that is down to being 'old'.

One of the benefits of being more mature, is that my own mum is old enough to be semi-retired, so she has time to look after her grandchildren.

I do agree, though, that women in their 50s/ 60s who are post-menopausal, really shouldn't be having children.

I am nopt sure on this one I used to think 40 was to old but not sure now. I worried about it for us as hubby was 50 when Luke was born and did worry that when Luke is 20 he will be 70, but I need not worry about it anymore now as his Dad left us before I gave birth.

Here's another debate... is it better to have a baby at 40 when you are in a relationship, settled and have a home and income or when you are 16 with no home, no income etc....???

Inidividual circumstances are so different but I can't believe so many people were against this in the poll. Most women have not been through the menopause by age 40 so I can't see why some people are saying that menopause is that much of an issue... and in that case are you trying to say that those poor women who go through early menopause have been told by 'nature' that they should not have children?

(Not trying to cause an argument, just love a good debate lol)

I can't see any problem with a woman in her 40s having children as long as she has children for the right reason, just like anyone else.

My dad was 43 when I was born and it's very hard sometimes because we are two generations apart rather than just one iyswim?

Anyway, I'm waiting to be attacked here but I'll say hat I need to no offence meant.

I dont think it is a brilliant idea as such to wait that long to have children. Our bodies as woman are programmed to be most fertile when we are in our early twenties, and the risks of complications rise after 25...why? Becase our eggs start to be less productive and there is more risks of the child sufferring certain problems as the mother gets older (I.e downs)

now, in saying this, I do not have anything against older woman having children but at the same time I feel it can be a rather selfish decision to wait all those years and then start trying too late and either end up heartbroken or suffer years of torment on IVF. Those who conceive naturally are a slightly different aspect but I still feel that if you want children you should consider trying in your 30s and being reallistic about your age and health.

It's all different now because woman want a career and a stable background Themselves before children but the truth is there is never a perfect moment to have children...your house could always be slightly better and there could always be a bit more put by. We also crae to hve lived a life before children so we don't look back and think 'what if' but my OHs parents are now 45 and they're children are 24, 19 and 15. They go on beautiful holidays every year, go away on weekend breaks, have a gorgeous house and a great social life. They had their children and enjoyed their youth with them and now they are enjoyng the benefits of a grandchild whilst they are still able to run around the garden with them all day.

I'm really sorry of anyone is upset by my remark. If you have a baby after 40 don't take it as a personal attack, it's just my opinion x

If we decide to give Poppy a sibling, it will be when she is at school, meaning that both hubby & I will be both almost 40 (and that's if it happens right away). I do not think it is too old at all.
My parents were only 19 when they had me and are now 55 and 57, they are still young enough to be active grandparents but the way I see it is that they have had their children and much as my mum loves to spend time with our daughter, she is equally happy to hand her back and enjoy her life. My parents raised their own children, it is not their responsibility to raise mine. I accept that I will be an 'old' grandparent ( I hope Poppy waits to have children of her own) but in my opinion, that's how grandparents should be! A bit fairy story I suppose but my view and obviously not the same view as others.
And Mrs CP, definately better to wait till later and can support your child than have them young and have to rely on financial support to help raise them!
Not meant to cause arguements at all, just my view on things!
xx

Hi
Some of you may/may not know I have 5 children. All with the same man (my husband) we were 21 and 23 when we had our first 2. In my honest opinion wayyyyyyyyyyy too young ( for my life..not judging others) However, thats how it happened. OH developed cancer while I was preg with our 2nd and we nearly lost him to it. We were that we prob could not have anymore children. We got on with our lives but my career had taken a large dent has had my confindence in the work place. I was resentful that I could not go out with our friends as much as I would like and money was not in plentiful supply. Don't get me wrong, I loved my kids to pieces and I loved been their mum but, non of our friends had kids and I felt isolated and left out.

Totally by suprise we find out we were expecting number 3 when I was 34. That to me was a PERFECT age to have kids. I wish we had started our family at that age. Then we find number 4 on the way aged 35 and number 5 aged 37 (38 at delivery) IF i had not had five at that point I would have gone on to have more well into my 40's. My OH and I have money, time, patience and a whole wealth of experience to teach our kids. I find this time round feels more 'natural' to be their mum. I kept expecting someone to come and take the other 2 away and tell me off for playing 'mum' to them..lol

As for age been a factor in your health in pregnancy in my case I was worse when I was younger. I had a very rough time with my first 2. I was suffering eating disorders, tiredness (nightclubs etc) and a bit of a whild child existence until I fell preg. With my first I was seriously aneamic, she ended up breech and I was borderline diabetic. With my 2nd I was again seriously aneamic, did not gain enough weight and I ended up induced at 36 weeks as been outside was better for him than been inside (OH was at the time thought to be losing his battle for cancer and I was a mess) My 3rd I flew through pregnancy and had text book back to back birth to a huge 8lb 14 oz boy. My 4th also NO medical worries and I delivered a whopping 9lb 4 0z boy. My 5th I did have a messy pregnancy. I had placenta previa an d spent a lot of time on bed rest. This was more due to the amount of pregnancies than my age. I deliverd Amelia by EMCS at 35 weeks. She is now a healthy 2 yr old.

OH and I say that though we never thought we would do it all in our 20's and again in our late 30's we would NOT change it for the world. They keep us young, they keep us going, they keep us active.

As for the OP question.... well, NO I dont think 40 is too old I think the BE poll is not a shock tho. Most posters on here are 16 to 30 When I was that age I thought 40 was ancient. Now I think it is young!! lol

So long as you are under 50 and are healthy/active etc then at the end of the day its no one elses business. Both have pros/cons. So long as you are 'ready' no matter what age then that is all that counts surely????

[Modified by: dee dee on June 17, 2010 11:35 AM]



[Modified by: dee dee on June 17, 2010 11:40 AM]