do you think 48 or 49 is to old to be pregnant?


Denikka - posted on 07/18/2012




To have an accidental pregnancy, no. It happens.
To purposefully go out and get pregnant (usually by IVF), then yes. I absolutely do.
You think about it. When your kid graduates high school, you'll be almost 70. You aren't going to be able to do nearly as many things with your children as you'd like to.
Are you even going to be around for graduation? Wedding? Grandkids?
The chances of being around for grandkids is slim (children tend to follow in their parents footsteps) Even if your kid had kids at 25, you'd be almost 75. It would be more likely that you would get grandkids closer to 85. How much are you going to be able to do with them??

I personally think that it's unfair to the children to purposefully go out and get pregnant at an older age. 45 and over is my mindset. I understand that accidents happen, that's fine. But to actively try for a baby at that age, increasing risks of developmental problems, health problems, and all the other practical issues that go along with having a baby at an older age. . .it just seems selfish to me.
And to just about guarantee that your children will not have the benefits of having you around to see their achievements (as I said, graduation, wedding, children) and to help them with your experience, it does not sit well with me.
I understand that accidents can happen even to younger parents. But going in, knowing that more likely than not, you won't be around for your kids lives, is just not right to me.

I know it's already been a fairly long post, but I'd like to share a story.
I was raised by my grandmother. Long story behind that one, but basically from birth to the age of 6, it was 50/50 between my mom and my grandparents. At 6, I went to live with my grandparents full time. My grandmother was 64 at that time. My grandfather was 60.
I spent a large portion of my childhood coming to grips with their mortality. I spent many nights, unable to sleep, because I wasn't entirely sure if they would wake up. The rare mornings that I woke up first and didn't hear them in the kitchen, I panicked and ran to check on them. The few times I came home from school and my grandmother wasn't immediately in sight or didn't answer my call, I panicked.
I never knew if I would find them dead or close to it.
A child shouldn't have to deal with that. Even now, at 23, I have days when I panic a bit because I don't currently have a home phone. If anything happened to them, no one would be able to reach me. I worry when I do call and no one answers. I worry about them a lot. My grandma is now 81, my grandpa is 77. I feel a lot of pressure to get married soon just because I don't know if they're going to be around next year.
Last year I moved 16 hours away and I feel so bad about not being able to go visit for holidays because I don't know if it's going to be their last one or if they'll have another year. It's hard. It's painful. And I would never wish it on any child. I could not in good conscience have a child at 45 or older.
Just my honest opinion.

Johnny - posted on 07/18/2012




Yes and no. I do know two women who had healthy pregnancies and healthy children at the ages of 47 and 48. Both were surprises years after their husband's vasectomies. In the case of the 47 year old, she'd also had her tubes tied when she was 35. One was a friend of my mother and one volunteered with my mother. If this sort of thing happened to me, I would carry out the pregnancy, very carefully.

However, I think the health risks for the mother and the child are actually quite significant at that age, and it would certainly not be a choice I would make on purpose. If I still wanted to have a child at that age, I would most definitely adopt. I would not be comfortable with putting a child's health at such greater risk nor potentially leaving my children motherless and my husband to raise them alone.

I am 35 and pregnant now. It has been significantly more challenging than it was when I was 30 in terms of being tired. Although that might be because I have a 4 year old running around and I'm working in a more intense job. My health has actually been better this time, I've had less negative pregnancy symptoms, and my blood pressure is better. All the genetic testing has come back negative as well. But we'll have to see how it goes in labor.... I really can't imagine trying to go through this in another 15 years. Eek.


View replies by

Felicia - posted on 07/25/2012




Do you! My personal cutoff is 45. I had my first and only at 37, pregnant at 36. My child is now 5, will be 6 in December. But if you are blessed at whatever age, run with it. You and your doctor can determine you health status and risks. As for what other people think and how old someone is when they have their child, or how old you will be when the child will be when he graduates high school; that is something you think about, for about a brief minute, but I really do not CARE about all of that, nor do I have time to worry about all that. That is minor stuff and if someone mistakes a parent for a grand, no reflection on you, people should think before they speak anyway. There are other ways to ask or confirm a parent/grand if one is curious or confused.

I am glad of the age I had my child, he was designed for me and designed for the kind of parental foundation I wanted. Things do not always go as planned in life, there are always challenges but some you can plan around some; however, you roll with the punches.

I will say that at 36/37 when I had my son: 1. I was a fully grown woman, 2. I was emotionally stable 3. I had completed school (3 degrees). 4. I owned my own home. These are things I wanted for me and mine.

In short, my parents had me at 19/20 and I therefore wanted to have the chance to grow up by myself, LIVE LIFE and not go through that typical 'struggle.'

I understand technically that at 42 some of my peers are grandparents, which means I could be too if I had had kids at 19 or 20. That is weird to me. I am quick to say, oh no, not me, my child is young! (smile).

To the IVF poster; I know IVF is an option, but it is costly. Most people that I know, and I know that is a small sample, but most common folks do not get IVF; they can and do get pregnant by good old biology. Most of us are just fertile.

My point; to each his own, we all have our own plans, desires, and paths. I am secure in myself, and can live my life without being worried about someone's opinion. Plus, I generally am mistaken for 10 years less than my actual age :).

We all know that pregnacy, birth, new baby are prime times when those close to us and sometimes strangers, elicit unsolicited opinions and all these values and judgments come into play.

Support your friend and let her decide what is best for HER.

Stacey - posted on 07/18/2012




I myself think it is a high risk i was just asking so a friend of mine could see the responces and not think i was just saying this to her i already have 4 beautiful children and a grandson but feel at the age of 48 it would be a health concern for sure thanks for all your comments though now i just hope she reads them all.

[deleted account]

generally yes, but there are always exceptions. i think that at 48 or 49 there is a high risk of having complications and birth defects and developmental disorders in the baby. also the mother would probably be extremely tired and would probably take a long time to recover from pregnancy and childbirth. plus. if you're nearly 50 when the kid is born, you'll be nearly 70 when they graduated high school and do you really want everyone confusing you as the grandmother all the time

Jodi - posted on 07/18/2012




*shudders at the thought of being pregnant at 48 or 49*
Honestly, 36 was old enough for me. I couldn't imagine being pregnant in my late 40s. But hey, it's up to you.

Judy - posted on 07/18/2012




I'm 52 and pregnant. I think if someone WANTS to do it, they can. It's high risk and consuming - but it's do-able - at least for me so far.

MeMe---(Past And Present) - posted on 07/18/2012




Too old for me but that doesn't mean it is too old for someone else. However, I agree with the others, here. Health wise, probably not the best purposeful choice. If it were to accidentally happen, well then you would need to carry through with great care.

I am currently 36 and pregnant. I always have great pregnancies but not great labours. I have had to have a c-section each time thus far and will with this one, as well. Not something you want to keep doing as you age and definitely not at an age close to 50. This will be my last, I am getting my tubes tied during this c-section. Unless of course, I end up like Johnny's Mom's friend! EEEKKK

Oh and for me, anyhow, I am beginning to look forward to the day when it is just me and my husband! LOL We have at least 20yrs more to go, I wouldn't want to start over again at age 48. **shakes head vigorously** ;)

Sarah - posted on 07/18/2012




I would worry about the health of Mom and babe with the pregnancy, especially with a marked increase of chromosomal disorders as a mother ages, but certainly it has been done before. I would also worry about the child as it grows as possibly being very young when the parent is aging or passing away. IMO, teenagers shouldn't have to worry about their parents ill health - not that all people in their 60s or 70s have ill health, but most I know are.

Elfrieda - posted on 07/18/2012




I think it's old to pregnant, for sure. But if it happens, maybe that person's body can handle it. You'd just have to be careful.

Sherri - posted on 07/18/2012




I just had my 4th and last at 40. I can't imagine having one at 48 or 49. No way my body could handle it, this pregnancy was extremely hard on my body due to my advanced maternal age.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms