2007-09-25 04:41:07 · 29 answers · asked by shellnpepe 5 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Other - Pregnancy & Parenting
No its not. Noone has the right to tell you not to have a child. It is considered high risk at that age. But if you are healthy gi for it! Good Luck!!
2007-09-25 04:52:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are only as old as you feel. If you are in good health and your doctor doesn't see a problem with it, then why not. You should be aware that there are some health risks for you and baby being at that age. But I will tell you this, my aunt had her baby @ 47....her first and only. The baby was born 3 months early, but he was still healthy and happy and it has now been 4 years later and he's here and there is absolutely nothing wrong with him. The only person who can really make this choice is you and your husband. Are you healthy enough? And are you ready to add this extra responsibility so late in the game? Good luck!! =)
2007-09-25 11:48:57 · answer #2 · answered by Heather B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, these are called Change of Life Babies. My step mom and father have a 2 year old... and my step mom was 45 when she got pregnant. It's a higher risk, and harder on the mom's body, not to mention going through all the phases over again, or just at a late age... but parenting is hard work no matter what, no matter the age either!
2007-09-25 11:45:10 · answer #3 · answered by Leigha S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all very well to be politically correct but I think that it is too old. Most people here are only talking about the pregnancy - that's only the start! Even if you can cope with the pregnancy and looking after a young baby, what about their teenage years? You will have virtually nothing in common with the child at that point, and they may have to look after you when they're in their 20's. It would be better if you had older children to support you, but I think that it's too old.
2007-09-25 11:49:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having a baby at 45 screams stupidity-- no one in their right mind should be having kids at that age. When that child get ready to graduate from high school you would be to old to remember their name. At 40 the kids should be moving out of your house and starting a life of their own, you should not be changing diapers unless they are you grandchildren even then there is no exception. I am 29 now I have a 8 and a 7 years old the day they move out of my house will be pure bliss.
2007-09-25 12:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, I can tell you that with age you take the chance of your baby getting down syndrome as well as other birth defects. As long as your in good health and the ob/gyn you see thinks you're a good candidate for having a healthy baby then why not. I started late myself. I was 36 when I began trying for a family after 2 miscarriages I finally had my son at 39. We both had complications they ended up doing an emergency c-section on me the epidural wasn't pleasant. I had a spinal headache and my son had deformed aortic heart valve so, he was live flown to another hospital 50 miles away from me as I was still at my area hospital. He had open heart surgery back in Feb. and has a clean bill of health. but with being 5 wks premie and me having gestational diabetes through my pregnancy. It's a gamble but, I was blessed to have him inspite of all that went with it. NOW being 40 soon to be 41 and him turning 1 at the end of Oct. he drains a lot of energy from me and he's just now beginning to crawl. Which they said with him being a 5 wk premie/heart surgery he'll be a little behind on his motor skills. So, that's something to think about if you end up going for it and having a special needs child can you cope with the emotional/financial aspects of having a child at your age. I joke that I'll be collecting social security when my kid hits half way through college. lol
2007-09-25 12:01:13 · answer #6 · answered by Detroiter1967is outa here! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not to give birth, but it's a bit selfish, and not much different from a teenager planning a pregnancy. Sure, you may have the energy to care for a newborn now, but what about the long haul? What happens when you're 50 and he's just barely in school? You may not have the energy to play with him and give him the attention he deserves. You'll be over 60 when he graduates high school! No offense, but I'd really think twice.
2007-09-25 11:51:54 · answer #7 · answered by SoBox 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not like old-old but one thing for sure is that you will have a little more complications on a late pregnancy.
--no offence
my mom had a baby at age 38 and she was healthy before getting preg. but during that pregnancy she had to watch her food more.
cuz there is more risks after age 35.
but in times there can be No compications.
so dont worry.
you can talk to your doctor about it.
2007-09-25 11:51:03 · answer #8 · answered by -->TeXas<-- 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not too old if your doctors OK it, but you ARE running a risk of increased birth defects, as well as a risk to your health. Talk to your doctor about this. If you're just considering having a baby, don't let your emotions trample your ability to reason and consider this carefully. This does not effect just your life.
2007-09-25 11:45:29 · answer #9 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
very old.. people don't understand that even though they may not feel as old as they are, your body isn't as good at carrying a baby at 35+ then it is if your 25+... women over 35 having their first put themselves in great risk and their babies and have a higher chance at miscarriages and birth defects.. but god bless all the pregnant mom's and babies on the way
2007-09-25 11:45:38 · answer #10 · answered by Geltrude 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋