# IVF Treatments for Older Women: Should there be an age Limit?



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

*IVF Treatments for Older Women: Should there be an age Limit?*

Due to the recent discussions in the media regarding IVF and age limits, I thought it would be interesting to hear your views on this.

As usual in the press, many of those responding to their articles appear to have not suffered infertility and so may share different views to those on this site.

So please take a moment to cast your vote above, and feel free to post your considered thoughts.


----------



## ♥AngelBumps♥ (Jan 19, 2008)

Yes, I think it should be older. You can try all your life for your dream of becoming a parent. This country is sexist AND ageist: expecting women to stop having kids at 40 when our periods CLEARLY don't stop until at least 10 years later in most cases! 51+ is the average age for the ONSET of menopause.

What's the difference in a 16 year old becoming a parent to a 56 year old...? *Money.* One we pay for the other we don't. IVF doesn't discriminate, neither should we.

I voted 45+


----------



## three_stars (Jan 19, 2006)

Whereas it may be understandable that the NHS can place an age limit  (even if I believe they should NOT), it is unacceptable that an age limit be in place in private clinics.  Everyone is different, ages differently and has individual situations.  I believe in almost all cases the IVF patient will make this choice based on her own circumstances and make the best decision for herself and family.  For the few cases that might make a bad choice to have children too late, putting an upper age limit would exclude too many women that should not be. Or put much unnecessary stress on someone that has been doing IVF already and has to "hurry up" her tx or using her frosties before hitting that age limit.


----------



## veballan (Feb 1, 2006)

Tony 

Thanks for posting this poll. Just a few thoughts it is always difficult to say that age must be a limit. There are some very healthy 50 year olds and some very unhealthy 20 year olds. It’s down to genetics, health, lifestyle and the help you receive. 


I guess traditionally it would be when one partner could no longer biologically reproduce but I guess we are way past that now with IVF and donor/eggs/sperm. I certainly suffered such prejudice at the hands of our first GP and consultant. Basically they told me I was too old to be successful through IVF, it was just before my 39th birthday, I was completely devastated but we did not give up. 
I guess there are a lot of people out there who believe that if you can't manage it naturally you should just give up but I agree most of those have never experienced the heartbreak of desire and journey that nearly everyone on FF goes through. 
From my own perspective having just had 2 children by DIUI in my early 40's both with uncomplicated pregnancies I am one of the lucky few. Even my mum thought that I shouldn't try for a second child as i was 'too old' even thought my Gran had her when she was 40 and my mum is now in her 70's.
Believe me I count my blessings every day for my little gifts who are mummy's little late lambs and they are so cherished as I believe the majority of children are when they are wanted so much.
I personally believe it should come done to capability first to conceive and carry safely through whatever means ethically available and secondly the ability to love and care for the child that is to be born. 

I suppose we must consider why people pick on age and why not those our society considers perhaps too stupid, too poor, too fat, too thin, or those that smoke, just to cite a few examples, from ever having children. These are equally targetable issues and can have a negative impact on a childs life. Should we all have to be under 9 stone, sit an IQ test and be means tested? Also why is there always such outrage when an older woman bears a child, not so much when it’s a man. A man's advancing age also has issues for conception and the production of healthy children but these issues never appear to get highlighted the same way as women’s.

There will always be a limited number of women who want children when they are older and who will attract such negative publicity because we live in a society is slanted towards age and beauty. But we should support them in their considered choice because after provided the child can be given a loving secure environment it should be THEIR choice and no one elses. Lets continue to lobby for the good that such advances in science have brought for the majority of childless couples, who without it would have been entirely without hope. 

As always best wishes to everyone on FF.

Veballan

PS Just read the 2 posts already by b123 and AngelBumps and agree entirely guys!


----------



## KatieKat (Aug 1, 2007)

It should definitely be higher than it is both at some private clinics and on the NHS, we are all individuals and  age mentally and physically at different rates and it is more appropriate to make a proper clinical decision and not just look at one number (and indeed to be careful with AMH, FSH etc - the real proof is how you respond and how good the embryos are). 

We started trying for a baby when I was 39 and first saw the GP just before my 40th. I had two treatments at Kings who refused me treatment after the second cycle only resulted in two embryos despite yielding 12 eggs most of which were immature (all my embryos were beautiful). They tried to suggest this was my age. Since then I have had two more cycles both of which resulted in pregnancies, plenty of embryos, made blastocyst with two good enough from freezing the first time and had one natural pregnancy this year after the NHS kindly cleared my tubes. Unfortunately all my pregnancies ended in miscarriage but we have discovered I have a minor clotting problem and raised killer cells as well as a possible thyroid issue which pops up when I'm pregnant. The opinion from the consultants including my NHS consultant (so not just after money before anyone else says that!) is that I still have a good chance of success. I am not intending to go down the donor egg route but I know that I certainly still have plenty of energy and the ability to give a child a great upbringing despite being 45 next year so I think the limit should probably be at least 50+ and maybe 55 (ask me when I'm 5 years older) for donor egg ladies.

I agree with the comments above, especially about it being sexist as most people rarely question an older father and love veballan's comment. It scares me that we can live in a society where it's ok to drink / smoke / eat your self to death and expect quality treatment but we can't look at older women as fertile individuals.


----------



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Interesting points.

One thing I notice isn't mentioned is about the child's future. I'd like to play devils advocate for a minute.

The ages of the women in the recent cases which have sprung up appear to be around 60. This would open up the possibility that the child's parents may die with old age before the child is out of its teens. So if anything, this is what would prevent me from voting for 60+

Obviously another factor to consider is question is the possibility of birth defects.... The increased chances of Downs Syndrome etc.

The likelihood of having a baby born with Down's syndrome increases with the mother's age:

35 years - 1 in 350
40 years - 1 in 100
45 years - 1 in 30

* Please note these are approximate figures and that maternal age is taken by convention to refer to age at estimated or actual delivery of the baby. Also note that the risk of conceiving a baby with Down's syndrome is higher than the above figures but many are lost early in the pregnancy through spontaneous miscarriage. 

So I'm not sure that comments about this being entirely due to sexism/ageism are entirely valid.

I hope I haven't upset anyone.


----------



## sanielle (Dec 29, 2009)

As many people on this website have noted the media does portray many women as having put children off until too late. I realize that is the not usually the case, but I do believe there should be an upper limit and that women who have been on telly recently at 60 plus HAVE left it too late. I don't think it is fair for a child or a teenager to be a carer for a parent.


----------



## jo_11 (Apr 1, 2009)

Tony,

Re risk of Down's, surely the higher age limit debate is in relation to donor eggs, so this would not apply.  In terms of whether a 60 year old would be around to care for the child as it grows up, why not?  60 is still young in today's terms.  Just because a 20 year old has a child, doesn't mean she won't get knocked down by a bus tomorrow.  There are, unfortunately, no guarantees in this life.  My father was 55 years old when I was born, is this too old?  Was I restricted as a child?  Did I act as carer to him?  No, no, no.  I loved, adored, and respected him.  And he lived to a healthy 86 years of age.  

Jo


----------



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Actually that is a very good point re: Downs. I apologise for not thinking that out clearly 

I have no problem at all with older parents, a few of my friends had older parents.... I'm not sure if they were planned pregnancies or not.  My personal view is that it is inappropriate to use science to bring about a childs life at such a late stage in the parents life. 

But that is just my view - and again, I apologise if I have upset anyone.


----------



## rosie1K (Aug 19, 2009)

Actually you have upset me, 
I find myself in a situation that I now feel I can become a parent responsilbly, During my 30's I was greiving for several close family members who died traumatically and had trouble with relationships as a consequence of severe depression. I have always been desperate for a family but believe in the family unit and did not want to be a single parent (these are my feelings but realise there are others for whom this is a good option!) I am now 46 and 2 years ago I found a lovely man and became pregnant very quickly but sadly lost the baby at 12 weeks. I have attempted IVF and failed and am now going for DE in a few weeks. I am quiet saddened that you feel you have to run this vote and state those comments, It is sad to see large numbers voting for 45+ as being too old and I hope they have done this without actually thinking. I am fit and healthy and cannot see why I should have to lose out on my chance in life because I didi not meet the man who I want to be the father of my children until now. I hope you are never in a situation where you have to be "different" and if you are then people do not judge you!


----------



## ♥JJ1♥ (Feb 11, 2006)

I started TTC and treatment when I was 37 but as I have got older, now 41+ I can see the age limit bar shifting higher in my mind as to when I think it is acceptable for me to carry on, and I guess money is a factor.

With the Downs and miscarriage agruments it depends on the age of the donor as well, and I knew a lady who had a baby with Downs at 19.


----------



## ♥AngelBumps♥ (Jan 19, 2008)

I know many people who have lost parents and BOTH parents at that, in their early twenties. The really, truly remarkable thing about life is that you just don't know what's around the corner... life? Death? It's not as easy as saying the reason these people shouldn't have children is they 'might die' - there's no 'might' about it, we're ALL going to die! Nobody sits down in their 20's and decides NOT to have children cos they think they might only be around for another 20 years, so why should someone who is 50, or even 60?

I'm 38, nearly 39. My risk of downs 'on paper' was 1 in 250, my tests came back as 1 in 4,300! I took positive action and I've been sensible with my Zinc and Folic intake amongst others. My results were better than someone half my age.

The 'media' would think I'm 'one of those' who left it too late! 20 years of not being pregnant down to a negligent GP is not what I'd call leaving it too late. You have to meet the right person and then go through what can be years of treatment. If I went to some clinics now I'd be refused treatment. How misinformed is that?

IVF is getting better and better results, so someone who tried 20 years ago and gave up, could try now and have far better odds.


----------



## rosie1K (Aug 19, 2009)

Hi Socialchameleon, In my job I see many women of pensionalble age rearing children because their children or even their grandchildren have had children too young and cannot be bothered to look after them. 

B123 thank you , you said what I was trying to say but much more eloquently , hope the kitchen is not completely trashed!

Angle bumps you make a good point about not knowing our destiny and if we thought about what might happen all the time we may end up doing nothing.


----------



## Diane72 (Oct 29, 2007)

It is now possible to genetically screen embryos before transfer via CGH so I think the down syndrome issue becomes irrelevant as it can be screened out and if someone is not producing 'CGH normal' embryos (which will take it into account chromosomal issues from both the male and female if done on the embryo) they may use donor eggs (or donor sperm depending where the isssue lies). 
Therefore I do think with technology alot of the biological issues disappear and it is more about the welfare of the child. 

In my mind I reasoned that one would ideally have their parents (mother and/or father) until they are 20. Based on this I voted 50 plus but probably actually think 55 as a threshold guidance (but it wasn't an option) but would retain flexibility as there will be great variance in health and /or one partner may be much younger (male or female). 

After 5 miscarriages I don't think I left it 'too late' as we started our journey trying to conceive at 30 and I would hate to think someone said that even if we were still producing genetically healthy embryos (defined by CGH) that if a new immune treatment was launched in 3 years time that people would say I was 'too old' to try it.


----------



## rosie1K (Aug 19, 2009)

Well that is a very strong opinion for someone who has no idea what life events may throw at them and where they may be aged 50 +


----------



## shortie66 (Feb 6, 2008)

I voted 50+  

I was 38 when i started trying, met my dh late in life as was a carer for both my dad and mom, my mom had me when she 40.  By the time i had gone through the waiting, faffing around, being misdiagnosed with the nhs i was 40 and too old for ivf on the nhs.  Have paid for 2 treatments privately but very poor responder, now going for a donor cycle in reprofit in about 10 weeks.


----------



## Han72 (Feb 15, 2007)

Hi all

B123 - sorry you're gonna be lumbered with clearing up but I did    at the twins little kitchen experiment, bless 'em!

SocialChameleon - With all due respect, I have a sneaking suspicion that you might see things differently if you were looking at them from the other side of 30...

I voted no.  In a perfect world, where we'd no longer suspect that some doctors are simply trying to protect their stats or others trying to make money from people who aren't suitable for treatment then we'd be able to trust the experts to make the decision to treat or not.  That's not to say that age should never be taken into consideration but, as others have said, I feel it should be based on individual circumstances/medical history and not on statistics put together by some faceless civil servant who knows NOTHING about fertility treatment... 

Love and luck to all!

xxx

PS  - Wotcha Katie!


----------



## Diane72 (Oct 29, 2007)

P.S. I checked 'Life Expectancy' stats. See bottom of post. 

So times have changed when it comes to how long we live and therefore how long we can expect to have reasonable health for 'child-rearing' and it continues to rise. 

Interestingly, if we were to take the 45 cut-off that many people have said on here and calculate remaining average 'life years' and apply it to the turn of the century (1900s obviously!) life expectancy, no-one would be allowed to try for kids after the age of 13!!! 

(average life expectancy now of '81' minus 45 years= 36 years; average life expectancy at turn of century of '49' minus 36 years = 13 years)

--------------------------------
Life expectancy

Life expectancy for both men and women has continued to rise. In 2002, life expectancy at birth for females born in the UK was 81 years, compared with 76 years for males. This contrasts with 49 and 45 years respectively at the turn of the last century in 1901.

In recent years, the increase in life expectancy among older adults has been dramatic, particularly for men. Between 1981 and 2002, life expectancy at age 50 increased by four and a half years for men and three years for women. For those aged 65 and over the extra years of life were three years and two years respectively. By 2002, women who were aged 65 could expect to live to the age of 84, while men could expect to live to the age of 81. 

Projections suggest that life expectancies at these older ages will increase by a further three years or so by 2020. The expectation of life for people at 70 and 80 has also gone up. At present there are more older people aged 70 and 80 than ever before.


----------



## Rural Chick (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed to see how many have voted for 45+. Perhaps we could have another poll please Tony which asks should there be an age limit to the men involved in an IVF treatment - and I bet the votes are for an older age. I voted unsure as I think age by itself should not be the only consideration. I know a lot of exceptionally healthy 50 year olds who have far more energy and a better lifestyle than some of the 16 year olds I teach!!! As someone who will be 43 when we have our first child, I am very much hopeful that we will be able to have a sibling for them. This means I will be 44 when I have tx and 45 when they are born if the tx works first time again. If not, should we be stopped from having another go at having another child just because I'm a few months older? 
My grandmother was born when her mother was 47 in 1916 and I'm pretty confident that no tx was involved there.   She lived to a good age and was able to be there for my grandmother into her late twenties, by which time my grandmother had had her own children. My grandfather's mother was 35 when she had him and died when he was 4 so he had to be brought up by his aunt. My nephew's Mum, my sister in law, died at the age of 29 with MS when my nephew was 2. She knew she had MS and knew that getting pregnant could hasten her demise, and sadly it did. So we don't know what the future brings, and as many of us now live to a good age, we can hopefully be around for our children for long enough to look after them.


----------



## Mrs ABA (May 17, 2009)

My grandma gave birth to my mother at 45 years of age in 1945.  My other grandma gave birth at 40 to my aunt in the 50s.  Both fantastic mums and grandmas. For some reason it seems to be more difficult for our generation and we need all the help we can get.  Good luck to all determined enough to go through with it.  Don't ever give up easily on your dreams.
A
x


----------



## shortie66 (Feb 6, 2008)

Here Here b123


----------



## vicky r (Feb 6, 2006)

I'm an older mum - 1st at 43 by IVF second at 44 naturally and also the daughter of an older mother - she was 41 when she had me.  AS a child people always thought that she was my grandmother which wasn't fun and generationally she was born in 1922 and the world was such a different place - I was born in 1963 that she isn't someone I could/want to talk to about delicate personal issues because her life experience is so different.  I hope to be a younger mother despite my age to my boys than my mum was to me.  Being a mum to young children is exhausting and moreso the older you get.  However fit you are just remember how different it felt being 10 years younger.  I think every situation is different but personally I can't say yes to it being okay for women 55+ having babies.  I think of watching my parents and their peers and now friends going through their 40s and 50s and 60s and seeing for so many what a steep decline happens in one's sixties.  I know that I will be 70, if I am lucky and live that long despite their being good longevity in my family, when my youngest is 26 - right now that feels old!  I didn't meet my husband till I was 39 and we started trying pretty quickly - there was no delay for work reasons.  I think emotionally I am a much better mother than I would have been in my 20's but that doesn't mean other people aren't fantastic mothers in their 20s but I do think there needs to be a limit somewhere for many reasons.


----------



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Thanks everyone.

I think I'll lock the vote now as we have two obvious leaders in the results.

I'll leave the topic open for further discussion.... and for the record - I voted 50, but please remember its just my opinion... which of course we are all entitled to have.


----------



## pinkbabe (Sep 25, 2009)

Hi to everyone,

it does not make any difference what so ever, what the age of the female or the male is when the time is right for them to yearn for a child. There are a million reasons why we all arrive at the start of this long journey, and no one should ever give up on their dream. Whether it be trying IVF etc using own eggs/sperm or donor, or whether the end result is fostering/ adoption, the pot of gold will always be at the end of your rainbow.

Good luck to everyone, and chase your dreams as far as you possibly can!    x


----------



## roze (Mar 20, 2004)

I'm all for free speech and yes people have the right to their opinion but have to say even just seeing this poll filled me with dread so had to pluck up courage to read it. 

I have my own views that everyone is an individual and anyone considering conception ought to ask themselves whether they have a realistic chance of seeing their child into independent adulthood, and also whether they can cope with a baby and toddler, and also a teenager in their later years. The next series of questions ought to deal with personal health and well being- some aspects of which are age related, some not- ie are you/they /their bodies capable of having a healthy pregnancy and birth? The menopause is not just a life event, it can signify bone density loss and other problems- and the menopause can occur at various ages as we have seen on this website- women in their 20s 30s have experienced this whilst women in their 50s are still fertile. My point is therefore that age itself is not the question that should be asked- the others are more pertinent and relevant .  As is evident from even this poll, people do have ideas about age and ageing according to their own life stage - 50 may seem very old for someone who is in their 20s but when you get near this it doesn't at all.  I had my children at 46 and 48 years of age- few problems throughout but I am aware that many people think us 40 somethings are ancient and ought to be put out to grass and the idea of us having sex ( god forbid), having tx, giving birth and breastfeeding in public can be too much for some people to bear.  Personally I expect to live into my 80s hence consider 50 fairly young, especially as I do not smoke or drink to excess- a lot of problems are caused by lifestyle and its when you do get older that the body begins to show the wear and tear of this excess.

Most clinics abroad I have come across proceed with caution in women over 50 for health and insurance reasons. I am not sure whether their role is to /should be to consider the welfare of the child as they do not have adequate information on which to base that decision in many cases- do they do that for younger women ie look at their ability to bring up a child, do a CRB check, etc?

When I had my first child as I was being sewn up after my c section the theatre nurse asked me why I had ' left it so late to have a baby'. I wish some expletives had sprung to mind as on reflection I was much too polite to her in my response. How long did she have to listen, assuming that it was of course any of her business . In fact I have been trying to start a family since my 30s and only when I came into some money in my 40s could I consider exploring private treatment. At £100 per shot for a consultation the costs were beyond my reach, let alone the £3-5k required for IVF each time. As anyone who knows me on here knows, I have spent over a decade trying in total to start a family, but only 6 years or so with any considered effort for financial reasons. It was only in the last two years or so that treatment actually worked- when I was older. I do wonder what that alone says about the situation- a fatalist would say that this was intended to be ' my time' to be a mother, not in my early 40s or 30s, and it was only at 46 that my body was ready to conceive.

Unfortunately as someone has said, its good to discuss these issues but I feel its inappropriate for anyone to sit in judgement about others and impose age limits in this way. I hope those who smugly do  so manage to get what they want in a timely fashion, and not like some of us have to wait a decade, spend thousands, and have to endure countless treatments at home and abroad before having the family of our dreams.  That is for most of us the circumstances of ' late in life' parents, not this 'wake-up-one-morning- at -60 - and want- to-have a baby ' notion.


roze


----------



## jo_11 (Apr 1, 2009)

Hear hear Roze    

Great story and you put it all so succinctly.  

x


----------



## Lilyflower (Nov 16, 2005)

i vote 45+, i echo that if the individual is fit and healthy etc then why should they be judged, i do however on the flip side think there is a line 2 be drawn and the stories you hear of women in 60's and 70's or older having ivf is going across that line. But in the 40's...well its ridiculous thinking a woman that age cant have children    I would write more and more in depth on this subject but baby is waking up  

xxxx


----------



## pinkbabe (Sep 25, 2009)

Once again, here here Roze!

There has just been a couple on this morning Tv programme who had been trying for 25 years to become parents. After spending a wopping £100,000, they have 3 weeks ago become blessed with twin boys! She is 46yrs and he is 56yrs.......... Arrrrrrh, marvelous news! x


----------



## rosie1K (Aug 19, 2009)

Hi Lilyflower,
If you voted 45+ did you realise you are voting that aged 45 is too old??


----------



## ♥AngelBumps♥ (Jan 19, 2008)

I think the vote can be misconstrued. I voted 45_*+*_. with the emphasis on _*PLUS!*_
I think the fact that there isn't a poll on male age quite frankly says it all. However, we must take into account that the few seconds it can take a man to help make a baby is nothing compared to the 9 months a woman's body has to go through. On this basis, I would simply not vote for an age at all, rather how fit and healthy the person actually is...
x


----------



## Junnie (May 17, 2008)

Well, I am a younger person *29 years old just turned* and I would say that there needs to be an upper and lower age limit for IVF. Personally I think the recent story of the 60 some odd woman is crazy! 

Like pointed out there are various other elderly health risks that come along with getting old not to mention throwing a pregnancy in there for good measure. You are at high risk for a lot more complications as you age your skin thins out blood less likely to clot etc and what if you needed an emerg C-section or even a planned one... there is greater chances that you may not pull through.
The argument of it being "not socially responsible" well i see 2 cards here.. Its easy to point out examples of woman over 40 getting pregnant and it being hunky dory my aunt was 47 (it was natural). And there is lots of examples of 20-30 year olds getting killed crossing the street but lets face facts...

Being 60 and having a child you are upping your chances of something bad happening.. no different then being 20 and  not looking before you crossing the street. I think 45 is still youn my mother is only 47 she had me at 18. Frankly I couldn't see her at her age having another child the logistics with some natural health issues would just make it brutal.  

I voted for 45+ and i feel the PLUS is more where I am aiming. A man can be a father at any age I know its unfair but its true. For a woman I PERSONALLY think its different. At the end of a day we wouldn't give a liver transplant to someone in a high risk catagory and i Feel the same for IVF.


----------



## Be Lucky (Mar 22, 2008)

Vickyr.u mirror my story so much!dad born in 1922.mum 1927 and me 1965.they still alive but wer v old-fashioned.remember mum arrangin nuns at my school 2 give me a girls growin up book wrapped in brown paper but no1 discussed it with me.sad.plan 2 b different with my son who i had at 44.rosie agree withu.im thinkin of havin another child but difficult pregnancy and lack of space main considerations not age!bx


----------



## Leaf (May 21, 2007)

The trouble with these categories is that they don't cater for the differences in individual situations. It is possible, though rare, for people to conceive naturally between 45 and 50. Friends of mine have done so. That being the case, I think it's ok to use science to assist in this process up to 48 or 50, especially using donor eggs that reduce the chance of Down's syndrome. 

Personally I wouldn't want to do it any older than I am now, but the fertility journey has taken much longer than we expected and this has been my last-gasp attempt. I also come from a family of women who live to 100 and I am very fit. On the other hand, the woman next door to me is fat and unhealthy and looks 20 years older than me but is 10 years younger. Her doctor has warned her that she's in danger of an early death. So I don't think she would be a very good candidate.

I think it's up to the individual to decide what they can cope with. I wouldn't want to have a child in my fifties, definitely not, and I don't suppose many women would, but I wouldn't judge someone who did without knowing their individual circumstances and what arrangements, financial and practical, they had made for taking care of the child should they die. But parents can die unexpectedly and prematurely anyway, unfortunately.

x Leaf


----------



## SuzanneM (Sep 16, 2009)

*I know this topic is old, but I thought I would answer any way!*

*As horrible as it is to admit it, I feel that 40 and perhaps a bit further - 45, should be the limit. I think of the child being born here. It is so wrong for older people to bring children into this life when our natural span of life is limited as it is!*

*I am going to be 41 soon and I recognise that I am going to have to give this dream up once I reach 45.*

*I actually do not even agree with conceiving naturally at this age. Again, parents are not thinking about the child but themselves! So there should also be a limit on natural birth ages. Just because our bodies say we can, does not mean we have the right!*


----------



## roze (Mar 20, 2004)

I know we have free speech in this country but I have to say I find the last posters view obnoxious and extremely judgemental so I really hope we never cross paths.So I am doing it for myself am I?  What are you doing it for- world peace?  

Fast going off this website I have to say if they are now encouraging this discussion which seems now want to enourage lambasting people for their choices which I consider unnecessary overkill,  as so many people have benefitted from the experience of older women on this board- incidentally I have been trying since I was Suzannes age and before.  

roze


----------



## jo_11 (Apr 1, 2009)

Roze:  I'm glad you posted... I read the previous poster's comments the other day and didn't, but the words haven't left me.  As far as I'm concerned, it's every woman's right to have a child.  And as I've posted previously, my father was 55 when I was born.  Did that make him a bad dad?  No?  Did I suffer?  No?  I was lucky enough to have him around until I was 31 and he enriched my life beyond belief.  And hey, without him, I wouldn't be here.  It's all individual choice though.  If Suzanne thinks she's over the hill at 41-45 then fair enough.  I find it offensive to push those views onto others though.  I'm 41 and I feel exactly the same as I did in my 20s; same weight, same energy, and same positive outlook on life.  And Roze, fair play to you, I applaud you.  xxx


----------



## catfan (Jan 30, 2007)

Suzanne expressed herview perfectly politley -Roze your response was unnecessarily aggressive.child welfare is involved in this issue so of course the website should debate the issue. of course no one has xhildren for world peace but the point that was being made is that on e considers the welfare of the child as well as one's own desires. The chances of death do increase with age and so does the chance of infirmity, even if one lives ahealthy life.personallyi think 50 52ish is about right because that mirrors the natural limit for conception (at  its outer limits).\


----------



## vicky r (Feb 6, 2006)

To me what is interesting is how we feel at different ages!  Roze was obviously very upset by the post which I understand - I was irritated by it to but as has been said this is about 'Our Views'.  At 40 I felt ancient.  At 47 40 seems like such a young age!  I have mates of 60 who think of me as a kid!  All to do with how we feel at different ages.  I know that as a mother of 2 very young children who don't sleep through - they wake and yell out and go back to sleep easily but I don't that I am exhausted after 4 years of broken nights.  I wouldn't have another child now because I am so tired but if I had started younger then that might have been different.  I agree with Catfan that 50/52ish seems about right as that mirrors the natural limit for conception at outer limits. 
AND who are any of us to deny anyone else the right to the miracle that is parenthood should they be so lucky.........


----------



## L_ouise (Sep 23, 2010)

I kind of feel that by the time someone hits retirement, that they shouldn't have any dependants.

So that kind of puts the limit at 40-45.

Plus, by the time someone reaches 40 the chance of IVF working is slim and the change of miscarrying a successful IVF is high so to encourage them to spend lots of money on private treatment seems cruel when they would probably be better off drawing the line so they can move onto another option and have the money to make the most of it.

I definately think that a line should be drawn somewhere for the child's sake.

I guess that if someone has been trying for several years to have assisted conception and failing, that it would be cruel to suddenly stop because they had a birthday so i guess that would be my exception.


----------



## Be Lucky (Mar 22, 2008)

Life is not so black and white tgh.i had bad anxiety illness when younger and wldnt have been right to bring a child into that.spent years and loads of money trying to conceive.then naturally at 43.5yrs conceived our beautiful son.ppl think i look 37 tgh so mite b lookin younger!but the norm is havin babies in 30s now so a 25yr old can feel like an outsider2!but there is a degree of selfishness as matthew will b an only child.had preeclampsia and some symptoms lady mentioned.but my sister 34 when she had child and had preclampsia too.


----------

