When is the best age to have your first baby?

Because I was 23 when I had my first baby I think that is a good age. I had a second one at 24 and a gap and then my third baby at 30.

I was wondering about the dads.

My DH was not a good dad when the first two were born. He was 25 and 26.

He couldn't seem to settle to it and was frequently away on courses for work. The worst time was when we had a 6 week old baby and a toddler of 18 months and he went away for a week.

We discussed it in later years and of course he could have delayed the course but it never occurred to him at the time.

At 30 and 32 we were much better parents but I'm not sure if that was because of our ages or because of experience.

? Puzzled ?

Oh FGS anno.

It's a bit late for any of us on here. I would have thought.

Zero is a good age, anything over 3 years old will bring a tear to your eye.

Sorry- I had no idea it was old- I never read dates. Perhaps it could be deleted?

I can see why anno perhaps a word to Those Upstairs?

I agree, I see it was spam which resurrected it. Perhaps the other genuine posters would like to start a new thread?

For personal reasons I wish this thread had been allowed to remain dormant. Sorry.

I had mine at 20, 25 and 31 and retrospectively 20 was too young. Ex DH and I had many financial struggles and the marriage didn't last. It wasn't all because of an early baby obviously, but the financial pressures of me not working -you didn't in those days - were an added difficulty.

Both dd's had theirs in early/mid 30's, one after 4 years of fertility issues, and they're both singletons- one by choice - and it's just never happened again for dd2. My DIL has had one baby at 36 who was conceived using IVF (also after 4 years of fertility issues) and has just had no 2 aged 38 after a surprise normal conception following her IVF pregnancy. Just 20 months between the boys.

It's not so much the apparent rise in c sections that concerns me as the increase in fertility issues. Is it an increase or do we just hear more about it? Dd2 starting trying at 26 so it certainly wasn't age related with her.

I was 29yrs which was about right for me- before about 26yrs would have been too early.
i can see that you wouldn't want to risk it, because you don't know, but my fertility didn't drop off later and I got pregnant first try at 38 and 40yrs.
I have never felt an older mother because it is so common to have a baby at that stage of life now.
I don't know how anyone can afford it late teens or early 20s- not with tuition fees, price of houses/rents, unless the have a partner who is much older and established, or inherited money. It will also stop them getting on the career ladder.

Reported! [sigh]

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I had my first DD at almost 25 and DD2 2 years later. We had been trying for a couple of years before I got pregnant and had an appointment at the sub fertility clinic when I decided that I might be pregnant. I went to the family planning clinic who did a pregnancy test for me. That was the first week of September and she was born at the end of February! I got pregnant with second DD2 whilst fitted with a coil!
As my mum and MiL had babies in their late 20s through to their 40s I chose to be sterilised as I approached 40. DD2 was in late 20s when she had her babies and DD1 was in her 30s...just had second at 36.

Think 'best' time depends on each individual couple/parent.

Agree with Jack. Such experiences are still greatly hidden from society and have an impact that few realise unless they've been through it or witnessed it, such as the 'disappearance' of friends who can't cope with the on-going roller-coaster of pregancy and miscarriage. I witnessed it with my daughter and the pressure it put on both of them - a true test of a relationship. We eventaully by-passed the NHS and paid for her to go to the briliant Recurrent Miscarriage Unit at St Mary's, Paddington. One appointment, one test and the cause was found (Hughes Syndrome) and we can thank them and aspirin and heparin throughout pregnancy for my two lovely grandchildren. But I was so glad she had started trying for a baby at 29 as she had time on her side. I had my three from 28-32 which meant I'd had a start to my career, had 6 years 'in' (not out!) looking after them, learning new things and part-time work, with plenty of time left for a career and own business. My high-flying Dil had her first at 29 an dis just returning to work after maternity leave having been offered new posts by 3 different Managers in the company all desperate to employ her.

I think the age at which you become a mother is less important than the state of your marriage/relationship when you embark on parenthood. I haven't noticed any references to fathers - or their wishes - on this thread, which is a shame because, as we all know, it takes two to tango.

My DH and I wrote down the names of nine children on the back of a contraceptive pill packet as soon as I was qualified in my chosen career and then we happily threw the pills away. Then? Nothing happened.

Six years and two miscarriages later we adopted our first child. I was 30. The baby - a boy - was six days old. Two years later we adopted a six day old baby girl.

The years of trying to conceive and the many disappointments that that entailed, followed by five years' trying to adopt, would have been impossible without the love and support of my DH. And he has continued to be a rock to us all throughout all the ups and downs of family life.

So let's hear it for the fathers for once!

I agree, deebav - I can still play actively with my great-grandchildren and I taught all my ten grandchildren to roller skate.
I suppose it would have made more sense financially to wait a few more years before I had my first baby, but once you get broody it is impossible to think of anything else! I had married at 18, so we did have our own semi and a car after four years, but we did feel the drop in income very much when I stopped working. I had my children close together (18 months apart) so that I could take just four years off before going back to train as a teacher.

I had my children between the ages of 20 and 28 and had three - two boys and a girl and my son is now 50 and I have been married over 52 years but life was a struggle then but I had plenty of energy and I still had energy left when my grandchildren came along as I was only 47 when the first one was born. They are now off hand and I am losing my Joie de vivre but am so glad I was young when I had my children and able to enjoy my Grandchildren. There are no signs of any marriages in the next generation of firm partnerships so I may no live to see Great Grandchildren which will be a shame!!
I think the fees for universities are going to make it harder for young people to have a career and a family as they will be snowed under with student debts.
This has been unfair of a privileged government which had everything in its lap.

chttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9247766/Fertility-injections-linked-to-birth-defects.
This is one of several articles I found on-line about the possible health problems of babies born by IVF. Since the first baby, Louise Brown, is still only in her thirties, it is too early to judge long term effects, but it seems that one particular technique can cause problems because it involves injecting possibly damaged sperm directly into the egg. It suggests that boys born by this technique may themselves have fertility problems.

Obviously, many IVF babies are perfectly healthy, but I don't think we can base conclusions on anecdotal evidence of those we know personally.

I would have done anything to have a baby and I understand completely the longing felt by women (and men) with fertility problems. No doubt research will continue and more facts will emerge.

Perhaps society as a whole, and employers, could be encouraged to make it easier for a couple to combine parenthood with careers, so that women don't feel compelled to wait to have their first baby.

I have read articles about couples whose relationship was adversely affected by the long process of IVF, especially when there were several failed attempts. Sometimes the man appears to feel side-lined and if the infertility is on his side (30%?) his self-esteem may suffer.

My mother had a baby at 47, at home, with just a midwife in attendance.

My daughter, 30, was very ill as a result of the overload of hormones she took whilst undergoing IVF. She will try to adopt if she remains unable to have another child without assistance. Ex-DIL, 45, has just had a baby at the 29 week stage and has been ill with various conditions brought on by this late pregnancy. Her baby is in special care, weighing only 2 lbs 3 ozs, but doing ok.

Plenty of women already have babies in their forties without any other assistance than the usual, have healthy babies, and bring them up successfully. Those who seek IVF or other forms of fertility treatment are presumably told of possible side effects, but their urge to reproduce over-rides any fears they might have had. I have not heard much about health problems associated with IVF because it is not something that I've needed to investigate and I don't know anyone who has suffered problems as a result of IVF. Besides which, women having babies in their late thirties and early forties is nothing new. The new bit is having a first baby towards the end of your fertile life.

Evolution may make the changes Greatnan mentions but we'll need several million years (at least) before there's any sign of it. At the moment all the talk is about girls reaching puberty sooner because they are, on average, better fed than in previous times.

People do turn to artificial means when the natural course has failed them, so believing that they can is hardly a strange belief. My mother always hoped that giving girls more education and more life choices would mean that they could accept infertility, should it affect them, more easily. There is, after all, plenty else a woman can do, and only stupid people attach any stigma to infertility.

I wonder if evolution will eventually extend the optimum child-bearing years to suit longer life expectancy.
I am all in favour of educating girls/women and it has certainly reduced the population in those areas of India where it has become established. I am more concerned about the facts regarding the viabilty and long term health issues of late pregnancies or IVF births and the belief that many women seem to hold that they can just turn to artificial means when nature has given up.

Yes, B I agree. As you say, if a global perspective is taken, then the education of girls and young women will shift the existing cultural dynamic in many ways, and importantly offers more informed choices about when to have children, and how many.

Taking the wider, global view, perhaps it's a good thing that in parts of the world where girls are educated and able to pursue interests other than child-bearing and rearing, they are having children later and when their fertility rates can be expected to be falling. We worry about the global population on the one hand, but then we worry about women choosing to wait to have children.

It seems to me that when you educate girls, they have fewer kids. The reasons are complex, but one of them is the demographic change whereby women choose not to have kids during their most fertile years. Looked at globally, this seems like not a bad idea, and a 'natural' way of slowing human population growth. I'm all for it.

Re education about fertility, we had very little sex education at school and (apart from about menstruation) my mother only told me the very basics (lent me a book) when I was fifteen, but I knew the later teen years and the early twenties were physically the best time for girls to have babies, so I guess, like many things, the information is already around for those who care to listen.

Quite true, Flickety - perhaps they could be given written information to use when they were older. The article said that some people believed that mentioning the subject would be tantamount to encouraging girls to get pregnant.