Would you have a child at fifty? Mums are having heated debates as some claim it's 'selfish' and 'unbelievably bad' – but others insist there's no reason not to do it if you're fit and healthy

Women debated online whether they would consider having a child at age 50.

On the British parenting platform Mumsnet, a woman asked whether others would consider becoming a parent at an older age.

Opinions on this controversial topic were divided; some said they would consider it, while others said it wasn't “fair to the child.”

The mail read: 'Would you have a baby at fifty? From the back of the “Do You Regret Having a Baby at 40?” thread, would you have a child at 50, assuming you could take care of it emotionally and financially? Obviously medical help is needed.'

Some people said they would consider having a baby in their 50s, but suggested having a teenager in their 60s would be terrible.

One person said: 'At 50, yes at 54-no. But I would like to have a grandchild.'

Another said: 'Yes, I would. I had fertility treatment in my 30s, but it was unsuccessful.

'I went through menopause in my late 30s and thought that eventually, as the hormones changed, I would lose the desire to be a mother, but that hasn't changed.

She continued, “I'm in my mid-40s now and I actually long for it more than ever. So yes, if it were possible, I would have a child at 50.

“Unless you have experienced the bitter, painful sadness of childlessness, I don't think you can empathize with those who continue to pursue motherhood late in life.”

Another said she had a child at 40 and would have another at 50 if she “really wanted one,” unless there was “a family history of ill health and early death.”

“I don't sit or lie in bed too late, I consider myself quite energetic, the majority of my friends are younger than me,” she explained. 'I need less sleep than before. I'm financially stable so I can afford to take time off/go part time.

'However, I would monitor the pregnancy closely and have all tests available.'

Other people, however, were shocked by the idea.

Someone else said: 'Baby at 50? Probably fine. Toddler in mid-fifties? No thanks. Raising a teenager in the late 1960s? Not really.'

Others said it is “selfish” to have a baby later in life and that it would be too tiring.

One person wrote: 'No. Personally, I wouldn't have had one over 35, let alone 50.

“I think at 50 it's selfish and not in the best interest of the child. I can imagine that it is difficult to raise a 50+ toddler and a teenager as you approach 70.'

Another said: 'I had babies at 37 and 41. I had fertility problems so I got them later. With both pregnancies I felt great and had no problems (I was high risk, but that was not age related and was managed).

'But there was no way I was going to have a baby at 50! The thought of going back to square one with a baby fills me with horror.

'I am so much more tired than I used to be and am undoubtedly heading towards perimenopause now that I am almost 44.

'My focus is on achieving a level of financial stability that means I can support the two DC I have through major milestones: university, house, wedding. Also about being as healthy as possible to minimize the risk of poor health later in life.'

Someone else wrote: 'Hell no! I had my second and last child when I was 26. If I'm lucky, I might have grandchildren in my 50s and I hope to be a loving, committed grandmother.

'I don't think it's fair to a child born to parents that age.

'An earlier poster said that a mother would get judged and a father would get a pat on the back, while I agree that this is not true, most fifty year old fathers are with much younger women. It is very unusual, even with medical intervention, for two parents to be anywhere in their 50s.”

A fourth wrote: 'Absolutely not. Exhausting nightmare at the age of 38. Fifty and menopause would be unbelievably bad, even with a fleet of servants!'