Amanda Peet’s Baby Dilemma – How Old Is Too Old?

At a recent launch party for DumbDumb, Amanda Peet shared her thoughts on having another child with Us. The 38-year-old actress has a 3-year-old daughter, Frances, and gave birth to her second child, Molly, in April. She is now keen to try for one more, but her screenwriter husband, David Benioff, would like to wait three years. However, Amanda says “We’ll be too old at that point.”

It would seem that Peet – who has appeared in movies such as Something’s Gotta Give and The Whole Ten Yards – is aware that her biological clock is ticking and must consider the risks of conceiving past the age of 40.

There are many precedents for celebrities becoming moms at an older age – Kelly Preston is pregnant at 47 and Céline Dion is expecting twins at 42. However, Halle Berry – who gave birth to daughter Nahla in 2008 at age 40 – warns “don’t look at celebrities who are doing it and think, Oh, it’s easy. It’s really not.”

Dr Alan B. Copperman of Mount Sinai Medical Center points out some of the problems. “At 40 there is only a 10 percent chance of conception and at 45, it’s just 2 percent.” Add to that the often needed fertility treatments, preterm labor, dangerously high blood pressure and diabetes, and you can understand Ms. Peet’s concerns.

Filed under: Amanda Peet

Photo credit:


Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "Amanda Peet’s Baby Dilemma – How Old Is Too Old?"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

I think over 40 is too old, IMO.


over 40 is too old.

I don’t think early 40’s is too old look at Katherine Ross for instance she had her daughter Cleo at age 44 September 17th 1984 and the baby turned out fine but I think Amanda said it as in it wouldn’t be right for her so at least she didn’t say anybody over 35 shouldn’t be having kids which would’ve been viewed by some as saying some legendary actresses were selfish for having their youngest child/children after the age of 35 which some of them had no choice in that matter as if they’d miscarried previously as for example Joanne… Read more »

You could say that the “too old age” varies from woman to woman, based on how healthy she is (and how healthy her eggs are!), and there is no one age that would apply to all women.

The next logical step is to argue that when a woman’s body goes into age-induced infertility, it’s the body’s way of saying, “Hey, I’m done — this isn’t healthy.”

Fertility treatments seem to provide the opportunity for women to override this natural turn-off switch… for better or worse.


I agree with everything anon said, and would add that it’s also dependent upon what you desire for yourself. For example, I’m 26 and I have a 14-month old. My husband and I decided that we wanted to be done having children before either of us turned 30 (he’s 27). We’ve recently decided to start trying for #2 (and likely, our last). For us, personally, we felt over 30 was “too old.” I don’t think over 30 is “too old” for others, though, because I think it’s a very personal decision.


I have no idea how old is too old. I believe it depends on the individual. However, I can tell you that a man would be less likely to ponder it – and society would be much less likely to angst over whether a father was too old. We hear of men in their 50s, 60s and sometimes even older fathering kids all the time. Instead of cries of “you’re too old!”, it’s congratulations all around. It may be physically easier for older males to conceive, but surely that’s not all that defines “too old”? Another double standard.