Is 35 or 40 too old to have kids?

12467

Comments

  • Ms. Haiku wrote:
    You're going to say it more and more as older women have healthier babies. Those age-based statistics are OLD. They were used to scare women, and were probably not paid for by the medical community. Go back to your precious statistics, and tell me who paid for those fucked-up tests.


    These are coming straight from teaching OB textbooks. Studies are recent as last year. And the stats aren't changing much over the years either, maybe a little better odds for older women because of advances in medicine.
    "It's all happening"
  • But one can't rely on statistics alone.

    She very well may be in the "no birth defects/complications" category, like my mother did.

    This is very true. A 20 year old can have more problems than a 45 year old, but more often than not, its the other way around.
    "It's all happening"
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    She's statistically wrong. If you had 100 perfectly healthy 25 year old women, and 100 perfectly healthy 40 year old women....and they all became pregnant. There are gonna be MANY more birth defects and complications with the older group.

    too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • This is very true. A 20 year old can have more problems than a 45 year old, but more often than not, its the other way around.

    Exactly, but this means that age isn't the only factor. Overall health is a hugely important factor.
  • too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.

    your right, I'm wrong. Sorry.
    "It's all happening"
  • Exactly, but this means that age isn't the only factor. Overall health is a hugely important factor.


    Sure, you are correct, I am wrong. Sorry.
    "It's all happening"
  • too many variables.

    what if some of those 'perfectly healthy' 25 year olds had a small pelvis which wouldnt allow safe passage for the baby? surely that is more dangerous and offers more complications for both mother and child than a 40 year old 'perfectly healthy' woman whose pelvis is large enough to accomodate a baby in transition.

    Exactly.

    Another example - I was a perfectly healthy 26 yr old that had pregnancy-induced hypertension and was considered borderline pre-eclamptic. I didn't have a history of hypertension, I wasn't obese...the only risk factor I had for developing pregnancy-induced hypertension was the fact that it was my first pregnancy. For whatever reason, first pregnancies (occurring at any age) have a higher instance of PIH/Pre-eclampsia.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    your right, I'm wrong. Sorry.

    no need to be sorry. we all make mistakes. ;):p:D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ms. HaikuMs. Haiku Posts: 7,265
    These are coming straight from teaching OB textbooks. Studies are recent as last year. And the stats aren't changing much over the years either, maybe a little better odds for older women because of advances in medicine.
    Let's see, the medical community, which LOVES technology (I Know this FIRST HAND) would love to scare patients into using more technology. Besides my own personal experience as a patient/customer, I trained as a doula, and don't even try to prove me wrong on the medical communities love of technology.

    The older women are the more manipulative, oh-I-want-to-help-you doctors will say, "Well, considering your age, we have this new technology, drug, etc to try on you. Don't worry, with this new technology, drug etc everything will be alright." Doctors LOVE c-sections, they LOVE drugs, they LOVE the money in return. With those students loans, they really LOVE the money,eh? They don't LOVE patients with an IDEA of what their bodies can do. Yep, those textbooks are right on par to teach the fucked-up medical community to dehumanize people, and worship technology. Yep, I can see where your statistics are coming from. Their angle is very clear. Who pays for the statistics? Who underwrote those textbooks?

    Older women can have healthy babies, and I don't believe an age of a woman affects an increased risk in birth defects.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • Ms. Haiku wrote:
    Let's see, the medical community, which LOVES technology (I Know this FIRST HAND) would love to scare patients into using more technology. Besides my own personal experience as a patient/customer, I trained as a doula, and don't even try to prove me wrong on the medical communities love of technology.

    The older women are the more manipulative, oh-I-want-to-help-you doctors will say, "Well, considering your age, we have this new technology, drug, etc to try on you. Don't worry, with this new technology, drug etc everything will be alright." Doctors LOVE c-sections, they LOVE drugs, they LOVE the money in return. They don't LOVE patients with an IDEA of what their bodies can do. Yep, those textbooks are right on par to teach the fucked-up medical community to dehumanize people, and worship technology. Yep, I can see where your statistics are coming from. Their angle is very clear. Who pays for the statistics? Who underwrote those textbooks? Doctors are a sorry-ass breed.

    Older women can have healthy babies, and I don't believe an age of a woman affects an increased risk in birth defects.


    You are 100% right, Congratulations.
    "It's all happening"
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    firstly, i have not read the entire thread...just posts here and there, so forgive me if i repeat points already made. simply put, a woman certainly isn't *too old* at 35 or 40 to have a child. one can certainly get pregnant, stay pregnant, have a fully healthy pregnancy and birth. it happens, has happened, and will continue to happen. however, yes, the chances of such diminish with age. even just the 'getting pregnant' part prove more and more difficult with age for starters, then staying pregnant, etc. one can argue the stats all they want, but it still holds true. a woman's own health and health of the baby are at greater risk, overall, given the relative age of the mother, and if she has had any other pregnancies at an earlier age. i could go on and on about it, but i would think it would be a waste of time. read up on the topic, talk with your own doctors, etc.


    of course her general overall health comes into play, that does at ANY age.....but facts are facts, age does play a role. as we all know, a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have whereas a man makes new sperm daily. so a woman at 40 is getting a 40 year old egg fertilized as opposed to a woman at 20 getting a 20 year old egg fertilized. some things improve with age, eggs do not. nor do uteruses. sure, they can be in great shape, but the fact remains that much diminishes with age. you can do your best to stay healthy, but there's not much you can do to improve your eggs.


    there are countless studies and literature on the subject. one can *argue* all they want that it is skewed, so be it, but that doesn't make that true. believe what you want. pregnancy is always a gamble, but to deny that it is a much bigger risk for mother or child given relative age and past birthing history...is taking quite a gamble blindly. much has been done to improve the stats, and most of that is through technology, to keep babies alive at a younger age, to help women get pregnant, etc. all of these things, but they all do have consequences as well. it is a lot more socially acceptible to have children at older ages, but medically speaking, the younger the mother, the higher the chance for a healthy pregnacy, child, and mother after the fact. believe what you want.

    no, i am not posing as an *expert* by any means....but let's just say i am pretty well-educated on the topic. agree, disagree, whatever......but bottomline, we were meant to have children at younger biological ages. it is in the best interest of mother and child, and for the parent relationship, raising the child, etc. and i say this as the daughter of a then 40 year old mom and a 55 year old dad, the youngest of 3 daughters. so certainly not saying it's impossible in the least, nor to deter women from trying for children at older ages, but just stating the realities. me, i'd rather be armed with the overall truth, reality/stats....and make informed decisions, know what i am getting into so i am prepared as best i can be.

    i also say all this as now a 39 year old woman, with a husband who has happily made the choice to make sure we can never get pregnant. :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • PJaddictedPJaddicted Posts: 1,432
    love is free.
    This is very true....but unfortunately.....kids aren't :p .....they are very expensive, having four myself.....I know that to be fact! Right now I have two in college and we are paying for 3 extra cars....not that all parents have to supply college and cars...but it is nice if you can.

    oxc
    ~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~

    *May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*

    He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
    — Unknown
  • TrixieCatTrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    dunkman wrote:
    after 30 you get tested for Downs and other such bad stuff..

    health care means a lot more in the US than here Kelis.. we get it free here.. but in the US you have to pay for it?!??
    And the typical person in the UK pays more in taxes than the typical American, so it really is not "free". And your healthcare system has been called medieval, but correct me if I am wrong.
    And we aren't tested for Down's after 30, it is 35 and even then it is an option that the insurance companies ask the doctor to please ram down our throats.

    And 35-40 is not too old.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • PaukPauk Posts: 1,084
    And so the thread slips into the typical yank Vs limey bloodbath...
    Paul
    '06 - London, Dublin, Reading
    '07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    '09 - London, Manchester, London
    '12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
  • TrixieCatTrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    fowls wrote:
    And so the thread slips into the typical yank Vs limey bloodbath...
    No, I don't think so. I wasn't trying to start a fight, just saying. I think most of the time...especially after happy hour on a friday night ;) we all get along fine and have a modicum of respect for one another.
    Riiiigggghhhht. :p
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • My friend was born when his mom was 46 and hes fine...
  • It's just that the chances for something like Downs syndrome really go up at the age of 35 or later. That's because the same primary follicles that you have from a really young age (pre-puberty) are still the ones that are used at 35, so as they're older they're not quite as optimal as they were when they were younger. But still, having a kid from 35-40 should work out, it's just that the risk % goes up quite a bit.
  • mookie9999mookie9999 Posts: 4,677
    TrixieCat wrote:
    ...especially after happy hour on a friday night ;):p

    Three cheers for Friday Happy Hour!!! As to the age question, as long as it does not harm the mother due to poor health conditions, then no, 35-40 is not too old. For me personally, no age is the right age, but that's just me.
    "The leads are weak!"

    "The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"

    "What's your name?"

    "FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
  • bigbadbillbigbadbill Posts: 1,758
    I guess I was one of the lucky ones. My mom was 41 and my dad was 48 when I was born (1974). Today, I am 33, my mom's 74 and my dad's 81.
    11/6/95, 11/18/97, 7/13/98, 7/14/98, 10/24/00, 10/25/00, 10/28/00, 6/2/03, 6/3/03, 6/5/03, 7/6/06, 7/7/06, 7/9/06, 7/10/06, 7/13/06, 7/15/06, 7/16/06, 7/18/06, 10/21/06, 4/10/08, 4/13/08, 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, 10/9/09
  • TrixieCatTrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    mookie9999 wrote:
    Three cheers for Friday Happy Hour!!! As to the age question, as long as it does not harm the mother due to poor health conditions, then no, 35-40 is not too old. For me personally, no age is the right age, but that's just me.
    Tell me about it.....it is like happy hour on a friday brings about a whole new world.
    Like a fresh morning breeze on a dewey morning.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • mookie9999mookie9999 Posts: 4,677
    TrixieCat wrote:
    Like a fresh morning breeze on a dewey morning.

    If I may expand on this. It's like when you've chewed a very minty piece of gum and then take a swig of ice cold water. It gives you such a rush that while you may only experience it once in awhile, it is quite a sensation that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.
    "The leads are weak!"

    "The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"

    "What's your name?"

    "FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
  • TrixieCatTrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    mookie9999 wrote:
    If I may expand on this. It's like when you've chewed a very minty piece of gum and then take a swig of ice cold water. It gives you such a rush that while you may only experience it once in awhile, it is quite a sensation that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.
    I will shrink it a little, if i may...I don't like gum, at all. Gross. :o
    But I dig where you are going with this...
    Like lying on the beach in Bora Bora...Jimmy Buffet softly strumming his guitar, margarita being served by topless person of your choice, fresh fruit, cool breeze
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • jamie ukjamie uk Posts: 3,812
    mookie9999 wrote:
    If I may expand on this. It's like when you've chewed a very minty piece of gum and then take a swig of ice cold water. It gives you such a rush that while you may only experience it once in awhile, it is quite a sensation that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

    I had sucha feeling once, it involved a cooker hob, two knives, half a plastic drinks bottle....and some well hot canabis res....but that's a whole other story:D
    I came, I saw, I concurred.....
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 27,992
    TrixieCat wrote:
    I will shrink it a little, if i may...I don't like gum, at all. Gross. :o
    But I dig where you are going with this...
    Like lying on the beach in Bora Bora...Jimmy Buffet softly strumming his guitar, margarita being served by topless person of your choice, fresh fruit, cool breeze

    How could one not like gum?
    I miss igotid88
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    igotid88 wrote:
    How could one not like gum?

    people with no teeth dont like it.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    dunkman wrote:
    people with no teeth dont like it.

    one can't gum gum now can they?....:D
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    PJaddicted wrote:
    This is very true....but unfortunately.....kids aren't :p .....they are very expensive, having four myself.....I know that to be fact! Right now I have two in college and we are paying for 3 extra cars....not that all parents have to supply college and cars...but it is nice if you can.

    oxc

    i also have 4 children. but right from the start ive called the shots. we have free and subsidised tertiary education here in australia so anyone can get educated. i disavow any personal transport that uses petroleum...so no buying cars for my children.
    personally i dont know what it is parents are buying their kids but i think the figures i see quoted for the raising oif children is so outrageous my head spins. sometimes i wonder what it is my children are missing out on. then i look at them and realise that they are loved and fed and housed and clothed and anything else is superfluous.
    some may say my world view is a little askew but it's not. consumerism sucks and will be the death of society given enough time. :p
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • i also have 4 children. but right from the start ive called the shots. we have free and subsidised tertiary education here in australia so anyone can get educated. i disavow any personal transport that uses petroleum...so no buying cars for my children.
    personally i dont know what it is parents are buying their kids but i think the figures i see quoted for the raising oif children is so outrageous my head spins. sometimes i wonder what it is my children are missing out on. then i look at them and realise that they are loved and fed and housed and clothed and anything else is superfluous.
    some may say my world view is a little askew but it's not. consumerism sucks and will be the death of society given enough time. :p
    My parents didn't buy us a lot of "toys" or cars (don't know many parents who buy their kids cars), but they did have us in a lot of activities, which gets very expensive. Over the years, there was piano, swimming, judo, guitar, and girl guides and scouts, amongst a few others, but the biggest expenditure was putting four kids through baseball every summer and hockey each winter, and all the costs of equipment, tournaments, and travel that comes along with it.
    No time to be void or save up on life. You got to spend it all.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    My parents didn't buy us a lot of "toys" or cars (don't know many parents who buy their kids cars), but they did have us in a lot of activities, which gets very expensive. Over the years, there was piano, swimming, judo, guitar, and girl guides and scouts, amongst a few others, but the biggest expenditure was putting four kids through baseball every summer and hockey each winter, and all the costs of equipment, tournaments, and travel that comes along with it.

    i have a different mindset that's all. i know stuff costs. i just dont choose to play.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
Sign In or Register to comment.