Is 35 or 40 too old to have kids?

Ms. Haiku

I'll Ride The Wave wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying that 35-40 is too late to have babies. Lots of women do, and many of those women have healthy babies with little or no complications. However, the older a woman is, the greater the risk of complications and genetic disorders.

On one hand knowledge is power, but on the other hand, how would women in the work force change their career plans given this information? I don't know if the "biological clock" marketing ploy came out about the same time as these statistics. I remember that they did, and ooooooowheeeeee wouldn't that change the workforce, eh?

I personally wanted a child since I was 6, so my clock's been ticking quite a while, eh? I don't want a child anymore than I have my entire life. I probably wanted one more before I thought I was high risk for complications due to my heart. I don't think I'm high risk due to my age (39). There so many other things to worry about.

I still find those statistics suspect, but I guess it doesn't really matter in my life since I'm not close to having a baby. All the ones in medical school could probably roast me on a spit. I concede defeat to the medical books, temporarily. I don't give up my gut feeling, though.

nick1977

No. Def. not at 35. Forty is pushing it, but if you have good doctors, it should be ok. Much past 40 and I would say no.

justam

catefrances wrote:

i would wager a bet that whatever magazine you read it in, is geared to women who have prioritised their career over their reproductive and personal life for whatever reason and so are pandering to that demographic by making them believe that theyve not left it 'too late' to become mothers.

^^^cate is on the money here.

This thread is an interesting one to read.

People have reasons for what they believe...personal knowledge, medical knowledge, wishes, hopes, heresay...and it's all coming out in this debate.

Whatever people FEEL, I think menopause is the real slamming door in this case. Once women get over 40, time is probably running out quickly and that's that.

decides2dream

I'll Ride The Wave wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying that 35-40 is too late to have babies. Lots of women do, and many of those women have healthy babies with little or no complications. However, the older a woman is, the greater the risk of complications and genetic disorders.

exactly.


and i hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but what about adoption? i understand many women want the *whole process* pregnancy, birth, their own biological child.....but none the less, even at younger ages that may not be possible. i've already stated i have no desire to have children, but once upon a time i did. if i truly wanted em and couldn't have em...i'd have adopted. i think at a *certain age* in MY personal opinion, it's better to adopt, b/c why take the risk? your own health may be stellar, but pregnancy can wreak havoc on ANYone, regardless of their initital health.....and genetic defects/complications associated with age, etc....why would one want to risk all that simply to have their own biological child? adoption seems the most giving and wise decision. and yes, i know plenty of celebrities go and have babies at 40+, but i also don't make any other decisions based on what celebrities...with top-notch medical care and almost unlimited funds.....do. to me, just because it's possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's wise. obviously many will disagree, i am not saying my thoughts are right, they are simply my thoughts on the matter. there is good reason why we are designed the way we are, why we have biological perogatives and changes at certain ages, etc. i love my parents, but yes....my father died when i was 23...he was 78. :( i am 39, my mom turns 80 next month. so there is always the obvious point/concern, the older you are as a parent, the less time you will hae with your child, even if you stick around long enough to see them reach 18.

Get_Right

the game is not over at 35
the game is over whenever you stop making eggs-even then science can help you out.


It depends on the individual.

decides2dream

Get_Right wrote:

the game is not over at 35
the game is over whenever you stop making eggs-even then science can help you out.


It depends on the individual.

you stop making eggs the day you are born. women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. i mentioned this very fact much earlier in this thread. this very fact has a lot to do with the many issues/defect risks of older moms, their eggs are 35-40 years old....eggs don't age well. men make sperm daily, women don't get more eggs. you can get an egg donation sure....but i just wanted to clarify this point.


but absolutely EVERYthing depends on the individual...but the risks ARE there, and there is no way of knowing ahead of time for certain, except to accept the fact that there ARe much higher risks, and i personally think it's important to consider over the age of 35 if you want to risk your future child's possible life-long health to fulfill your personal biological imperative to procreate.

Ms. Haiku

decides2dream wrote:

if you want to risk your future child's possible life-long health to fulfill your personal biological imperative to procreate.

I was born with a heart disease, and my mom was 26. Of course, I was a twin, and one twin usually has something going. However, even though my mom was high-risk for twins (her mom was a twin) that didn't stop her. I think your earlier point was valid. It depends on the individual.

I don't think if I have a child now that by getting pregnant I'm being selfish. The above statement kindof implies that I would be (?) I don't think it's a biological imperative to procreate. It's social. There isn't a biological pull to procreate. Biological clock marketers be damned!

I have to say, from an individual standpoint, this age shit has so little room in my life. If I have a kid I may die, and it's not due to age, but my heart. This age related nonsense is so trivial compared to what's what in my life. For those that need to worry, sure, worry about age, but what a waste of time. What a complete and utter waste of resources and planning space.

If my only opportunity to have a baby will happen when I'm 43 or so I'm going to do it. I'll be scared. I'd still want to do it.

decides2dream

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I was born with a heart disease, and my mom was 26. Of course, I was a twin, and one twin usually has something going. However, even though my mom was high-risk for twins (her mom was a twin) that didn't stop her. I think your earlier point was valid. It depends on the individual.

I don't think if I have a child now that by getting pregnant I'm being selfish. The above statement kindof implies that I would be (?) I don't think it's a biological imperative to procreate. It's social. There isn't a biological pull to procreate. Biological clock marketers be damned!

I have to say, from an individual standpoint, this age shit has so little room in my life. If I have a kid I may die, and it's not due to age, but my heart. This age related nonsense is so trivial compared to what's what in my life. For those that need to worry, sure, worry about age, but what a waste of time. What a complete and utter waste of resources and planning space.

as i've said earlier...there are no guarantees at ANY age. of course risks/complications/etc can and do happen at ANY time. i am also not suggesting anyone WORRY about their age, but i do believe when one beomes older, at the very least...it should be a consideration. there ARE inherent risks, linked ONLY to age, that can and do occur. if they did not, there would not be countless studies to demonstrate this very correlation. all i suggest is peope consider such things. does that mean i think no one should become a parent over the age of 35? of course not. nor even the age of 40, but it's just my opinion that it's not the greatest idea. however, i have no intention of having a child, so for me, it's a moot point. i am merely participating in the conversation. i find it all very interesting, always have...the biological/social pull to procreate. i think having children is wonderful, and that can be accomplished without any of the health risks to mother or child by adoption, that's all.


i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age. if one so wants a child then, adopt. i think it's selfish to risk the possible long-term health of a child, it's selfish b/c at such an advanced age you could well leave them far earlier in their life, etc. i know *anything* is possible at any age, again, no guarantees....but at such an age...i'ts much more likely is all......and i think wanting to have a child of your own then only b/c you want a child of your OWN...is selfish at such a point. agree, disagree, ce'st la vie........



all is a personal choice but i do believe we are designed the way we are for a REASON and sometimes medical advances take what nature has intended and skews it in such a way that is not *healthy* imo. again, just my own thoughts.

Urban Hiker

decides2dream wrote:

as i've said earlier...there are no guarantees at ANY age. of course risks/complications/etc can and do happen at ANY time. i am also not suggesting anyone WORRY about their age, but i do believe when one beomes older, at the very least...it should be a consideration. there ARE inherent risks, linked ONLY to age, that can and do occur. if they did not, there would not be countless studies to demonstrate this very correlation. all i suggest is peope consider such things. does that mean i think no one should become a parent over the age of 35? of course not. nor even the age of 40, but it's just my opinion that it's not the greatest idea. however, i have no intention of having a child, so for me, it's a moot point. i am merely participating in the conversation. i find it all very interesting, always have...the biological/social pull to procreate. i think having children is wonderful, and that can be accomplished without any of the health risks to mother or child by adoption, that's all.


i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age. if one so wants a child then, adopt. i think it's selfish to risk the possible long-term health of a child, it's selfish b/c at such an advanced age you could well leave them far earlier in their life, etc. i know *anything* is possible at any age, again, no guarantees....but at such an age...i'ts much more likely is all......and i think wanting to have a child of your own then only b/c you want a child of your OWN...is selfish at such a point. agree, disagree, ce'st la vie........



all is a personal choice but i do believe we are designed the way we are for a REASON and sometimes medical advances take what nature has intended and skews it in such a way that is not *healthy* imo. again, just my own thoughts.

I agree.

redrock

decides2dream wrote:

i WILL say, that woman a while back, maybe a year? or so ago...who was well over the age of 50 and gave birth thru medical intervention - yes, i consider that very selfish. i don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's merely my personal opinion. there is NO NEED to give birth at such an advanced age.

I haven't really followed this thread very much and it's too long to read everything but I would like to add to this point.
Bearing a child and giving birth is not a god given right for women, it is a blessing. I believe that nature should take it's course. If your body is not allowing you to get pregnant, there is a reason. If you can still conceive and go through pregnancy naturally at 50, there is a reason too. I don't think medicine should intervene with conception - your body is telling you something and you're messing with it. Just like the fact that more than 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages... your body knows what is viable or not. Let it be your guide.

Don't think that I don't believe in medical interventions or things like that.. just not for getting pregnant.

anotherclone

I chose to drink and party until my mid-30's. I had my daughter when I was 37. So for me, I think there were plusses to waiting.

I was ready to stop partying for a while and give my body a break from the abuse. I had a lot more patience than I know I had when I was younger and I wasn't so selfish. I was more mature and had a stable job and a stable relationship.

redrock

anotherclone wrote:

I chose to drink and party until my mid-30's. I had my daughter when I was 37. So for me, I think there were plusses to waiting.

I was ready to stop partying for a while and give my body a break from the abuse. I had a lot more patience than I know I had when I was younger and I wasn't so selfish. I was more mature and had a stable job and a stable relationship.

Same here.

Ms. Haiku

As long as our opinions on this subject do not become legislation, then I don't see a problem with our disagreements.

LONGRD

Not really, only bad thing is they'll be off to college when you're nearly 60 years-old. You wont be able to make them do chores anymore.

decides2dream

redrock wrote:

I haven't really followed this thread very much and it's too long to read everything but I would like to add to this point.
Bearing a child and giving birth is not a god given right for women, it is a blessing. I believe that nature should take it's course. If your body is not allowing you to get pregnant, there is a reason. If you can still conceive and go through pregnancy naturally at 50, there is a reason too. I don't think medicine should intervene with conception - your body is telling you something and you're messing with it. Just like the fact that more than 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages... your body knows what is viable or not. Let it be your guide.

Don't think that I don't believe in medical interventions or things like that.. just not for getting pregnant.

exactly.
i also am not for legislating my personal beliefs on anyone either.....but i do agree, there *IS* a reason for it all.

redrock

Ms. Haiku wrote:

As long as our opinions on this subject do not become legislation, then I don't see a problem with our disagreements.

Any disagreements and diverging opinions should only be fuel for a discussion! Nothing worse than a nanny state for such personal decisions. For any medical decision coming to think of it. Not all that long ago, a DNR was not even an option... one was subjected to whatever a doctor decided was best for you!

Ms. Haiku

redrock wrote:

one was subjected to whatever a doctor decided was best for you!

That's it! That's what I'm rallying against! You wrote it so succinctly

INVDDRLUST

but what about your throwing arm when you're too old to throw a pass to the kid in the backyard?
what about the arthritis in your fingers when you cant help her with her sewing project
what about the music they want to listen to?
unless its pearl jam will you have a generation gap?
Babies are wonderous and precious
and they are for the young
unless you are rich enough for a nanny who can get up five times a night and bring you your baby

redrock

INVDDRLUST wrote:

but what about your throwing arm when you're too old to throw a pass to the kid in the backyard?
what about the arthritis in your fingers when you cant help her with her sewing project
what about the music they want to listen to?
unless its pearl jam will you have a generation gap?
Babies are wonderous and precious
and they are for the young
unless you are rich enough for a nanny who can get up five times a night and bring you your baby

Rubbish.. you are also then discounting all the young people with any health problems, those that are handicapped (maybe in a wheelchair), those that have asthma and can't run, etc. 'And they are for the young' - such a silly statement.
And what about the music? There is already a gap between my daughter's friend who is 13 and her younger sister who is 9!

Unless you were jesting?

anotherclone

INVDDRLUST wrote:

but what about your throwing arm when you're too old to throw a pass to the kid in the backyard?
what about the arthritis in your fingers when you cant help her with her sewing project
what about the music they want to listen to?
unless its pearl jam will you have a generation gap?
Babies are wonderous and precious
and they are for the young
unless you are rich enough for a nanny who can get up five times a night and bring you your baby

you whipper snapper. I'm going to come over there and beat you with my cane.