What age is your personal cut off on having kids?

[Anonymous]

I had mine at 32 and 35, and that's the latest I'd want to have them. I just cannot imagine having another one now, at 41. I guess part of it is probably that they're 6 and 9 and going back to diapers/daycare/not STTN/etc. is pretty unappealing, but...I dunno. Even if I were just starting out my family I still think the very much heightened risks of an older pregnancy, less energy, being almost 60 by the time kid graduates from HS etc. would give me pause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

40. So you can see the kid graduate - at least the chances are higher.

Also do not understand parents who have the audacity to complain about working past a certain age - when you CHOSE to have kids past a certain age. Who the hell did you THINK was going to raise YOUR children and send them to college (not to mention if private school, etc. was involved)?? FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!

It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!

It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?

It depends. If it’s a 95% chance an investment would succeed, sure! Great! If it’s a 5% chance my child will be disabled FOREVER - well, you better believe I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!

It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?

Taking a new job? Yes, ok I’ll take that chance that I like it.
Potentially giving a child a life threatening condition that will greatly impact their and my life? It would make me reconsider. Look I had one at 40 and went through the risks with an OB in advance. So it’s not that I don’t think you should. But go in with your eyes wide open. And don’t just blow it off as 95% chance it will be fine. When you are that one person it affects, it affects you 100%.

[Anonymous]

Most women choose to do prenatal screening and to terminate if there’s a severe disability. If that’s not for you, that’s fine, and obviously it’s an extremely painful choice that everyone wants to avoid. But it’s not like there are no options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

l

The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.

It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.

+1
This poster is oblivious.

Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.

1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!

It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?

You are talking about someone’s life here! Yes, it’s significant.

[Anonymous]

People are ignoring that the 1/19 statistic is at age 45 when most women can’t get pregnant with their own eggs anyway. There is not a sharp increase in risk at age 35. It’s a gradual increase over the years.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at age 38 and b/g twins at 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:35 was my cut off. I had my last one at 34.

Me too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to be finished by the time I was 30.And I was. I just wanted to get it done and out of the way.

Np I don't get this attitude at all. To me, having something done and "out of the way" is something you talk about that is an unpleasant experience, like taking a greyhound bus across country or a root canal, not having children.

Not the PP but I felt the same way. For me pregnancy was extremely unpleasant. Vomited daily including the day I gave birth to my daughter. So yeah, it was like a root canal. Love my children though!

[Anonymous]

had #3 at 45. 44 was the mental cutoff but decided to keep trying.

[Anonymous]

50.