Depressed about having a baby post 35

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Explains why she’s chapped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

I was infertile. My older DD was born when I was 37, after years of infertility treatment, IVF, and FETs. Additional attempts at pregnancy after her birth failed, and I had been told by several doctors, including 2 REs, that it was highly unlikely I would ever get pregnant again. So…yes, unexpected.
You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

I was infertile. My older DD was born when I was 37, after years of infertility treatment, IVF, and FETs. Additional attempts at pregnancy after her birth failed, and I had been told by several doctors, including 2 REs, that it was highly unlikely I would ever get pregnant again. So…yes, unexpected.
You do you.

So it wasn’t an immaculate conception. No doctor told you that you could not have a baby. Doesn’t sound unexpected to me. Still old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

I was infertile. My older DD was born when I was 37, after years of infertility treatment, IVF, and FETs. Additional attempts at pregnancy after her birth failed, and I had been told by several doctors, including 2 REs, that it was highly unlikely I would ever get pregnant again. So…yes, unexpected.
You do you.

So it wasn’t an immaculate conception. No doctor told you that you could not have a baby. Doesn’t sound unexpected to me. Still old.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

I was infertile. My older DD was born when I was 37, after years of infertility treatment, IVF, and FETs. Additional attempts at pregnancy after her birth failed, and I had been told by several doctors, including 2 REs, that it was highly unlikely I would ever get pregnant again. So…yes, unexpected.
You do you.

So it wasn’t an immaculate conception. No doctor told you that you could not have a baby. Doesn’t sound unexpected to me. Still old.

Wow.

People, don’t engage this poster anymore. She’s clearly not well. I posted to tell Jeff.

[Anonymous]

I didn't read the whole dang thread but I am wondering why OP did not procreate earlier? I decided on my 32nd birthday to have a baby and I started perusing the sperm donor profiles. On my 33rd birthday plus 3 weeks I had my son at Sibley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read the whole dang thread but I am wondering why OP did not procreate earlier? I decided on my 32nd birthday to have a baby and I started perusing the sperm donor profiles. On my 33rd birthday plus 3 weeks I had my son at Sibley.

You get a gold star. Not all of us are able to plan like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

Ask yourself why are you so chapped?

DP. I had my last child at 42. Unexpected, though very much welcome pregnancy. She’s healthy, I’m healthy. I followed all the guidelines given by my providers, since I was AMA.
What, would you have preferred I had scheduled an abortion as soon as I found out, all because I was over 40?
What is your goal here, exactly?

Must have been an immaculate conception then if it was unexpected. I certainly know how pregnancy happens and would assume a 42 year old would. Therefore, it couldn’t been unexpected. Btw, just because you did at 42 doesn’t mean you weren’t old in terms of child bearing years. You are trying to normalize it.

I was infertile. My older DD was born when I was 37, after years of infertility treatment, IVF, and FETs. Additional attempts at pregnancy after her birth failed, and I had been told by several doctors, including 2 REs, that it was highly unlikely I would ever get pregnant again. So…yes, unexpected.
You do you.

So it wasn’t an immaculate conception. No doctor told you that you could not have a baby. Doesn’t sound unexpected to me. Still old.

Wow.

People, don’t engage this poster anymore. She’s clearly not well. I posted to tell Jeff.

+1
Don’t feed this miserable little troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read the whole dang thread but I am wondering why OP did not procreate earlier? I decided on my 32nd birthday to have a baby and I started perusing the sperm donor profiles. On my 33rd birthday plus 3 weeks I had my son at Sibley.

Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sucks when our plans don't work out.
I would have rather had my kids 10 years earlier than at 36 and 38. I would have had more time to devote to career upon returning to work and had more time to help with potential grandchildren later on.
But hey, it beats having kids in your 40s.

A lot of people on here talk about how easy it is to conceive after 40 or how healthy their kids are.
It's a self-selected group here. The ones who are unsuccessful generally don't toot their horns about it. And, similarly, the ones who didn't have healthy kids are unlikely to talk about it.
I had a friend in grad school who never talked about his mom, would kind of embarassingly turn away when the topic of parents came up. Turns out she had him when she was 40. His father was 10 years older. So I think his mom was around 63 when we were first year in grad school, and so his father would have been 73+. My mother still had 22 years until her retirement in 2013 at that point. When my parents retired, I know I felt some responsibility to be there for them - I can't imagine having that kind of burden when one is still just starting out in adulthood.
He was an only child. Never went home after grad school. He married his college sweetheart immediately, settled down quickly and began his family early. I guess he felt his older mother was more of a liability than an asset to his wife and young kids. I thought he was kind of selfish. I guess he felt it too and was embarassed about that as well.

Get some Ovulation predictor sticks and just go have your babies. Stay healthy for them. Good luck.

What. In. The. Hell. Is. This.

One person's bad relationship with their parents isn't evidence of anything. My parents had all their kids in their 20s. They were immature and had no idea what they were doing, and that lack of maturity harmed their relationship with us. My parents were in their 50s when I was in grad school but I didn't have a good relationship with them at all at the time. I sincerely hope none of my grad school friends too that as evidence that they should avoid having kids young! It's one person's experience. There are lots of factors that go into these things.

Nobody ever polls how kids feel about having old parents.
That poster who crowed about 50 year old new moms, ugh. Why do that to the child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sucks when our plans don't work out.
I would have rather had my kids 10 years earlier than at 36 and 38. I would have had more time to devote to career upon returning to work and had more time to help with potential grandchildren later on.
But hey, it beats having kids in your 40s.

A lot of people on here talk about how easy it is to conceive after 40 or how healthy their kids are.
It's a self-selected group here. The ones who are unsuccessful generally don't toot their horns about it. And, similarly, the ones who didn't have healthy kids are unlikely to talk about it.
I had a friend in grad school who never talked about his mom, would kind of embarassingly turn away when the topic of parents came up. Turns out she had him when she was 40. His father was 10 years older. So I think his mom was around 63 when we were first year in grad school, and so his father would have been 73+. My mother still had 22 years until her retirement in 2013 at that point. When my parents retired, I know I felt some responsibility to be there for them - I can't imagine having that kind of burden when one is still just starting out in adulthood.
He was an only child. Never went home after grad school. He married his college sweetheart immediately, settled down quickly and began his family early. I guess he felt his older mother was more of a liability than an asset to his wife and young kids. I thought he was kind of selfish. I guess he felt it too and was embarassed about that as well.

Get some Ovulation predictor sticks and just go have your babies. Stay healthy for them. Good luck.

What. In. The. Hell. Is. This.

One person's bad relationship with their parents isn't evidence of anything. My parents had all their kids in their 20s. They were immature and had no idea what they were doing, and that lack of maturity harmed their relationship with us. My parents were in their 50s when I was in grad school but I didn't have a good relationship with them at all at the time. I sincerely hope none of my grad school friends too that as evidence that they should avoid having kids young! It's one person's experience. There are lots of factors that go into these things.

I have a friend who had kids in her early 40s and one at nearly 50.
Her older, college age son routinely jokes about how his parents are ancient.
I'm not sure kids are on board with having older parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sucks when our plans don't work out.
I would have rather had my kids 10 years earlier than at 36 and 38. I would have had more time to devote to career upon returning to work and had more time to help with potential grandchildren later on.
But hey, it beats having kids in your 40s.

A lot of people on here talk about how easy it is to conceive after 40 or how healthy their kids are.
It's a self-selected group here. The ones who are unsuccessful generally don't toot their horns about it. And, similarly, the ones who didn't have healthy kids are unlikely to talk about it.
I had a friend in grad school who never talked about his mom, would kind of embarassingly turn away when the topic of parents came up. Turns out she had him when she was 40. His father was 10 years older. So I think his mom was around 63 when we were first year in grad school, and so his father would have been 73+. My mother still had 22 years until her retirement in 2013 at that point. When my parents retired, I know I felt some responsibility to be there for them - I can't imagine having that kind of burden when one is still just starting out in adulthood.
He was an only child. Never went home after grad school. He married his college sweetheart immediately, settled down quickly and began his family early. I guess he felt his older mother was more of a liability than an asset to his wife and young kids. I thought he was kind of selfish. I guess he felt it too and was embarassed about that as well.

Get some Ovulation predictor sticks and just go have your babies. Stay healthy for them. Good luck.

What. In. The. Hell. Is. This.

One person's bad relationship with their parents isn't evidence of anything. My parents had all their kids in their 20s. They were immature and had no idea what they were doing, and that lack of maturity harmed their relationship with us. My parents were in their 50s when I was in grad school but I didn't have a good relationship with them at all at the time. I sincerely hope none of my grad school friends too that as evidence that they should avoid having kids young! It's one person's experience. There are lots of factors that go into these things.

Nobody ever polls how kids feel about having old parents.
That poster who crowed about 50 year old new moms, ugh. Why do that to the child?

Nobody ever asks kids if they want to be born to teen moms, either. Or drug addicts. Or those born into war or oppression. Or the uneducated. Or the extremely religious. Or morbidly obese people. Or people who die young. It’s one of those things where kids don’t get a vote. And as snarky as you want to be, most kids if given a choice would take an older, financially stable parent over any of these. But. Doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

I had my second and last after I was 35 and he has a major medical issue. Sucks and I hate myself every day for waiting. Everyone here will tout they’re healthy babies but there’s a reason there’s studies and statistics around that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my second and last after I was 35 and he has a major medical issue. Sucks and I hate myself every day for waiting. Everyone here will tout they’re healthy babies but there’s a reason there’s studies and statistics around that age.

Typed too quickly and I can’t let a their / they’re stand. Goodluck to you OP. Do not wait any longer.