What age is your personal cut off on having kids?

[Anonymous]

I was surprised to find out in the news today that Rep. Duffy and his wife are expecting their 9th child and are both 47 years old! I'm a decade younger and am feeling done after having my second (I have frozen embryos so no biological limitations).

[Anonymous]

Probably 35. I had my one and only at age 30 but I am a single parent and I cannot imagine having a little kid at age 40 or early 40s. It is too tiring.

[Anonymous]

Mine was 40. I had my kids at 36 and 38 (started trying a few months after I turned 34).

[Anonymous]

Had my first at 41, mc at 43 and thinking of doing IVF one last time and I’m 45.

[Anonymous]

early 40s.

[Anonymous]

35 for health and not wanting to be an older mom, have more energy, young enough to know my grandkids. Also, my DH is several years older so I didn't want him to be much older (39 and 42 when our kids were born), didn't want to put the kids through college when he was retired, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had my first at 41, mc at 43 and thinking of doing IVF one last time and I’m 45.

best wishes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to find out in the news today that Rep. Duffy and his wife are expecting their 9th child and are both 47 years old! I'm a decade younger and am feeling done after having my second (I have frozen embryos so no biological limitations).

Same here and I remember watching them on the Real World!

[Anonymous]

34.5. I’m almost 35 now so I will not be having another kid. Had my only child at 19. Was hoping to have another kid between age 30-34 but it did not happen.

[Anonymous]

45? My parents had my sister at 40 and were tired but okay. We got married at 25 and it took 5 years and IVF to have our first at 30 and 2nd at 32. We plan on a 3rd at 35 if we can swing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to find out in the news today that Rep. Duffy and his wife are expecting their 9th child and are both 47 years old!

Aside, but unfortunately their announcement hinted at a T21 diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Most would abort a chromosomally abnormal baby. Even those who are appalled at the thought and say they could never do it. Around 80-90% of Down pregnancies are terminated in the developed world.

[Anonymous]

Probably 35. I had mine at 30 and I think it was the perfect age for me. I'm 46 now with a teenager and there is no way I could take care of a little one since turning 40.

[Anonymous]

30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Most would abort a chromosomally abnormal baby. Even those who are appalled at the thought and say they could never do it. Around 80-90% of Down pregnancies are terminated in the developed world.

Yep. Something like 60% say they’d never abort for downs but it’s a lot different to think about it as a theoretical possibility vs. facing that reality.

There are things that the prenatal testing can’t detect, even really awful things. If I could do it over again i would do an amnio with microarray.