Terrified of risks being of AMA
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Oh wow I thought you were going to be 40+ based on the title. I can tell you that the majority of moms I know had at least one of their kids post-35! Myself included. Nothing felt inherently different about that pregnancy, tbh. Chances are, everything will be absolutely fine. Congratulations! |
Anonymous
|
You're barely AMA so odds are EXTREMELY high you will have a perfectly normal pregnancy and healthy baby.
I was technically AMA with #3. Pregnant at 35 and born when I was 36. Yes, there were more complications than with #1 and #2, but that just meant more monitoring. I ended up with an amnio after the ultrasound showed a single umbilical artery which could be a marker for down syndrome. The amnio was completely my choice and we did it on the spot. I also ended up with pre eclampsia which was not totally unexpected since I had PIH with #1 and 2. Age didn't help me in that respect. DS was born perfectly healthy although a bit small since he was induced at 37 weeks due to pre-e. |
Anonymous
| Odds are everything is fine. For me, I had a devastating 15 week loss that has turned into 3 years of more devastating losses. |
Anonymous
Hilarious because that’s exactly what any OB will tell you in this area hahah anything less than 40 is considered young! |
Anonymous
| When I was 35, they did some sort of fertility test, and I was told I had the fertility of a 25 year old. Your age and your fertility age are not always the same. Also new research is emerging all the time about fertility that undermines some old assumptions, like whether it's true that women are born what all the eggs they will ever produce, etc. |
Anonymous
| Risks increase with age, but 35 is a somewhat arbitrary “line.” Most of the risk (for a repeat mom) is on the genetic/chromosomal abnormality side, so get the testing if you’re concerned. If your other pregnancies were uncomplicated you’ll be considered pretty low risk. |
Anonymous
|
Idk about your specific odds but I have a perfectly healthy daughter that I birthed at 38 years old. My first born was birthed at 31 years old and he’s healthy as well.
I say this to say it’s definitely possible and you shouldn’t freak out simply because you’re 35. |
Anonymous
| If your other two pregnancies were fine, this one will probably be too. May want to ease off the sugar a bit. |
Anonymous
Yeah, they recently advanced AMA by 5 years, goes to show how arbitrary and goofy medicine can be. |
Anonymous
No offense but you seem fairly uninformed. Yes, some risks are higher - do the testing for the things you can like the NIPT. But tons and tons and tons of women have babies at or above 35. Many of them extremely highly educated. In fact, I bet highly educated women are the majority of older moms bc they delay motherhood due to education and career. So no they aren’t all having unhealthy babies. And certainly you could be totally fine during the pregnancy. I had my first at 39 and had a flawlessly healthy pregnancy but I was healthy going into it. |
Anonymous
| Extremely high. |
Anonymous
| What risks are you terrified of? Developmental delays/ASD? Those can’t be detected by NIPT or other tests right? |
Anonymous
| Weird, a mom from my co-op just announced a surprise 3rd pregnancy and she must’ve been about 25 and 28 with her first two and must be about 35 now. Is that you, S?? |
Anonymous
| I had 4 kids between 35 and 41. They’re fine. Don’t be so stressed about this. |
Anonymous
| Oh honey you've spent too much time reading! 35 is not late at all. Are you kidding? The whole having a baby later is like if you're 43 or 46 and even then nobody knows. You can have an autistic baby at 17. |