When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

[Anonymous]

I think that there is now evidence of increased risks of developmental abnormalities with older fathers too.

[Anonymous]

Adopted a newborn at 44.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adopted a newborn at 44.

Good for you. I really think that more women with fertility issues need to look into adoption. There are a ton of babies out there that need loving homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

Goodness, advanced maternal age increases the risk of what? Downs Syndrome? What else? My neice has Downs. She doesn't suffer. Her mother was 28 when she was born. All other special needs I can think of are genetic, caused by disease or chemical exposure while pregnant, injury during birth, or have no known cause. Again, things that happen at any age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

Goodness, advanced maternal age increases the risk of what? Downs Syndrome? What else? My neice has Downs. She doesn't suffer. Her mother was 28 when she was born. All other special needs I can think of are genetic, caused by disease or chemical exposure while pregnant, injury during birth, or have no known cause. Again, things that happen at any age.

I am 43 and trying for a baby. My OBGYN says that the risk of chromosomal abnormalities increases substantially with age.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 37 and my second at 39.
First child has a mild chromosomal disorder that we didn't figure out till he was 6. WOuldda discovered it if had cvs, but didn't. Glad I didn't.
Second is now 4 and is perfectly fine.
We know there are risks. So what?!
With age comes wisdom and maturity and patience and acceptance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

Goodness, advanced maternal age increases the risk of what? Downs Syndrome? What else? My neice has Downs. She doesn't suffer. Her mother was 28 when she was born. All other special needs I can think of are genetic, caused by disease or chemical exposure while pregnant, injury during birth, or have no known cause. Again, things that happen at any age.

I am 43 and trying for a baby. My OBGYN says that the risk of chromosomal abnormalities increases substantially with age.

True, but most chromosomal abnormalities result in miscarriage. Your risk of having a Downs baby is still only 1 in 50. It "is" a substantial increase over the risk of a 20 year old, which is 1 in 1,500. But your risk is still tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 37 and my second at 39.
First child has a mild chromosomal disorder that we didn't figure out till he was 6. WOuldda discovered it if had cvs, but didn't. Glad I didn't.
Second is now 4 and is perfectly fine.
We know there are risks. So what?!
With age comes wisdom and maturity and patience and acceptance.

So what??? Really, you would take the chance of your child suffering because you were selfish and wanted to have a baby at an older age??? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

Goodness, advanced maternal age increases the risk of what? Downs Syndrome? What else? My neice has Downs. She doesn't suffer. Her mother was 28 when she was born. All other special needs I can think of are genetic, caused by disease or chemical exposure while pregnant, injury during birth, or have no known cause. Again, things that happen at any age.

I am 43 and trying for a baby. My OBGYN says that the risk of chromosomal abnormalities increases substantially with age.

True, but most chromosomal abnormalities result in miscarriage. Your risk of having a Downs baby is still only 1 in 50. It "is" a substantial increase over the risk of a 20 year old, which is 1 in 1,500. But your risk is still tiny.

There are other risks associated with advanced maternal age besides Downs...for example, women over 40 are twice as likely to have a still born, and gestational diabetes. Not to mention 40% more likely to give birth prematurely and three times as likely to have placenta previa. EVERYONE whether you are over the age of 35 or not, though more so over the age of 39, should be making informed decisions not selfish ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 37 and my second at 39.
First child has a mild chromosomal disorder that we didn't figure out till he was 6. WOuldda discovered it if had cvs, but didn't. Glad I didn't.
Second is now 4 and is perfectly fine.
We know there are risks. So what?!
With age comes wisdom and maturity and patience and acceptance.

I'm definitely not in the camp of people who say that older women shouldn't have kids, but I also take great exception to "We know there are risks. So what?!" It's great if you are wise and mature and patient and accepting, but this is not really about you. It's about the innocent baby who may or may not have life-long developmental issues to deal with, possibly long after you are gone. And I of course understand that a baby born to a 20 year old Mom could have problems too, but it's clear that risk factors increase as we age. And to be so flip about those risks and to think that they might just affect YOU is what I find selfish.

[Anonymous]

To the person who wrote: So what??? Really, you would take the chance of your child suffering because you were selfish and wanted to have a baby at an older age??? Wow.

I think it is extremely naive of you to assume that a child with a genetic chromosomal disorder or any type of developmental disability suffers. Our child is one of the happiest kids I know. he is loving, kind, empathetic and everyone adores him. If I had to do it all again, I'd do it all the same way. I do not think I made a selfish decision to have a baby at 37. We give him a wonderful life as we do our other child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person who wrote: So what??? Really, you would take the chance of your child suffering because you were selfish and wanted to have a baby at an older age??? Wow.

I think it is extremely naive of you to assume that a child with a genetic chromosomal disorder or any type of developmental disability suffers. Our child is one of the happiest kids I know. he is loving, kind, empathetic and everyone adores him. If I had to do it all again, I'd do it all the same way. I do not think I made a selfish decision to have a baby at 37. We give him a wonderful life as we do our other child.

Who in the hell is being naive here...me or the 45 year old woman who thinks that she is going to have an asolutely perfect baby?? The truth of the matter is, babies with Downs do for the MOST part suffer. They have severe mental and physical issues that THEY have to suffer through. I am not saying that Down babies are some sort of demons, my cousin is Down and he is the most loving human being that I have come across but that doesn't change the fact that he never lived a normal life...and no, my aunt wasn't selfish in having him at an advanced maternal age, she was selfless by adopting him. AND by the way I think that my post said "TAKE THE CHANCE" of your child suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you think that 46 is too old to be trying to have a baby???

It all depends on the woman, the family, their life, etc. We never blink an eye at a man becoming a father at 46. I don't think we should hold the woman to a different standard, either, other than the fact she has to be physically capable of carrying the pregnancy, etc.

You don't think that there is a difference between a woman and a man when it comes to getting pregnant?? All of the studies show that after the age of 35 your eggs start to get "old" increasing the chances of your child having downs and another genetic issue. Would you consider 46 reckless or selfish?

That falls under "physically capable of carrying the pregnancy."

If you can't handle a special needs child, don't ever get pregnant. I don't care if you are 18 or 48. There is always a risk.

It's not about being able to handle a special needs child...it's about being selfish and running an even HIGHER risk of having a special needs child that could end up suffering their entire life...

Goodness, advanced maternal age increases the risk of what? Downs Syndrome? What else? My neice has Downs. She doesn't suffer. Her mother was 28 when she was born. All other special needs I can think of are genetic, caused by disease or chemical exposure while pregnant, injury during birth, or have no known cause. Again, things that happen at any age.

I am 43 and trying for a baby. My OBGYN says that the risk of chromosomal abnormalities increases substantially with age.

True, but most chromosomal abnormalities result in miscarriage. Your risk of having a Downs baby is still only 1 in 50. It "is" a substantial increase over the risk of a 20 year old, which is 1 in 1,500. But your risk is still tiny.

It's actually 1 in 16 for a 43 y/o.