What's your absolute cut off for trying for a child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My OB said no babies after 44. She said it gets too dangerous after that.

Your OB sounds like she isn't very skilled hopefully she refers out if she comes across a mom to be who is 45+ she probably wouldn't though would want their business.

OBs' opinions on this tend to be dictated by their own backgrounds and the demographics of their patient community. I was under 45 when I had my baby but my OB practice would never have said something like this because it was an urban practice with a lot of professional, highly educated moms, which skews much older. For instance they never used the term "geriatric pregnancy" and instead just said stuff like "oh we recommend this extra screen for moms over 35" or "our care protocol takes maternal age into account for induction" or that kind of thing. I remember expressing some trepidation about being an older mom early on and everyone in the room was like "older mom? this is nothing." They understood that there's sometimes stigma and judgment around women getting pregnant at later ages and went out of their way to not let that stigma permeate the practice because so many of their patients were in that age range. No idea if they ever had a mom over 45, but they wouldn't have turned her away and they wouldn't have expressed judgment.

Meanwhile my sister lives in a small, remote town, and she had her third and last baby at 32, and her doctor told her she was getting it in "just under the wire." It's very rare where she lives for people to have babies past 35, and most people at least start in their 20s. Whereas where I live almost no women have babies in their 20s because they are still finishing grad school and starting careers and most are not even married yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My OB said no babies after 44. She said it gets too dangerous after that.

Your OB sounds like she isn't very skilled hopefully she refers out if she comes across a mom to be who is 45+ she probably wouldn't though would want their business.

OBs' opinions on this tend to be dictated by their own backgrounds and the demographics of their patient community. I was under 45 when I had my baby but my OB practice would never have said something like this because it was an urban practice with a lot of professional, highly educated moms, which skews much older. For instance they never used the term "geriatric pregnancy" and instead just said stuff like "oh we recommend this extra screen for moms over 35" or "our care protocol takes maternal age into account for induction" or that kind of thing. I remember expressing some trepidation about being an older mom early on and everyone in the room was like "older mom? this is nothing." They understood that there's sometimes stigma and judgment around women getting pregnant at later ages and went out of their way to not let that stigma permeate the practice because so many of their patients were in that age range. No idea if they ever had a mom over 45, but they wouldn't have turned her away and they wouldn't have expressed judgment.

Meanwhile my sister lives in a small, remote town, and she had her third and last baby at 32, and her doctor told her she was getting it in "just under the wire." It's very rare where she lives for people to have babies past 35, and most people at least start in their 20s. Whereas where I live almost no women have babies in their 20s because they are still finishing grad school and starting careers and most are not even married yet.

Advanced maternal age is used now. And it’s not just “a term”


https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m 50 now and I wouldn’t have a child last 35 knowing how I feel now. My son is 20 and I stetted feeling tired by his junior/senior year in HS. So for me it isn’t the age you have the baby that matters but it’s the age you are still actively parenting them at home in HS.

I mean this kindly but you shouldn't feel ragged at 50. If you have a kid at 40 you will be 60 when your kid is 20 and mid 50s when your kid is a teenager and again you shouldn't feel ragged at that age take.care of your health.

I am a single parent and I've raised him by myself. It was doable for his young, active years because I was in my 30s and early 40s. I was tired by 45 and found out I had an under active thyroid. Even with medication, I am still tired. It doesn't help that I teach kindergarten. The only time I don't feel tired is in the summer when I work a "normal" job in an office. I don't have to be at work until 8:30 and my commute is only 35 minutes. During the school year, I have to be at school by 7:30 and my commute is nearly an hour. It's a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My OB said no babies after 44. She said it gets too dangerous after that.

Your OB sounds like she isn't very skilled hopefully she refers out if she comes across a mom to be who is 45+ she probably wouldn't though would want their business.

OBs' opinions on this tend to be dictated by their own backgrounds and the demographics of their patient community. I was under 45 when I had my baby but my OB practice would never have said something like this because it was an urban practice with a lot of professional, highly educated moms, which skews much older. For instance they never used the term "geriatric pregnancy" and instead just said stuff like "oh we recommend this extra screen for moms over 35" or "our care protocol takes maternal age into account for induction" or that kind of thing. I remember expressing some trepidation about being an older mom early on and everyone in the room was like "older mom? this is nothing." They understood that there's sometimes stigma and judgment around women getting pregnant at later ages and went out of their way to not let that stigma permeate the practice because so many of their patients were in that age range. No idea if they ever had a mom over 45, but they wouldn't have turned her away and they wouldn't have expressed judgment.

Meanwhile my sister lives in a small, remote town, and she had her third and last baby at 32, and her doctor told her she was getting it in "just under the wire." It's very rare where she lives for people to have babies past 35, and most people at least start in their 20s. Whereas where I live almost no women have babies in their 20s because they are still finishing grad school and starting careers and most are not even married yet.

Advanced maternal age is used now. And it’s not just “a term”


https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age

You will still encounter OBs saying geriatric pregnancy if they are older and especially if the practice in an area with a much younger average age for childbirth. The shift to AMA has been slow but it was adopted most readily in areas where more women have babies at later ages (higher income, higher educated parts of major metropolitan areas).

And yes, it's a "term." That's the proper way to describe the technical words doctors use to describe a specific condition or set of risks. AMA is a better TERM to describe the set of risks associated with pregnancy post-35 or post 40 than geriatric pregnancy, which tends to make patients feel judged.

[Anonymous]

Our second baby was born when I was 36 and my husband was 38. My own cut off age for a 3rd would have been 38 but we opted not to go for a 3rd.

[Anonymous]

There's some talk about doing away with advanced maternal age as it's essentially not needed and more rooted in misogyny than actual health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's some talk about doing away with advanced maternal age as it's essentially not needed and more rooted in misogyny than actual health care.

There are already a lot of OBs who don't treat 35+ as the cutoff for AMA anyway. The idea that risks skyrocket at 35 is a myth -- a 36 yr old is unlikely to have any more issues with a pregnancy than she would have had at 34.

My OB views 39/40 as when it's time to at least look at some risk factors and possibly do some extra screening or take increased caution with things like extending far past the due date. It will depend on the overall health of the mother, history with pregnancies, family history, etc. Then she views 41 and up as AMA and that's when they will require certain screening (it's always optional and she'll order it so insurance covers it for younger patients, but starting at 41 she'll automatically order it) and also change recommendations for certain triggers to be more cautious.

Also one thing my OB practice does is they treat paternal age as significant too. I think this is uncommon. But discussion of risks associated with advanced paternal age are discussed upon intake and throughout the pregnancy. Advanced paternal age is associated with viability and risks to the fetus, and those can also impact the mother's risk as the one carrying the fetus. I really appreciated that they are wholistic about this -- I know a lot of OBs totally ignore paternal age as a factor and that absolutely is rooted in misogyny. Women do not conceive children independently.

[Anonymous]

I conceived my first after 5 months of trying at 35. We are done because now I feel old and raising a child is hard. I really love her but don’t feel the need to go for round two at 36 or any older age. But I honestly probably would have tried to conceive through my mid forties if I had not conceived my only so quickly. I then would have stopped regardless of age following her birth.

[Anonymous]

Hypothetically I'm not sure I would have a cut off for the first. I'd probably keep trying until mid 40s before giving up.

[Anonymous]

I've had two friends mid-40s almost lose their lives and actually lose their uteruses. So not much past 40 IMO

[Anonymous]

45 for a first (assuming otherwise healthy and active). 42 for a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My grandmother had children into her late 40s. I thinks she had 13 babies, of which 9 survived to adulthood.

Pre widespread use of birth control, women had their last kid in their 40s on average. The oldest and youngest kid in my mom’s family are 20 years apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's some talk about doing away with advanced maternal age as it's essentially not needed and more rooted in misogyny than actual health care.

There are already a lot of OBs who don't treat 35+ as the cutoff for AMA anyway. The idea that risks skyrocket at 35 is a myth -- a 36 yr old is unlikely to have any more issues with a pregnancy than she would have had at 34.

My OB views 39/40 as when it's time to at least look at some risk factors and possibly do some extra screening or take increased caution with things like extending far past the due date. It will depend on the overall health of the mother, history with pregnancies, family history, etc. Then she views 41 and up as AMA and that's when they will require certain screening (it's always optional and she'll order it so insurance covers it for younger patients, but starting at 41 she'll automatically order it) and also change recommendations for certain triggers to be more cautious.

Also one thing my OB practice does is they treat paternal age as significant too. I think this is uncommon. But discussion of risks associated with advanced paternal age are discussed upon intake and throughout the pregnancy. Advanced paternal age is associated with viability and risks to the fetus, and those can also impact the mother's risk as the one carrying the fetus. I really appreciated that they are wholistic about this -- I know a lot of OBs totally ignore paternal age as a factor and that absolutely is rooted in misogyny. Women do not conceive children independently.

Your OB sounds great! As far as AMA the age is in the chart no need to slap a label on it like some scarlet letter. And she's 💯 correct about advanced paternal age.

[Anonymous]

Depends on your body. Women had children until their late 40s for tens of thousands of years before antibiotics and C sections.

Mostly a nothing burger to have kids until menopause these days with all the modern medical advances and tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of people who had 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 in the mid 40s, like 45 or 46. The families are happy and healthy.

Not any more they won’t be
RFK jr is making that impossible