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

[Anonymous]

I’d planned on one kid and wanted to get pregnant before I turned 36. Wholly
arbitrary. He was born when I was 36.

I felt strongly that for a second kid I wasn’t interested in doing IVF or anything, or trying indefinitely. For me it wasn’t so much about age, as it was about the value added (hypothetically) of 1 kid vs 2. I think I’d have done a whole lot of intervention if needed to become a mom, but husband and I agreed we would try for a time limited period and not do intervention to try to get pregnant.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 40. After that I did not use contraception—but also did not do anything in particular to try to get pregnant—until 49, when I got a Mirena as part of my HRT regimen.

We would have been glad to have a second, but were not willing to pursue IVF or donor eggs or any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

How so? People being healthier = more healthy kids.

[Anonymous]

I've met several people who were themselves accidents when their mothers were mid-forties and their mothers lived to be hella old. I suppose if you could give birth in your mid-forties in the first place you must have great genes and health, though personally I would never want a baby at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Be reassured that most medical professionals do not use medical terms to denigrate their patients. There are certainly some who do, and there are certainly some terms that have been dismissed because they were insulting, and we have to constantly review usage. No one believes that women fall off a cliff at age 35, but advanced maternal age is an evidence based term that was developed to quickly identify women at greater risk of x, y, and z in order to provide them specific medical care.

It’s not “nice”, but 💯, you are being referred to as “38 year old obese G3P0 woman who appears older than stated age, etc etc. I used to describe 60 year olds as “elderly” when I was in my 20’s. I’m sure I offended some patients back then, my apologies.

[Anonymous]

40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Be reassured that most medical professionals do not use medical terms to denigrate their patients. There are certainly some who do, and there are certainly some terms that have been dismissed because they were insulting, and we have to constantly review usage. No one believes that women fall off a cliff at age 35, but advanced maternal age is an evidence based term that was developed to quickly identify women at greater risk of x, y, and z in order to provide them specific medical care.

It’s not “nice”, but 💯, you are being referred to as “38 year old obese G3P0 woman who appears older than stated age, etc etc. I used to describe 60 year olds as “elderly” when I was in my 20’s. I’m sure I offended some patients back then, my apologies.

Not where I work but we're not aholes.

[Anonymous]

Thought about going for a third at 39, but DH and I had so many issues, I was an inch away from divorcing him, so not a good time. Now at 46 things are much better between us, but I wouldn’t be comfortable trying at this age. Plus, I don’t think I could be the mother I want to be with more than 2.

[Anonymous]

This is so personal. For me I wanted to have all my kids 35 or younger since I got married on the earlier side and got started in my 20s. 3rd baby arrived a few months before I turned 35. If I got married later and I was healthy I’d have these 3 into my 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your first, 40. For your second or any there after, 38.

Just my opinion though, based on what I've seen. I had my first at 28 and second at 31 and was done.

I don't get this logic. Had my first at 38 and second at 40.

I’m not the PP you responded to but my guess is that that PP’s thinking is that the likelihood of pregnancy complications and birth defects goes up with maternal age and paternal age (and since paternal age is correlated with maternal age, the latter is also a proxy for the former) and if you already have a child or children the cost/benefit analysis changes.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, we started late. First at 37. 40 when DS, our third was born. Lots of work along the way and he’s in MS now, but can’t imagine life without him. Everyone will have a different story but we’re glad we kept going. We’re in the city and it feels like more of the parents here are around our age vs the outer suburbs. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your first, 40. For your second or any there after, 38.

Just my opinion though, based on what I've seen. I had my first at 28 and second at 31 and was done.

I don't get this logic. Had my first at 38 and second at 40.

I’m not the PP you responded to but my guess is that that PP’s thinking is that the likelihood of pregnancy complications and birth defects goes up with maternal age and paternal age (and since paternal age is correlated with maternal age, the latter is also a proxy for the former) and if you already have a child or children the cost/benefit analysis changes.

This. You have to assess whether the risk of having a child with special needs (taking away a lot of resources and attention from your existing children) is fair to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your first, 40. For your second or any there after, 38.

Just my opinion though, based on what I've seen. I had my first at 28 and second at 31 and was done.

I don't get this logic. Had my first at 38 and second at 40.

I’m not the PP you responded to but my guess is that that PP’s thinking is that the likelihood of pregnancy complications and birth defects goes up with maternal age and paternal age (and since paternal age is correlated with maternal age, the latter is also a proxy for the former) and if you already have a child or children the cost/benefit analysis changes.

This. You have to assess whether the risk of having a child with special needs (taking away a lot of resources and attention from your existing children) is fair to them.

Yep, that's why we have an only. Would have loved two but not worth the risk of blowing up our family to try in my forties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your first, 40. For your second or any there after, 38.

Just my opinion though, based on what I've seen. I had my first at 28 and second at 31 and was done.

I don't get this logic. Had my first at 38 and second at 40.

I’m not the PP you responded to but my guess is that that PP’s thinking is that the likelihood of pregnancy complications and birth defects goes up with maternal age and paternal age (and since paternal age is correlated with maternal age, the latter is also a proxy for the former) and if you already have a child or children the cost/benefit analysis changes.

This. You have to assess whether the risk of having a child with special needs (taking away a lot of resources and attention from your existing children) is fair to them.

Yep, that's why we have an only. Would have loved two but not worth the risk of blowing up our family to try in my forties.

Everybody knows what they can handle. Both of us have disabilities so we do not experience disability, generally, as an existential threat to our family. But I was comfortable with taking the risk that I would need an abortion—a very small risk in absolute terms, though higher than it would have been if I’d been pregnant 20 years earlier.

[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.

That’s ridiculous. Doing away with a medical term because feelings are hurt?

The eggs are older and more likely to have genetic defects especially after 40. Women with advanced maternal age should be given the information on what tests are recommended for their age group and let them decide.