When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we were growing up (I am 41), I knew tons of Catholic families and Mormon families who had large families, including the youngest kids born when the mothers were in their early forties. No one blinked an eye. Were they being "selfish"?

Absolutely

Wasn't clear whether "absolutely" meant "absolutely, they were being selfish," or "Absolutely, I agree with you." Just curious: if the former, then do you think they should have refrained from having sex with their husbands from age 40 until menopause? Serious question--I just can't see how you can reconcile your comment.

I'm not the "absolutely" poster but come on, don't Catholics and Mormons have "natural" birth control methods down pat if they choose not to use any kind of actual contraceptive? Isn't the rhythm method or whatever supposed to be REALLY effective if actually used correctly? You can't say that someone - OOPS! - had 16 accidental children.

Mormons don't technically prohibit birth control but it is discouraged. For both, yes they can use "natural family planning," but the point is that many of them choose not to because they do not mind if they get pregnant, so why refrain from sex if you are fine with getting pregnant? My point to the earlier poster was that don't think they were being "selfish" to have regular marital sex (i.e., choose not to use the rhythm method) just because they may have been forty or over.

As stated, there is enough education and information available to us today to help couples make informed and educated decisions. If they choose to have a baby past the recommended maternal age, then I sure as hell hope that they are prepared mentally, physcially and financially in the case that they would have a special needs kid to be able to cater to that child. If you take in all of the risks that are associated with advanced maternal age, then I assume that you are very well prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1 in 16, wow. That is unbelievable. This whole threads makes me so sad because I want a third child (I'm 40). The reason I got started so late is because of six lonely years of Infertility.

I'm just not sure if I can go through nine months of worrying if my third child would be healthy - not with those odds. And I already feel so lucky with two healthy children. I worry that I'm pushing my luck too much with a third.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Look, I am only 28, was 26 when I had my first and I went through 9 months of worrying about his health due to us having invitro. Now we want to have a second but again, I worry about the health of that baby. I feel lucky to have one baby and truly blessed. I still haven't decided whether to have another yet or not. But there is plenty of information out there and everything should be discussed with your doctor about the risks. If you got pregnant with a third, they would do an amnio...if that amnio were to come back (god forbid) that your baby had downs and another chromosonal abnormalty, would you terminate the pregnacy or raise that baby?? That is something that needs to answered in your heart and your husbands heart.

[Anonymous]

I in 16 is incorrect. Here are the correct stats:
http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I in 16 is incorrect. Here are the correct stats:
http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

Did you even read from when this table was produced....1983!


The numbers are approximated and rounded.
Using this data, geneticists have set the number separating low-risk from high-risk at 1 / 250.

Why is there a difference in frequencies between 16 weeks and time of birth?
Because of the spontaneous miscarriages of pregnancies with Down syndrome between these times.

For information on risks of more detailed situations (such as translocation or mothers
who have had previous babies with Down syndrome, see Dr. Paul Benke's essay
on Risk and Recurrence of Down syndrome.

Reference for the above table: Hook EB. JAMA 249:2034-2038, 1983.

[Anonymous]

Yes, 1983, but the risk has not increased to 1 in 16 since then.

If I have time, I will certainly find a more recent table to post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, 1983, but the risk has not increased to 1 in 16 since then.

If I have time, I will certainly find a more recent table to post.

No, but here are your 2008 number:

At age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance.

At age 35, a 1-in-400 chance.

At age 40, a 1-in-100 chance.

At 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

At 49, a 1-in-10 chance (1, 4).

[Anonymous]

http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/downsyndrome/l/bldownssyn.htm

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1214.asp

Both recent. 1 in 16 is simply incorrect. Obviously the incidence is higher with advancing age, but we shouldn't post erroneous information that falsely states that the risk is even higher than in fact is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, 1983, but the risk has not increased to 1 in 16 since then.

If I have time, I will certainly find a more recent table to post.

No, but here are your 2008 number:

At age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance.

At age 35, a 1-in-400 chance.

At age 40, a 1-in-100 chance.

At 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

At 49, a 1-in-10 chance (1, 4).

Please reference. thanks.

[Anonymous]

Yes (joking) Im 27 and dont want/need anymore kids by the time Im your age mine will be grown. Seriously it depends on you, if your up for than go for it Good luck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 in 16, wow. That is unbelievable. This whole threads makes me so sad because I want a third child (I'm 40). The reason I got started so late is because of six lonely years of Infertility.

I'm just not sure if I can go through nine months of worrying if my third child would be healthy - not with those odds. And I already feel so lucky with two healthy children. I worry that I'm pushing my luck too much with a third.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Look, I am only 28, was 26 when I had my first and I went through 9 months of worrying about his health due to us having invitro. Now we want to have a second but again, I worry about the health of that baby. I feel lucky to have one baby and truly blessed. I still haven't decided whether to have another yet or not. But there is plenty of information out there and everything should be discussed with your doctor about the risks. If you got pregnant with a third, they would do an amnio...if that amnio were to come back (god forbid) that your baby had downs and another chromosonal abnormalty, would you terminate the pregnacy or raise that baby?? That is something that needs to answered in your heart and your husbands heart.

I know. I refused the amnio the first time b/c of IVF. It didn't matter to me if my child had Downs, or anything else. But this would be my third child, and in my heart I am afraid that a child with severe problems (MS, Downs, etc.) would really change my family. I would have a hard time terminating the pregnancy though - my mother has a wonderful cousin who has mild Downs...

Anyhow, these are difficult decisions for me. I do know that I would do a CVS or amnio. But I haven't resolved what I would do if it came back with bad results.

[Anonymous]

Hm. I did not agree with the poster who said it's selfish to have children at an advanced age. But in the situation one woman just posed where she said she already has 2 healthy kids, I am beginning to think it is sort of selfish to have another when the risks are this high.
Even as the mother of a special needs child, I certainly had strong feelings about Sarah Palin's decision to have a baby at her age when she already had a large family of healthy kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, 1983, but the risk has not increased to 1 in 16 since then.

If I have time, I will certainly find a more recent table to post.

No, but here are your 2008 number:

At age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance.

At age 35, a 1-in-400 chance.

At age 40, a 1-in-100 chance.

At 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

At 49, a 1-in-10 chance (1, 4).

Please reference. thanks.

March of Dimes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hm. I did not agree with the poster who said it's selfish to have children at an advanced age. But in the situation one woman just posed where she said she already has 2 healthy kids, I am beginning to think it is sort of selfish to have another when the risks are this high.
Even as the mother of a special needs child, I certainly had strong feelings about Sarah Palin's decision to have a baby at her age when she already had a large family of healthy kids.

I am the poster. I would have my baby at 40. The risks are not extraordinarily high. I've had two successful pregnancies and no miscarriages. I am very healthy and so is my husband. We have no family history of any sort of disease or birth defects. My Ob says my odds of Downs are way lower than the statistics for my age - so that's probably way lower than the 1 in 100 cited by the March of Dimes. In fact, my Ob is very supportive of me having another baby. His wife had her third child when she was 41.

So, I don't find my desire for a third child to be selfish at all. I find it amazing that you come to this site and tell other people that they are SELFISH for wanting to have another child! I can think of lots of things that would be selfish, but having a baby is just not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm. I did not agree with the poster who said it's selfish to have children at an advanced age. But in the situation one woman just posed where she said she already has 2 healthy kids, I am beginning to think it is sort of selfish to have another when the risks are this high.
Even as the mother of a special needs child, I certainly had strong feelings about Sarah Palin's decision to have a baby at her age when she already had a large family of healthy kids.

I am the poster. I would have my baby at 40. The risks are not extraordinarily high. I've had two successful pregnancies and no miscarriages. I am very healthy and so is my husband. We have no family history of any sort of disease or birth defects. My Ob says my odds of Downs are way lower than the statistics for my age - so that's probably way lower than the 1 in 100 cited by the March of Dimes. In fact, my Ob is very supportive of me having another baby. His wife had her third child when she was 41.

So, I don't find my desire for a third child to be selfish at all. I find it amazing that you come to this site and tell other people that they are SELFISH for wanting to have another child! I can think of lots of things that would be selfish, but having a baby is just not one of them.

Nobody said it was selfish to have another child...just selfish to want more at an advanced maternal age...you can be as healthy as you want to be for 41...that's not going to slow down the aging process of your eggs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm. I did not agree with the poster who said it's selfish to have children at an advanced age. But in the situation one woman just posed where she said she already has 2 healthy kids, I am beginning to think it is sort of selfish to have another when the risks are this high.
Even as the mother of a special needs child, I certainly had strong feelings about Sarah Palin's decision to have a baby at her age when she already had a large family of healthy kids.

I am the poster. I would have my baby at 40. The risks are not extraordinarily high. I've had two successful pregnancies and no miscarriages. I am very healthy and so is my husband. We have no family history of any sort of disease or birth defects. My Ob says my odds of Downs are way lower than the statistics for my age - so that's probably way lower than the 1 in 100 cited by the March of Dimes. In fact, my Ob is very supportive of me having another baby. His wife had her third child when she was 41.

So, I don't find my desire for a third child to be selfish at all. I find it amazing that you come to this site and tell other people that they are SELFISH for wanting to have another child! I can think of lots of things that would be selfish, but having a baby is just not one of them.

Nobody said it was selfish to have another child...just selfish to want more at an advanced maternal age...you can be as healthy as you want to be for 41...that's not going to slow down the aging process of your eggs.

For the sake of civility/board space/time/etc., I truly think people should just cease responding to this (apparently the same one each time) poster who keeps harping on the selfishness of it all. She's entitled to her opinion, bless her heart. Clearly, though, this is an agree-to-disagree situation between her and almost everyone else. Since it is pointless to persuade her (I, for one, actually feel no need to persuade her; she can think just as she likes and I will just ignore her), I think it is a waste of energy to engage with her. Just my two cents.