Depressed about having a baby post 35

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand risks go up after 35, but I’m always confused by this idea that getting pregnant after 35 is terrible. Isn’t there a reason we don’t go into menopause until ~50? And it’s not like everyone throughout history pre-birth control stopped having sex at 35. Plenty of people throughout history have been born to mothers over 35 but the world wasn’t overrun with people with Down Syndrome, etc.

Menopause is not a one day it appears thing. It starts in your 40’s and egg quality is absolutely diminishing and that will not change no matter if women continue to have babies at this age. You may not like it, but you cannot stop it and deny that it is happening. No one said younger women don’t have babies with birth defects. However, it is a fact that advanced age increases this and many of this age do have Downs children and I see many miscarriages. Much higher in older woman and very, very common. You just don’t hear about it and many aren’t even aware that it happened to them.

NP.

Even so, we all know that. It does not help OP or other mothers to tear them down. Life happens. Some people meet the right person in their 20s, and some meet that person at 40. There are many journeys, and you have sound like an insensitive jerk not only for pointing it out, but for pointing it out on a thread when OP is already depressed.

It's really not that hard to be kind. If you cannot, you simply do not respond. Eye roll and scroll. Do not pile on.

[Anonymous]

This is a normal age among educated city-dwellers. I had mine at 33, 35, and 38. Conceived first month off the pill, then second month, then first month. All three pregnancies and births were uncomplicated. If you're going to approach every major life event with an abstract preconceived notion of how it "should" be, you are setting yourself up for unhappiness.

[Anonymous]

It's so not a big deal! You can either have the baby 35+, or be child free 35+.

But, where I live in N Arlington 35+ would be more the norm.

Women throughout history has babies 35+. One in our family had 9 kids, every other year up to age 44.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it. Some things don't go according to plan and it sucks. You're automatically considered high risk and the treatment is different. But having a healthy baby in arm is worth it.

This is not true. I wasn’t even considered big risk at 41. I did get some extra monitoring in the 3rd tri, and induced at 39 weeks based on OB recommendations, but that was a very conservative practice concerned about specific age related risks. It was not a high risk pregnancy.

And none of that was done with my first pregnancy at 38.

You may be unaware of it, but you were considered a big risk.

Massive eye roll. Please. A "big risk". You get extra monitoring and genetic testing. Teens with substance abuse are also a big risk. Multiples are a big risk. Obese people are a big risk. Its all relative.

Deny and eye roll all you want. It is a big risk and obvious you don’t work in obstetrics.

DP who had my first at 37 and second at 41. Increased risk, yes. But "big risk" is overstating it. You make it sound like these pregnancies are more likely to fail than not, and that isn't the case.
I had several appointments with an MFM with my 2nd that I didn't have with my first, out of an abundance of caution. But my pregnancy and delivery were both uneventful, and DD2 is perfectly healthy.
You know, having children well into late 30s and 40s isn't some new, rare thing. My mother comes from a large family. My grandmother had her first at 21 and last of 8 kids at 42. Her own mother also had children from her 20s to her 40s. Prior to the widespread use of birth control, this was common.

Your argument doesn’t fly then if you saw an MFM to be cautious. You downplayed prior generations having babies later in life but then you saw a specialist because of the risk that you claim is not a risk.

What is your damage? Why are you so hellbent on making women feel bad? You need a hobby. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

OP, this is one of those things you only care about before you have your baby. Once they are here, you’ll see they are perfect and perfectly timed.

- mom of 2, born when I was 37 and (soon to be) 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it. Some things don't go according to plan and it sucks. You're automatically considered high risk and the treatment is different. But having a healthy baby in arm is worth it.

This is not true. I wasn’t even considered big risk at 41. I did get some extra monitoring in the 3rd tri, and induced at 39 weeks based on OB recommendations, but that was a very conservative practice concerned about specific age related risks. It was not a high risk pregnancy.

And none of that was done with my first pregnancy at 38.

You may be unaware of it, but you were considered a big risk.

Massive eye roll. Please. A "big risk". You get extra monitoring and genetic testing. Teens with substance abuse are also a big risk. Multiples are a big risk. Obese people are a big risk. Its all relative.

Deny and eye roll all you want. It is a big risk and obvious you don’t work in obstetrics.

DP who had my first at 37 and second at 41. Increased risk, yes. But "big risk" is overstating it. You make it sound like these pregnancies are more likely to fail than not, and that isn't the case.
I had several appointments with an MFM with my 2nd that I didn't have with my first, out of an abundance of caution. But my pregnancy and delivery were both uneventful, and DD2 is perfectly healthy.
You know, having children well into late 30s and 40s isn't some new, rare thing. My mother comes from a large family. My grandmother had her first at 21 and last of 8 kids at 42. Her own mother also had children from her 20s to her 40s. Prior to the widespread use of birth control, this was common.

No matter how many times you say it, having a baby at an advanced age is not comparable to having a baby at a younger age. You cannot fight it, it is inevitably. Yes, you are the cases where it worked in your favor. It does not often, go work in Obstetrics.

Please show me the studies/statistics that show that AMA pregnancies more often than not end poorly. Because that is what you are implying. When I got pregnant at 41, I was told that there was an 8-10% likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, whether that was miscarriage, chromosomal abnormality, whatever.
Look, OP needs to understand that there is increased risk, but it isn’t all doom and gloom as you seem to think. She needs to decide whether or not it is worth it to have a child. Unless you’ve got a time machine in your pocket that you can share, there isn’t much we can do about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it. Some things don't go according to plan and it sucks. You're automatically considered high risk and the treatment is different. But having a healthy baby in arm is worth it.

This is not true. I wasn’t even considered big risk at 41. I did get some extra monitoring in the 3rd tri, and induced at 39 weeks based on OB recommendations, but that was a very conservative practice concerned about specific age related risks. It was not a high risk pregnancy.

And none of that was done with my first pregnancy at 38.

You may be unaware of it, but you were considered a big risk.

Massive eye roll. Please. A "big risk". You get extra monitoring and genetic testing. Teens with substance abuse are also a big risk. Multiples are a big risk. Obese people are a big risk. Its all relative.

Deny and eye roll all you want. It is a big risk and obvious you don’t work in obstetrics.

DP who had my first at 37 and second at 41. Increased risk, yes. But "big risk" is overstating it. You make it sound like these pregnancies are more likely to fail than not, and that isn't the case.
I had several appointments with an MFM with my 2nd that I didn't have with my first, out of an abundance of caution. But my pregnancy and delivery were both uneventful, and DD2 is perfectly healthy.
You know, having children well into late 30s and 40s isn't some new, rare thing. My mother comes from a large family. My grandmother had her first at 21 and last of 8 kids at 42. Her own mother also had children from her 20s to her 40s. Prior to the widespread use of birth control, this was common.

Your argument doesn’t fly then if you saw an MFM to be cautious. You downplayed prior generations having babies later in life but then you saw a specialist because of the risk that you claim is not a risk.

The hospital-based CNMs that handled both of my deliveries recommended seeing an MFM for a consult and NT scan at the end of my first trimester and 2 growth scans in my 3rd trimester. I took their advice.
I didn’t say there was no risk. In fact, I specifically said that there is increased risk. Just not the doom and gloom you make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

There’s a vast difference between after 35 and post 40. Come on. I’ve been pregnant at 31 and 41 and it wasn’t really that different that said.

[Anonymous]

Just one other thing to maybe make OP see the good side. I had my kids at 43 ( singleton) and 46 ( twins!). All donor egg. I am now 63 —and I don’t have to fret over what I will do when babies finally leave the nest next year! I am retired! No working act 3 for me! AMA

[Anonymous]

Both a 13 and 43 year old can have a baby. Neither should.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both a 13 and 43 year old can have a baby. Neither should.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both a 13 and 43 year old can have a baby. Neither should.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Grown adults should not obsessively lurk and prey on forums for pregnant women and attack them for their family planning decisions, telling them dark tales of woe and trying to scare them and make them feel bad, and yet, here you have been for days. So I’d stop worrying about what’s healthy for other people and start working on my own weird self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both a 13 and 43 year old can have a baby. Neither should.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Grown adults should not obsessively lurk and prey on forums for pregnant women and attack them for their family planning decisions, telling them dark tales of woe and trying to scare them and make them feel bad, and yet, here you have been for days. So I’d stop worrying about what’s healthy for other people and start working on my own weird self.

Such as yourself.

[Anonymous]

What I don't understand....
I had children in the early 00s and it was GENERALLY and widely accepted that there was a danger zone past 35 because of scientifically established risks associated with getting pregnant over 35. All of my peers had children in late 20s and early 30s. Very few AMA moms, and yes, I was living in an urban area and we were all "well educated."

Did they come out with new research? Or are people just ignoring it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand....
I had children in the early 00s and it was GENERALLY and widely accepted that there was a danger zone past 35 because of scientifically established risks associated with getting pregnant over 35. All of my peers had children in late 20s and early 30s. Very few AMA moms, and yes, I was living in an urban area and we were all "well educated."

Did they come out with new research? Or are people just ignoring it?

20 years have passed since you had kids during which time prices have increased and wages have not, people have to work longer and save. Look at those studies.