What age is your personal cut off on having kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

[Anonymous]

35 was my cutoff bc my anxiety was so bad during both pregnancies that I didn’t think I could handle being AMA. Had first at 31, second at 34. I’m 39 now and sometimes regret not having a 3rd.

[Anonymous]

If things had gone better with DH, I would have been willing to try for #2 at 40, even though having DS at 36 was pretty stressful on my body.

But with a FT job and a difficult 1st, I wasn't willing. Even in the best of circumstances I think my cut-off would be 40. I'm not willing to deal with the stress of genetic issues & miscarriages, and my body didn't do great with my pregnancy at 35 anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:35 was my cutoff bc my anxiety was so bad during both pregnancies that I didn’t think I could handle being AMA. Had first at 31, second at 34. I’m 39 now and sometimes regret not having a 3rd.

This is me exactly except I’m 40 now. Sometimes I have a small regret about a third. But mostly I’m extremely relieved not to have 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

[Anonymous]

36. Wanted it to be 34 but dealt with infertility for many years.

[Anonymous]

35. The risk really does increase with age. As a hospital pediatrician, I get called into high risk deliveries. Most turn out just fine, but I’ve seen too much to take that risk personally. I had my kids as early as I could manage (right after residency).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

Talk to any OB. There are plenty of studies out there about the risk of birth defects as you age. I had one child at 36 (just barely AMA) and another at 40. The increased risk of abnormalities was significant from 36 to 40. Even more steadily increased in the 40s. We did more of the offered tests with the pregnancy at 40 and had more “what if?” conversations.
You are not providing any evidence for your claims either so it hard to criticize the poster you are responding too. How many babies had birth defects and were aborted? Sure there’s lots of healthy babies. It’s still more likely to have a healthy baby than not, but the risks aren’t insignificant.

[Anonymous]

I just had my 3rd at 35 and it was so much harder of a pregnancy than my 1st at 29 and my 2nd at 32. No additional risks or problems and everything was normal, resulting in a healthy baby, but I was so sick for the first half of my pregnancy and so dead tired for the second half. It was just overall very hard and I was miserable in a way that I was not with my first two! So I’m 100% done. And would be done even if it was my 2nd kid. If I was having my first at 35 maybe I would try to get pregnant again but not push past about 37 at delivery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

Talk to any OB. There are plenty of studies out there about the risk of birth defects as you age. I had one child at 36 (just barely AMA) and another at 40. The increased risk of abnormalities was significant from 36 to 40. Even more steadily increased in the 40s. We did more of the offered tests with the pregnancy at 40 and had more “what if?” conversations.
You are not providing any evidence for your claims either so it hard to criticize the poster you are responding too. How many babies had birth defects and were aborted? Sure there’s lots of healthy babies. It’s still more likely to have a healthy baby than not, but the risks aren’t insignificant.

It's not all doom and gloom if you have access to good care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

Talk to any OB. There are plenty of studies out there about the risk of birth defects as you age. I had one child at 36 (just barely AMA) and another at 40. The increased risk of abnormalities was significant from 36 to 40. Even more steadily increased in the 40s. We did more of the offered tests with the pregnancy at 40 and had more “what if?” conversations.
You are not providing any evidence for your claims either so it hard to criticize the poster you are responding too. How many babies had birth defects and were aborted? Sure there’s lots of healthy babies. It’s still more likely to have a healthy baby than not, but the risks aren’t insignificant.

It's not all doom and gloom if you have access to good care.

One of the big risks is downs- what is your doctor going to do to fix that? Sure, good prenatal care can help carry to term but birth defects can’t just be fixed.
You’re way too blasé about the risks.

[Anonymous]

I’m 39 and we’re working on #2, but with embryos from a round of IVF from when I was 34. If none of them stick, we’re calling it quits. So 41 will be my cutoff, but only because we have those embryos. I wouldn’t want to try “from scratch” at my age.

I don’t at all fault parents who are older and try with higher risks, but with my tendency toward anxiety I would just worry too much. It’s my limitations that are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

Talk to any OB. There are plenty of studies out there about the risk of birth defects as you age. I had one child at 36 (just barely AMA) and another at 40. The increased risk of abnormalities was significant from 36 to 40. Even more steadily increased in the 40s. We did more of the offered tests with the pregnancy at 40 and had more “what if?” conversations.
You are not providing any evidence for your claims either so it hard to criticize the poster you are responding too. How many babies had birth defects and were aborted? Sure there’s lots of healthy babies. It’s still more likely to have a healthy baby than not, but the risks aren’t insignificant.

It's not all doom and gloom if you have access to good care.

One of the big risks is downs- what is your doctor going to do to fix that? Sure, good prenatal care can help carry to term but birth defects can’t just be fixed.
You’re way too blasé about the risks.

Abort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35-36 is the most normal and safest. Anything older risks mutations, defects, death etc...

? I know several who had babies after 36, normal kids, including me. What is your source for this assertion.

You’re responding with anecdotal evidence, pp was responding with what could be any number of clinical studies (take your pick or ask your doctor.) your response is a bit naive

You need to get out a bit. Plenty of women have healthy babies AMA in developed countries. The first PP did not provide anything to back up their claims.

Talk to any OB. There are plenty of studies out there about the risk of birth defects as you age. I had one child at 36 (just barely AMA) and another at 40. The increased risk of abnormalities was significant from 36 to 40. Even more steadily increased in the 40s. We did more of the offered tests with the pregnancy at 40 and had more “what if?” conversations.
You are not providing any evidence for your claims either so it hard to criticize the poster you are responding too. How many babies had birth defects and were aborted? Sure there’s lots of healthy babies. It’s still more likely to have a healthy baby than not, but the risks aren’t insignificant.

It's not all doom and gloom if you have access to good care.

One of the big risks is downs- what is your doctor going to do to fix that? Sure, good prenatal care can help carry to term but birth defects can’t just be fixed.
You’re way too blasé about the risks.

Abort?

That doesn’t “fix” it. You still won’t have a baby and could potentially have a lot of emotional trauma.