Depressed about having a baby post 35

[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?

Yes, there is an increased risk of miscarriage, genetic anomalies, complications, etc as you age. That isn't a new thing. It also isn't a new thing for women in their late 30s and early 40s to give birth, as vast centuries of history prior to the invention of the birth control pill would show.
I was AMA for both of my births, one of which occurred over 40. There was a recommendation for additional monitoring, and a recommendation that I not go past 40 weeks (I had a scheduled induction at 39w3d).
Not everyone is fortunate to meet their partner earlier in life and/or not have fertility issues. And for those who will say infertility is an issue only for older women, I'll correct you on that, based on my own personal experience (PCOS).

[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?

No, the old moms on here think that they know better than scientists and medical authority. It doesn’t apply to them, they are among those whose biology is exempt from aging and what the AMA reports. Don’t you dare disagree with them, they need the validation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the old moms on here think that they know better than scientists and medical authority. It doesn’t apply to them, they are among those whose biology is exempt from aging and what the AMA reports. Don’t you dare disagree with them, they need the validation.

DP. While the risk goes up relative to younger moms, the overall risk is still quite low. I'm not sure why you feel the need to dig in here. I literally only have one college or law school friend who had kids in his 20s. Everyone else started in their mid 30s, and while IVF has been common, the kids are all fine (and will likely benefit from having richer parents whose careers are well established). I personally had 2/3 of my kids at 35 and 38. I got pregnant the first month off birth control both times. My experience is obviously not universal, but it is not uncommon either.

[Anonymous]

This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...so they are ignoring the scientific research of risks. It's a calculated risk taken because they can't afford a kid earlier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

So, we reduce woman in their early 30s to being broke with no support system, while women in their 40s are not. Interesting.
On another note, money (not medical science) says post 40 is better to have babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when I was early in my pregnancy with my baby (I was 36 at the time, would be 37 when I delivered) I went to a dinner party and met a couple there with three children. I was asking them questions about themselves and their kids but they were not aware I was pregnant -- no one there was. And then went on for about 15 minutes about how they were SO GLAD they'd had their 3rd when the wife was 34 because of all the terrible things they knew happened if you had a baby past 35. It was comical and also deeply stupid and offensive (note to people everywhere: don't talk like this to people you barely know, because they might be a 36-yr-old pregnant lady, lol).

I had completely forgotten about that incident until I read your post, OP. Forgotten because my healthy pregnancy resulted in a wonderful child who has kept me insanely busy and happy these past 5 years. I hope that couple is still happy with their own kids, but they were being ridiculous. There is nothing magic about having a baby before 35. It really doesn't make much of a difference. My best mom friend had her first at 32. We are very close and I never feel envious of her for having kids earlier than I did. I'm grateful that (1) I had a child at all, and (2) for the few extra years of wisdom I had when my child was born, which I genuinely think made me a better mom.

Best of luck to you with conceiving and pregnancy and motherhood.

My takeaway here is that you think you're wiser than your mom friend because you were three years older. That's just...funny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the old moms on here think that they know better than scientists and medical authority. It doesn’t apply to them, they are among those whose biology is exempt from aging and what the AMA reports. Don’t you dare disagree with them, they need the validation.

NP. I had my kids in the early 00s. 2000, 2003, 2006 to be precise. Only one of my many friends was under 30, and she wasn't American. Here, in DC. I don't know what urban area you're from, but I doubt it was here. In fact, with my first, at 33, one of the L&D nurses commented on how young I was. It was comical (I must have looked younger than I actually was)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the old moms on here think that they know better than scientists and medical authority. It doesn’t apply to them, they are among those whose biology is exempt from aging and what the AMA reports. Don’t you dare disagree with them, they need the validation.

No, you just haven't been an AMA mom, so you don't know. The first thing they do is tell you your actual fertility age. Mine was 18 at 35, and that was in the early 00s. My doctors had zero concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

Yes, but she then says that older mothers are more aggressively screened. But argues that it’s relative. What?!

What are you not getting? How is anyone arguing they’re exempt? You’re having a total straw man argument with yourself. Yes, the risk goes up relatively for age for things like chromosome issues. Nobody debates that. Older women get extra screening. Women as sentient beings are capable of weighing this risk against other factors like financial status, time, career, relationship. Their calculus may be different than yours. Why does that chap you so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This debate is so silly. I have numerous friends in their 40s born to moms over 35 because many many women had their final baby at 43 back then. I have many friends now that had kids over 35. Most, in fact. People don’t look at the “research” when they decide to have children. It’s based on where they are in their lives. The risks discussed in this thread like increased risk of generic abnormalities are known and so tested for. Most children with Down syndrome for example are born to younger mothers. Older ones are more aggressively screened. The judgment on here needs to tone way, way down. If a woman over 40 is having a child and is financially good and in a stable relationship, let’s worry about her less than the woman in her early 30s who is broke with no support system. It is all relative. Risk is a relative concept and personal assessments of it will vary.

Here is one where it doesn’t apply to her, she is exempt.

...though I would wager that she read and abided by all the other scientific research around pregnancy. It's just that pesky one about age thing that people ignore.
Also, who says 40+ have support systems or are financially stable or have stable relationships? Goodness, I know a LOT of 40somethings and they fall all over the map - divorces, failed or stalled careers, addictions, - and of course roughly the same percentage of stable predictable ones as existed in my 20s. There isn't some magic wand that waves over your head in your sleep on the eve of your 40th birthday. It's just a silly, silly argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...so they are ignoring the scientific research of risks. It's a calculated risk taken because they can't afford a kid earlier?

Has it occurred to you that some people don't find their spouses until their 30s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, the old moms on here think that they know better than scientists and medical authority. It doesn’t apply to them, they are among those whose biology is exempt from aging and what the AMA reports. Don’t you dare disagree with them, they need the validation.

No, you just haven't been an AMA mom, so you don't know. The first thing they do is tell you your actual fertility age. Mine was 18 at 35, and that was in the early 00s. My doctors had zero concerns.

I don’t know what your AMA stands for, but the AMA that I’m speaking of is well known as American Medical Association. Seems you don’t know. Why did you do fertility check? Which of course, I know you made that up.