Anonymous
08/25/2019 18:46
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
50.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 18:30
Subject: Re:What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
had #3 at 45. 44 was the mental cutoff but decided to keep trying.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 18:21
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wanted to be finished by the time I was 30.And I was. I just wanted to get it done and out of the way.
Np I don't get this attitude at all. To me, having something done and "out of the way" is something you talk about that is an unpleasant experience, like taking a greyhound bus across country or a root canal, not having children.
Not the PP but I felt the same way. For me pregnancy was extremely unpleasant. Vomited daily including the day I gave birth to my daughter. So yeah, it was like a root canal. Love my children though!
Anonymous
08/25/2019 18:14
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:35 was my cut off. I had my last one at 34.
Me too!
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:23
Subject: Re:What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
I had my first at age 38 and b/g twins at 40.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:23
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
People are ignoring that the 1/19 statistic is at age 45 when most women can’t get pregnant with their own eggs anyway. There is not a sharp increase in risk at age 35. It’s a gradual increase over the years.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:22
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!
It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?
You are talking about someone’s life here! Yes, it’s significant.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:18
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Most women choose to do prenatal screening and to terminate if there’s a severe disability. If that’s not for you, that’s fine, and obviously it’s an extremely painful choice that everyone wants to avoid. But it’s not like there are no options.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:18
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!
It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?
Taking a new job? Yes, ok I’ll take that chance that I like it.
Potentially giving a child a life threatening condition that will greatly impact their and my life? It would make me reconsider. Look I had one at 40 and went through the risks with an OB in advance. So it’s not that I don’t think you should. But go in with your eyes wide open. And don’t just blow it off as 95% chance it will be fine. When you are that one person it affects, it affects you 100%.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:15
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!
It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?
It depends. If it’s a 95% chance an investment would succeed, sure! Great! If it’s a 5% chance my child will be disabled FOREVER - well, you better believe I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid that!
Anonymous
08/25/2019 17:07
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!
It’s literally about 5%. If you wanted to do something, and were told it only had a 95% chance of working out, you would say that’s not a significant enough chance? Seriously?
Anonymous
08/25/2019 16:56
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
1 in 19 is pretty dang significant!
Anonymous
08/25/2019 16:53
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:lAnonymous 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.
The source? The AMA - ask any OB or midwife. 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy that is higher risk. This is an accepted medical fact.
It does not mean every single child born to a mom over 35 will experience these problems. It does mean they have a much higher chance of experiencing these problems.
+1
This poster is oblivious.
Yes, while there is a significantly higher % risk (Downs being the most common birth “defect”), what that actually translates to is about a 1 in 1000 chance at age 25 dropping to a whopping 1 in 19 chance at 45. Sounds really ominous right? But as my DOCTOR pointed out to me when I found myself pregnant at 42, that still means about a 95% chance of no Downs Syndrome. The biggest problem for women of AMA trying to have a baby is declining fertility - not being able to get and stay pregnant due to a much more limited number of good eggs. Not birth defects. NP, btw.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 16:35
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
Anonymous wrote:
40. So you can see the kid graduate - at least the chances are higher.
Also do not understand parents who have the audacity to complain about working past a certain age - when you CHOSE to have kids past a certain age. Who the hell did you THINK was going to raise YOUR children and send them to college (not to mention if private school, etc. was involved)?? FFS.
Anonymous
08/25/2019 16:35
Subject: What age is your personal cut off on having kids?
I had mine at 32 and 35, and that's the latest I'd want to have them. I just cannot imagine having another one now, at 41. I guess part of it is probably that they're 6 and 9 and going back to diapers/daycare/not STTN/etc. is pretty unappealing, but...I dunno. Even if I were just starting out my family I still think the very much heightened risks of an older pregnancy, less energy, being almost 60 by the time kid graduates from HS etc. would give me pause.