Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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!
Most would abort a chromosomally abnormal baby. Even those who are appalled at the thought and say they could never do it. Around 80-90% of Down pregnancies are terminated in the developed world.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:I was surprised to find out in the news today that Rep. Duffy and his wife are expecting their 9th child and are both 47 years old!
Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to find out in the news today that Rep. Duffy and his wife are expecting their 9th child and are both 47 years old! I'm a decade younger and am feeling done after having my second (I have frozen embryos so no biological limitations).
Anonymous wrote:Had my first at 41, mc at 43 and thinking of doing IVF one last time and I’m 45.
