Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP don't listen to the fear mongers. One year isn't going to suddenly leave you barren and you already have frozen embryos so there's even less reason to rush to have a child you're not quite ready for. Enjoy being a fabulous independent 35 yr old and then move on to being a fabulous pregnant 36 yr old. Don't ever have a child out of fear.

But why do they have frozen embryos? Are they facing fertility issues? Even if it's on the man's side it could affect the success of a pregnancy.

She said they created the embryos a few years ago while going through some medical stuff.

Anything can affect the success of a pregnancy, but pregnancy is really only the first step. I can understand why some women feel like it is THE goal (I myself spent some months TTC and all I wanted to be pregnant already!), but if you're not in the frame of mind where you're prepared for the sacrifices that come with parenthood, I don't think it's worth it to push on through because you still have to do all the hard work of actually raising that child that you rushed to conceive.

I went from adamantly not wanting kids at 33 to being baby crazy by 35 and my age had nothing to do with it. I was just ready. I had done most of my travel, squandered my money on whatever the heck I wanted, been in love, single, spoiled my nephews and nieces (then happily handing them back over to their parents), and then eventually just said ok, now it's my turn. I think OP needs to wait until she has that settled, excited, ready feeling inside of her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP don't listen to the fear mongers. One year isn't going to suddenly leave you barren and you already have frozen embryos so there's even less reason to rush to have a child you're not quite ready for. Enjoy being a fabulous independent 35 yr old and then move on to being a fabulous pregnant 36 yr old. Don't ever have a child out of fear.

But why do they have frozen embryos? Are they facing fertility issues? Even if it's on the man's side it could affect the success of a pregnancy.

She said they created the embryos a few years ago while going through some medical stuff.

Anonymous wrote:OP don't listen to the fear mongers. One year isn't going to suddenly leave you barren and you already have frozen embryos so there's even less reason to rush to have a child you're not quite ready for. Enjoy being a fabulous independent 35 yr old and then move on to being a fabulous pregnant 36 yr old. Don't ever have a child out of fear.

But why do they have frozen embryos? Are they facing fertility issues? Even if it's on the man's side it could affect the success of a pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:917: I know I'll get the "you were just lucky" responses. My retaliation to that is: not everyone is unlucky either. Women waiting to have children until later, especially in urban centres, is the new norm.

Fear shouldn't be the first motivator in having a child "now". Now looks different for each woman.

And I'm 40, will be 41 when I deliver FWIW. I'm not even considered a high risk pregnancy.

Yes, you are, technically, if if your OB doesn't refer to you that way.

I had the required prenatal testing that pretty much is standard for all pregnancies these days... NT, cf, OGTT. Most younger women are getting the same testing electively. I'm not monitored any more than any other pregnancy, although there will possibly be more consideration as I approach term...like any other pregnancy. I'm under the care of a low risk provider (midwife). I'm 40, healthy, and have a healthy fetus. I just happen to be older.

Op you're probably never going to be 100% ready. Just face it.

Anonymous wrote:917: I know I'll get the "you were just lucky" responses. My retaliation to that is: not everyone is unlucky either. Women waiting to have children until later, especially in urban centres, is the new norm.

Fear shouldn't be the first motivator in having a child "now". Now looks different for each woman.

And I'm 40, will be 41 when I deliver FWIW. I'm not even considered a high risk pregnancy.

Yes, you are, technically, if if your OB doesn't refer to you that way.

OP don't listen to the fear mongers. One year isn't going to suddenly leave you barren and you already have frozen embryos so there's even less reason to rush to have a child you're not quite ready for. Enjoy being a fabulous independent 35 yr old and then move on to being a fabulous pregnant 36 yr old. Don't ever have a child out of fear.

917: I know I'll get the "you were just lucky" responses. My retaliation to that is: not everyone is unlucky either. Women waiting to have children until later, especially in urban centres, is the new norm.

Fear shouldn't be the first motivator in having a child "now". Now looks different for each woman.

And I'm 40, will be 41 when I deliver FWIW. I'm not even considered a high risk pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:If you want more than one -- then time to get started. You are already considered "advanced maternal age" by doctors and will require all sorts of extra tests during your pregnancy. It could take 6 months to get pregnant (if all goes well, no miscarriage, etc.), then 9 months before you deliver, and it will take at least 6 months before you could start trying for a 2nd. Your odds of a successful pregnancy drop 15% every year from 35 onwards. Get to it!

This isn't true. I had three kids between 34 and 39. So one pre-AMA and two post-AMA. They will offer you the cell-free fetal DNA test because you're AMA. It's a simple blood test. Other than that, there really aren't many differences in medical treatment assuming you're having a normal and healthy pregnancy.

Some women (a minority) will have trouble getting pregnant in their late 30s. Most won't. The problem is you don't know which bucket you'll fall into until you start trying. So it's an odds game. And if you're in the minority that has trouble, the younger you seek medical intervention, the better your odds are. It's all about risk tolerance.

If you want one kid, I wouldn't worry about waiting. If you want two or more, I personally wouldn't wait more than 6 months to start trying. But very personal decision.

OP, I asked a similar question here not long ago and got similarly raked over hot coals for clearly not wanting children, as well as the standard cautionary warnings about my failing eggs and body.

In the end I thought about what kind of life I wanted for myself, and I decided that being ready to be pregnant and being a parent was most important to me. I took three months and took care of my health (taking prenatals every day, focus back on healthy eating and exercise) and did a few things that I wanted to do that are unlikely once we become parents.

3 months later, we stopped birth control. I got pregnant the first month, despite the apparent daily decline of my old eggs.

I think so many posters on here have a narrative of their lives: find a partner, marry, children after ASAP. They don't realize that life can take many paths with the same result.

My advise to you is: do what feels right. 6 months is not make or break. If you have fertility problems, you probably have them already. If you're in a better cantered place to deal with them in 6 months then that's better anyway. If you will have a happier, calmer pregnancy by waiting 6 months, then that's better anyway. If you have health issues to address, that's better anyway.

Good luck to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want more than one -- then time to get started. You are already considered "advanced maternal age" by doctors and will require all sorts of extra tests during your pregnancy. It could take 6 months to get pregnant (if all goes well, no miscarriage, etc.), then 9 months before you deliver, and it will take at least 6 months before you could start trying for a 2nd. Your odds of a successful pregnancy drop 15% every year from 35 onwards. Get to it!

Source? This would mean that every child born to a 42-year-old is a miracle of science ...

Not the PP, but here's a graph.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. We have frozen embryos that we created a few years ago when previously thinking of having kids but had a medical issue. So biological timing isn't an issue. I can transfer them at any time.

How many embryos do you have?
Are you and your husband unable to conceive naturally? If so, it may be a difficult road to having a successful pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:If you want more than one -- then time to get started. You are already considered "advanced maternal age" by doctors and will require all sorts of extra tests during your pregnancy. It could take 6 months to get pregnant (if all goes well, no miscarriage, etc.), then 9 months before you deliver, and it will take at least 6 months before you could start trying for a 2nd. Your odds of a successful pregnancy drop 15% every year from 35 onwards. Get to it!

Source? This would mean that every child born to a 42-year-old is a miracle of science ...

In my book, the only time to have a baby is when you can't NOT have a baby. You need to be fully onboard. Take the year.

That was my route when I got married at 31. Decided to wait a year and a half to try. I figured I'd been trying not to get pregnant doe so long that it would happen right away. Nope, it took over two years to get pregnant with my first. Had him at 35.5. My babies had reflux and didn't sleep, so even though I didn't want another baby, I started for number 2 when 1 was a year. Nothing for a year, and finally had my second at 38 1/2.
Now my second is 2, and I'm finally coming out of the weeds and ready for #3, but I'm too old.
You likely don't have as much time as you think.
Wait 6 months of you realy want to, but not any longer if you want to have more than 1.