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