40. So you can see the kid graduate - at least the chances are higher.

I joked that I wanted to avoid being both pregnant and gray haired at the same time. In a perfect world, I wanted to have three while I was under 35 to avoid being AMA. But #2 took forever to conceive (born when i was 34) so that threw off my timeline. Who knows if #3 will even happen at all.

35, though I had all my children in my 20s.

I guess 32, since that's the age I had my last kid. I'm 43 now, so I don't think I'm having another one at this point.

33. when I had my second.
Wanted them about three years apart. I'm 38 now and the thought of strollers and sip cups is extremely unappealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 for me. I have three (33 now) and if we have another I’d want to conceive no later than 35. Mostly for spacing but I also just enjoy being a younger mom.

Being 35/36 isn’t being a “younger mom”...it would be a geriatric pregnancy.

For the DC area, having 4 kids by 35 is a “younger mom” as a lot are beginning to have kids at the time PP is winding down on having them.

umm, ok. Geriatric pregnancy is a medical term. I'm surprised this needs to be said, but one's geographic location does not influence the medical terminology we use.

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.

You’re making it personal. It’s not. It’s scientific fact. Absolutely, plenty of women have perfectly healthy babies after the age of 35! My disabled child was born when I was 30; so it’s not all black and white. But fact is fact, no judgement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 for me. I have three (33 now) and if we have another I’d want to conceive no later than 35. Mostly for spacing but I also just enjoy being a younger mom.

Being 35/36 isn’t being a “younger mom”...it would be a geriatric pregnancy.

For the DC area, having 4 kids by 35 is a “younger mom” as a lot are beginning to have kids at the time PP is winding down on having them.

35 but stopped significantly before that. I became a mom in my mid 20s and though that was somewhat unexpected, I love love love that my career really took off and stayed on the upswing in my early 30s once my kid was in school and that we will be parents of an adult kid when we are in our mid/late 40s. If we reset the clock we'd give all of that up, and either way I get to be a mom, which I love being.

I’m 42 and my mental cut off age was always 35. I was married at 28 and didn’t have any fertility issues, so
I never had to renegotiate or rationalize why it would have been okay to go older. The goods, both on her and his side, have a shelf life. There will always be outliers, but in generally, It’s best to fit childbearing into the 25-35 ten year window. Medically. Financially or emotionally, is a different kind of question.

Had my first and only at 34. We pretty much always knew we wanted just one, but were open to the possibility. But at 38, we are done. I could probably have another physically, but I am tired and the kid I already have is too much work as it is.

I had my second at 42. Yes it is definitely riskier in that egg quality goes down tremendously. I had multiple moscarriages between kids. But my younger child is 100% healthy. I’m glad I waited until I was ready both financially and in terms of my career to have kids. I fully believe I am a better mom because of it — I think being stressed about whether we could actually afford to have kids when I was younger would have been really hard. But I’m definitely aware that especially with my second, I got really lucky—I don’t think I would have tried again if that last pregnancy had led to yet another miscarriage.

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.

l

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.

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.

l

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.

Anonymous wrote:35. Had #1 at 22, #2 at 25, #3 is due soon. Considering #4, but I'm 32 now.

Why the big gap between 2 and 3