TwinkletOes26 Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 Ok im 27 just turned 27 and all my friends are around my age 24-27 and they are going nuts trying to get married and have kids LOL...i on the other hand have no desire to do either. I dont wanna get married until at least 30 and i dont want kids until im 35. My question is will i have complications if i wait until 35 to have kids or is the just at the last bit of ok time to have children. Please no comments about being old enough to play ball and such i am a girly girl and i hate sports and ourside so mommy prolly wont be playing ball with the kiddie now barbies and video games def. Im talking from a medical perspective
Beautiful Inside Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 i honestly think 30 is perfect for marriage and 35 is great for kids!!! 30's seem to be such a great time in ones life i cant wait im actually excited to be in my 30's i got 6 more years!!!
Meaplus3 Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 Ok im 27 just turned 27 and all my friends are around my age 24-27 and they are going nuts trying to get married and have kids LOL...i on the other hand have no desire to do either. I dont wanna get married until at least 30 and i dont want kids until im 35. My question is will i have complications if i wait until 35 to have kids or is the just at the last bit of ok time to have children. Please no comments about being old enough to play ball and such i am a girly girl and i hate sports and ourside so mommy prolly wont be playing ball with the kiddie now barbies and video games def. Im talking from a medical perspective OK. Now speaking from a medical perspective.. and this is based on my knowledge of starting a family in my late 20's early 30's, by the time I was onto my last pregnancy I was 34 and had the baby at 35. By this time, I was considered advanced maternal age... and most often what they will do is just watch you a little closer, and perhaps even suggest a level 2 ultrasound.. to take a look at the baby a little closer.. while it's developing. Now again this is just based on my exp and knowlege from having kids. I had NO problems.. and delivered 3 very healthy babies. so, I'm sure you will be just fine. Most important is to wait until you feel ready. Best wishes. Mea:)
blind_otter Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 According to the march of dimes women began having declining fertility in their early 30s - women tend to ovulate less often after age 35 or so. But you can always consult a fertility specialist if you try for 6 months or more with no success. Studies suggest that about one-third of women between 35 and 39 and about half of those over age 40 have fertility problems. Ironically, though, as you age your chance of having twins goes up. As the mother's age increases, the chance of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus increases as well. These are the chances of having a baby with downs syndrome: * At age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance. * At age 35, a 1-in-400 chance. * At age 40, a 1-in-100 chance. * At 45, a 1-in-30 chance. * At 49, a 1-in-10 chance I'd say just try to stay healthy, don't smoke or drink excessively, and be aware that there are a lot of prenatal tests they can do to determine if the fetus is OK. The march of dimes has a lot of information about advanced maternal age and birth defects, you can google it.
Author TwinkletOes26 Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 dangit the answers sound bleak LOL...i just want to have time to enjoy not being married and hvae enough time to enjoy my husband ALONE w/o kids lol. I just want one lol ....maybe thing will advance by the time im 35 ?
concerned citizen Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 35 is not too old at all for another kid. I am 40 and my wife is pregnant with our 4th. No problems whatsoever.
Trialbyfire Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 IF it's a big concern for you from a medical standpoint, to offset egg aging, just pick a mate who's much younger. IMO, having children isn't just about the medical. It's about maturity level, relationship stability and financial security. The risks of having children earlier, is nothing compared to having children when you and/or your partner aren't ready for them. There are way more than enough piss poor parents out there. Don't add to them.
Isolde Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 My mom had me when she was 38 and I'm fine (I know that doesn't prove anything, statistically, I'm just saying!). I've always viewed that age as something of a cutoff, though. If you want to start having kids at 35, you could definitely have two before it starts becoming a serious risk. If you want three, though, I'd start earlier.
JanetD Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I was 37 when I conceived and gave birth to my son. I was monitored more than younger women, but I had no problems with the pregnancy, and my son is a healthy 15 year old. The biggest problem that I had was with my doctor, who asked why my husband and I waited "so long" to have a child.
Trialbyfire Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 At the very earliest, we plan to start having children when I'm somewhere between 37 - 41. We've both lived very healthy lifestyles so neither is terribly worried about it. Worse comes to worse, we'll adopt. No big deal.
blind_otter Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 IF it's a big concern for you from a medical standpoint, to offset egg aging, just pick a mate who's much younger. IMO, having children isn't just about the medical. It's about maturity level, relationship stability and financial security. The risks of having children earlier, is nothing compared to having children when you and/or your partner aren't ready for them. There are way more than enough piss poor parents out there. Don't add to them. Of course it isn't about medical, but you should always be aware of the risks of major life decisions. My older sister started perimenopause when she was 35. Women in my family go through menopause early, usually starting around the mid thirties with cessation of menstrual periods around age 40-43, so you should definitely examine family history if you are waiting to have a child until later in life.
pandagirl Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 It's difficult to know what's going on with your reproductive system. It's all individual. My best friend had a very hard time getting pregnant at 29 (eventually conceived after more than a year of trying). My sister-in-law and my brother started trying at 35; couldn't get pregnant, took fertility drugs and now have adorable twins. My mother had my brother at 33 after two miscarriages, but had no problems conceiving me at 39. So you never know! But, yes, as each year passes by, our fertility does decrease. Living a healthy lifestyle doesn't hurt, but it doesn't necessarily make it any easier to get pregnant.
Trialbyfire Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Of course it isn't about medical, but you should always be aware of the risks of major life decisions. My older sister started perimenopause when she was 35. Women in my family go through menopause early, usually starting around the mid thirties with cessation of menstrual periods around age 40-43, so you should definitely examine family history if you are waiting to have a child until later in life. I don't disagree that family medical history has impact. I don't agree that it's what should drive a person to have children, previous to both parties wanting and ready to have children. Keep in mind that an amnio will tell you if there's downs. I guess it's reliant on your beliefs, what you choose to do with the information. Btw, do the odds that you posted, include the impact of aging sperm? I suspect so, since in most (not all) cases, men are older than women within the relationship.
Author TwinkletOes26 Posted March 22, 2009 Author Posted March 22, 2009 trail in my past relationships all the men ive dated since hs have been YOUNGER than me not much but 2 or 3 yr diff...i think its cos i look so young...younger guys are attracted to me lol. Im 27 and get told i look 16 i still get carded for ciggies and rated r movies LOL...so my man will prolly be younger lol.
blind_otter Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Keep in mind that an amnio will tell you if there's downs. I guess it's reliant on your beliefs, what you choose to do with the information. It would be difficult, indeed, to deal with a fetus with severe birth defects. I know a woman who was pregnant with twins after fertility treatments in her middle 30s, one of them had Turner's syndrome (among other things) and the other was normal. She selectively aborted the twin who had severe birth defects, but it's been 7 years since she had to make that decision and she is still torn up about it. Btw, do the odds that you posted, include the impact of aging sperm? I suspect so, since in most (not all) cases, men are older than women within the relationship. I doubt they controlled for paternal age, but I could be wrong. Those statistics I mentioned were from the march of dimes. I don't think paternal age was of much concern until recently; traditionally men were substantially older than their wives, up until very recently.
Trialbyfire Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 It would be difficult, indeed, to deal with a fetus with severe birth defects. I know a woman who was pregnant with twins after fertility treatments in her middle 30s, one of them had Turner's syndrome (among other things) and the other was normal. She selectively aborted the twin who had severe birth defects, but it's been 7 years since she had to make that decision and she is still torn up about it.Abortion is a serious decision to make just like any other life-changing decision. I'm not certain I would personally abort a fetus with Down's but I can't say for certain I wouldn't. Having said that, it's still an option for anyone taking a clinical/medical approach to getting pregnant. I doubt they controlled for paternal age, but I could be wrong. Those statistics I mentioned were from the march of dimes. I don't think paternal age was of much concern until recently; traditionally men were substantially older than their wives, up until very recently.I doubt they did consider it but it SHOULD be considered. As it stands, there are more and more studies being done, which considers the impact of aging sperm and no one should fool themselves into believing there are no impacts or that impacts hit any later for men than women. Okay, anyways, the above is very much the clinical approach to having children. Not my thing. When we have children, it will be on our schedule. As previously expressed, if it's not possible, we can always adopt, as we're both fine with that too. It's not as if species continuity is reliant on the two of us!
Recommended Posts