Having kids at 35+

[zoebartlett]

I''ve been trying to catch up on reading threads that touch upon this topic. I just posted a question in the new TTC thread but I thought afterwards to start a new thread. Why, exactly, is it better to have kids before 35? Why that age specifically? I just turned 34 today and my FI will be 36 in the spring. We''re getting married next summer and we''ve thought about having kids soon after. But we''re not 1000% sure. I''m a teacher and I''m around my little kids at school all day. I like having a spearate life after I come home and on the weekends. On the other hand, would not having kids make me really sad? I know this is something only my FI and I can answer but I''d like to hear what others think. Neither my FI nor I believe that we were put on this earth for the purpose of becoming parents someday. We''ve thought, if it happens, great, but if not, that''s okay too. I feel like we need to hurry up and decide within the next year or so but WHY?

 

[Skippy123]

I always heard it increased your risk for Birth defects and complications.

 

[snlee]

I just replied to your question in the other thread but I also wanted to point out that after 35, the risk of having a miscarriage and the chances of having a baby with birth defects are higher. I know that doctors run a lot more tests for pregnant women over 35. That's not to say you shouldn't have a baby after 35. There are lots of pregnant ladies in the Pregnant PS'ers thread around this age, so they may be able to give you more information.

 

[zoebartlett]

Thanks Skippy and Snlee! I just read your other post, Snlee. Thanks!

 

[TravelingGal]

Zoe, I think I read on the other thread that weight may be a concern for you. If so, I think that is more of a pressing issue than age in terms of pregnancy complications, providing you are looking to have a kid in your 30s.

Skippy is right...odds go up for birth defects and complications. But I really don''t think that just because you have a kid at 36 vs 34, your chances shoot up astronomically ONLY due to age. It''s a statistic. If you are high risk, you will probably have been high risk before you were 36.

Of course, I am not a doctor...so please take the above as an opinion only.

You''re right...you are the only person who can answer if not having kids will make you sad. I couldn''t really even answer it for myself, so I can''t help you there.

There will be tests if your maternal age is 35 and over. The tests aren''t bad, but mentally can be stressful. Sometimes I think it''s better that I will be 35 when I give birth because insurance is picking up all the tabs for these tests and I would have wanted the peace of mind even as a 34 year old mom anyway.

I think there has been a lot of discussion lately about the right time to have kids because for a lot of PSers, the biological clock IS ticking, no matter HOW young you feel. You spend all this time not feeling like that means anything, until one day an alarm goes off to remind you. We modern women are all about choices and freedom...until we feel that a choice is about to be taken away from us...

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 10/31/2007 7:18:21 PM
Author:zoebartlett
I''ve been trying to catch up on reading threads that touch upon this topic. I just posted a question in the new TTC thread but I thought afterwards to start a new thread. Why, exactly, is it better to have kids before 35? Why that age specifically? I just turned 34 today and my FI will be 36 in the spring. We''re getting married next summer and we''ve thought about having kids soon after. But we''re not 1000% sure. I''m a teacher and I''m around my little kids at school all day. I like having a spearate life after I come home and on the weekends. On the other hand, would not having kids make me really sad? I know this is something only my FI and I can answer but I''d like to hear what others think. Neither my FI nor I believe that we were put on this earth for the purpose of becoming parents someday. We''ve thought, if it happens, great, but if not, that''s okay too. I feel like we need to hurry up and decide within the next year or so but WHY?

zoe, as someone who has chosen to not have children, I have to say that that highlighted portion of your statement to me, says it all. Let me tell you why I/we dont have kids and maybe that will make it clearer to you...I work in a field where I see underserved, impoverished children all the time. And at home I am surrounded by so many kids that are badly parented. And I wonder, WHY do so many people have kids when they seem to dislike being parents?!? It''s really stressful and much of the time its a thankless job so WHY do people do it when it doesn''t seem like they even enjoy it? Most will say, if asked, "I dont know. You get married, you have kids. Isn''t that what you''re supposed to do?" So I have deduced over time and asking a lot of people, that many folks dont really think about the implications children will have on their lives and if they''re willing to give up certain things for that. To me, one should just be absolutely dying to be a parent. I''m not talking about dying to "have kids", I''m talking about dying to "be a parent" and all that that implies. God knows it implies a lot! I''ve never dreamed of being pregnant or giving birth (quite frankly, that part rather disgusts me if I''m being honest!) or being a mother. And therefore, with ALL the unwanted children out there in the world, I think I should only have a child IF I''m just dying for that parenting experience. If I ever really felt the need, I would rather adopt a needy child without a loving home. I think if everyone that wanted kids, first adopted an unwanted child, and THEN decided if they want another one, that would be awesome! But I just cant justify it for myself though. And I dont think there is anything wrong with people who do not want children. I think it''s a personal choice, but again, based on that sentence you said above, I''m not thinking you really REALLY are dying to be a parent. Just my two cents though...I''m happy with a puppy...

 

[zoebartlett]

Interesting thoughts TGal and Surfgirl. I''ve asked myself, "if I weren''t a teacher, would I feel differently?" I used to be in a different field, but I was younger and not in a relationship. It definitely wasn''t foremost in my mind. Now that I''m more established in my current profession and I''m older, it''s something I think about often. Like you, Surfgirl, I''ve never wanted to *have* kids. I wanted to adopt. Then I went from that to thinking that I could handle having kids myself, pain and all.
I lurk on the pregnant PSers thread and I find it all very fascinating. I go back and forth now, so I know I''m not ready at this moment. Obviously I know that having kids isn''t something you do because everyone''s doing it, but seeing your friends with their kids, etc., makes you think.

 

[robbie3982]

Just wanted to throw out there that my mom had me at 35 and I''m perfectly healthy. Eight years later at 43 she had my sister who is both mentally and physically handicapped. Is it because my mom was 43 when she had her? Who knows. I know that waiting that long is not a risk that DH and I want to take.

Another thing to think about is the fact that your chance of having twins increases with age.

 

[zoebartlett]

Date: 10/31/2007 8:35:42 PM
Author: robbie3982
Just wanted to throw out there that my mom had me at 35 and I''m perfectly healthy. Eight years later at 43 she had my sister who is both mentally and physically handicapped. Is it because my mom was 43 when she had her? Who knows. I know that waiting that long is not a risk that DH and I want to take.

Another thing to think about is the fact that your chance of having twins increases with age.

Really?? I never knew that!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 10/31/2007 8:41:24 PM
Author: zoebartlett

Date: 10/31/2007 8:35:42 PM
Author: robbie3982
Just wanted to throw out there that my mom had me at 35 and I''m perfectly healthy. Eight years later at 43 she had my sister who is both mentally and physically handicapped. Is it because my mom was 43 when she had her? Who knows. I know that waiting that long is not a risk that DH and I want to take.

Another thing to think about is the fact that your chance of having twins increases with age.

Really?? I never knew that!

Sort of the irony of it all...harder to conceive, but if you do, you have better odds of having more than one. Also older women may need help in the fertility department (IVF, etc), so chances of multiples there increase too.

I can see where surfgirl is coming from. However, I don''t agree that you have to be dying to be a parent. I think you have to have a serious understanding (without obviously knowing firsthand) what that responsibility entails and believe you can do it - and commit to doing it. But I totally agree that a lot of people think more about "having kids" than "being a parent." My own worries about having children have always centered around whether I could be a good parent or not.

 

[E B]

Since several people have already mentioned the "with age comes increased risk for _____", I'll copy Robbie and give a couple of real-life examples.

I was born to a woman in her late 30s: my mom turned 38 the week before I was born. I don't know if this matters, but my mom is incredibly healthy and energetic even now, in her 60s. On the opposite side of the coin, a woman in one of my pregnancy communities just gave birth to her first child at 40, and the child has Down Syndrome.

Since I don't know enough about the subject to expound, here's a website with information about Pregnancy After 35:

WebMD: Pregnancy after 35

 

[surfgirl]

Then again, my friend had a second child at age 47 or so and he is perfectly fine...

 

[robbie3982]

Date: 10/31/2007 8:41:24 PM
Author: zoebartlett

Date: 10/31/2007 8:35:42 PM
Author: robbie3982
Just wanted to throw out there that my mom had me at 35 and I''m perfectly healthy. Eight years later at 43 she had my sister who is both mentally and physically handicapped. Is it because my mom was 43 when she had her? Who knows. I know that waiting that long is not a risk that DH and I want to take.

Another thing to think about is the fact that your chance of having twins increases with age.

Really?? I never knew that!

Yup. Your body is more likely to release more than one egg.

I should also add that MIL had SIL at 43 (or right around there) and SIL is a perfectly healthy and happy 21 year old. That would also mean that she had DH around 38 and he is also perfectly healthy and happy (well...when we''re not fighting about Christmas presents at least...lol).

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Here''s the thing, the hard, horrible truth, there is nothing you can do to prevent having a disabled child (in normal circumstances. I am not talking about drug addicts for example). Just as there is nothing you can do to prevent a M/C. Age does have a factor but it doesn''t mean much on a case by case basis. Women in their 20s can have disabled children just as women in their 40s can have a healthy ones. It is ALWAYS a gamble no matter what age. Luckily there are tests to prepare you for the worst. You cannot base your decision on having children based on age alone.

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree with Tacori. as for having more tests. the same exact tests were offered to me when I was 28 and preggo and now that i'm almost 35. Mostly due to my health and history. I had 2 very easy healthy pregnancies, am in good shape etc. so even though I hit the 35 risk group i'm still considered low risk and every test was optional, other than the routine blood test the dr. does. Your risks for defects etc. do go up slightly each year which is why a lot of gals prefer to have kids b/f they are 35 if possible, but like TG said they don't just suddenly jump into super high risk zones. I will say that I am done. one reason is this is my third, the second is I just didn't want to be preggo when i was in my late 30's. I want to have some time with hubby with grown kids and not be in my 60's with kids still living at home. also, hubby is 42 so he isn't some young spring chicken. it's more important for you all to feel you are ready and want kids, than worry about your age.

 

[somethingshiny]

My SIL is 36 and having a much easier pregnancy than I had at 26. DH and I got married young with the intentions of starting our family. It took six years for me to carry to term. Our original plan included 4-5 children by the time I was into the "high risk" category. I was high risk for the first and will always be.

My great-grandma STARTED having children at 35. She had kids until she was 42. Even 80 years ago, everyone came out perfectly healthy.

ETA~ Happy Birthday, Zoe!!

 

[Tali]

Date: 10/31/2007 7:18:21 PM
Author:zoebartlett
Why that age specifically?

The reason 35 is the witching age is that it is at age 35, the risk of have a child with a chromosomal birth defect, passes the risk of having a fetal demise from an amniocentesis.

Strage but true. That''s how 35 was picked.

So, at 35 (and increasing each yr with age), the risk is higher of having a baby with a chromosomal defect than the risk of fetal death from amnio. At 34, the risk is higher for fetal demise from amnio, than the risk of having a baby with chromosomal defect.

It''s a matter of weighing the odds, and trying to offer amnio to the right people, and not doing amnios before the risks are at least equal. Some disagree with that choice, but medically speaking, that''s why.

 

[peonygirl]

Ignoring the age question, just wanted to mention that it's not 100% true that you can't do anything to prevent birth defects. Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy has been shown to reduce rates of neural tube defects, and if you're in a high-risk ethnic groups (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, Mediterranean, African-American), there is tons of genetic testing available before you even try to conceive.

 

[asscherisme]

Yes, with age comes increased birth defects and developemental or genetic disorders. Often its tougher to get pregnant too, but not always. Thats why amnio''s are often routine with women 35 and older. but youth does not prevent them either. My neighbor had her child at 24 and her child has downs. I had my first child at 27 and he has autism (aspergers syndrome), tourettes syndrome, and huge anxiety issues. He is a challenge and stress to me everyday but I love him to death. I thought by having my child young, I would not have those types of issues. Autism happens to other people right? Nope, it happened to me and my child even though I was young.

I think there are also pluses to being an older mom. You have had more life expereince, hopefully more patience, and are often financially in a better position.

My mother had my brother at 23, me at 25 and my sister at 42! (different father and marriage for my sister).

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 10/31/2007 11:24:30 PM
Author: peonygirl
Ignoring the age question, just wanted to mention that it''s not 100% true that you can''t do anything to prevent birth defects. Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy has been shown to reduce rates of neural tube defects, and if you''re in a high-risk ethnic groups (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, Mediterranean, African-American), there is tons of genetic testing available before you even try to conceive.

It was wrong for me to assume that prenatals would be used. I cannot imagine why anyone WOULDN''T take one but you are right. Folic Acid is extremely important. My point was that though age can increase risks (slightly every year) it is not so black and white. Like others have mentioned you can have problems in your 20s and none in your 40s. Such is life. Pregnancy is scary b/c of all of the unknowns. But you cannot obsess over them and I think it is wrong to have kids earlier than maybe someone is ready to AVOID having them after they are 35. Look at the preggo thread. Most of the current mommies to be and recent moms are older than 35 and as far as I know have not had ANY abnormal test results.

 

[peonygirl]

Yup, I agree Tacori. One thing I should mention though is that folic acid apparently needs to be taken 3-6 months before conception takes place for it to have the positive effects purported. So you ladies TTC, start now.

 

[asscherisme]

GREAT point about genetic preconception testing. And if you are not trying to get pregnant but are of childbearing age and having sex, ALL women should take a vitamin with 400mg of folic acid, something like centrum or many many daily multivitamins. Something that simple can prevent or highly cut down on spinabifida and other problems.

 

[shelly1170]

Hi everyone! I''m new to the cafe... I have really only posted on the e-ring and jewellery forums.

I thought I would just write about my experience(s).

At the age of 34 I met my husband. I got pregnant at 35. My pregnancy was easy and complication free. Penny was born in January this year when i was 36 and is perfect in every way. I did have an NT (nuchal translucency) scan at 12 weeks which showed a 1:1128 chance of there being a chromosomal abnormality. I opted for an amniocentesis at 17 weeks which gave me the all clear.

I''m pregnant again, about 7 weeks so far. This pregnancy I have morning sickness but otherwise so far, so good.

The risks of genetic abnormalities increase steadily with age but go up exponentially after your mid thirties. Statistically, more babies with chromosomal abnormalities are delivered to women under 25. Only because more babies are born to women under 35! My point is that it can happen to anyone. Creating a baby is a very complicated process!

As for twins... it''s a bit like "procreate or die!" Your body is more likely to release multiple eggs as you get older, resulting in a higher incidence of fraternal twins.

 

[janinegirly]

this thread is kind of depressing me! married 4 wks and i better get crackin'' since I''m in my 30''s! but it''s all iinformation we need to know. Any docs out there who can comment on the increased risk of birth defects after 35? Mostly what I was aware of was the drop in fertility that accelerates dramatically from 35 on. There''s a big difference (drop) even between 34 and 36, and then 36 and 38. Alot of us see celebs who have first children at 38, 40..but the truth is many of them have endless resources ($$) and have used myriad of fertility treatments--but you don''t really hear about that in US Magazine.
On the other hand it''s very reassuring/encouraging to hear the stories of women here who conceived easily in their mid 30''s! And I agree with someone who said the advantage of waiting is having led a full life before, established a career and more stable financially so you can provide much more than you could have in your 20''s.

 

[ellaila]

This thread is depressing me too because at 36, you''re all making me feel like a dinosaur!

I got pregnant at 35 with NO fertility treatment whatsoever -- and we weren''t even "trying"! I''d been on the pill for 10 years, was off it for four, and then BAM, preggo. I am having twins, but I think that''s because they run in my family and not necessarily because of my age, though of course there''s no way to know. Or maybe I''m just blessed, and that''s why we got two in one shot

As for complications, knock on wood, I think I''ve had a better pregnancy than a lot of people with singleton pregnancies. 35 is not a magical age where all of a sudden everything falls apart on you. My grandmother had two kids in her 40s -- healthy. My cousin had two kids in her 40s -- healthy. I think that as long as you take care of yourself and have a good doctor that you trust and have regular exams that women in their 30s and 40s are perfectly capable of having healthy pregnancies and babies. Yes, supposedly the risk for Down goes up as the mother''s age goes up, but again, there are plenty of people in their 20s who have babies with Down Syndrome, so it''s really just a chance thing.

Sorry if I''m coming off as a little defensive here, it''s just that I feel like a lot of people just spout off this "You have to have your babies when you''re younger than 35 or else there''ll be so many problems!" crap, and it''s just not true. Check out the preggo thread -- you''ll find lots of us "geriatric" pregnancies over there!

 

[Jas12]

Black and white numbers like "35" really annoy me. Like as if the day you blow out your birthday candles on you 35th birthday your eggs with wither simutaneously.
There are just soooo many other factors, as others have mentioned, that come into play. A healthy, active, fit, 35 year old women who eats a balanced diet and leads a stress free life is surely better prepared to have a healthy fetus than say an inactive, stressed out 25 year old who smokes and drinks regularily.

Numbers do not tell the whole story and people will give you example after example of a woman over 35 who did/did not have a healty baby. I would not let this magic number be your guiding force.

Like Tgal mentioned, you may not ever be 100% sure and have to throw caution to the wind (Even for myself, I have always known that i wanted kids but when and how was the quesiton)....you may have to let fate take the wheel and see what happens....

 

[curlygirl]

As many of you know, I got pregnant at 35 and gave birth to a beautiful, perfect, HEALTHY baby girl in May at the ripe old age of 36. I got pregnant on our first month of really trying and that was after being on the pill for 15 years. Did I have any testing done during the pregnancy? Yes, I had the NT scan, AFP screening and an amnio. But honestly, I would probably have done it all even if I had not been OLD. I'm a "need to know" kind of person. I feel like everyone looks at these tests as negative aspects of having a child when you're older, but really these tests aren't mandatory when you hit 35. They are OFFERED to you but you can choose not to do any testing at all. Many people just want to know what to expect, they don't just have an amnio because they plan to terminate the pregnancy if there are complications. Some people just want to be prepared if they are going to have a child with special needs and I don't see anything wrong with that. If you go to a doctor/hospital that is performing these diagnostic (CVS or amnio) tests on a regular basis, the odds of loss of pregnancy caused by the procedure are pretty slim. My hospital's loss rate was something like 1/5000 so I felt pretty confident with my decision and was able to go through the rest of my pregnancy with the peace of mind that my baby was ok.

Shelly is right, the statistics are kind of skewed because there are many women in their 20s who are having children with chromosomal abnormalities. It's just that there are soooo many more women who have children at that age that I guess when you look at it mathematically, the number is greater for women over 35 because let's face it, many women are finished having children by that age. But come on people, this is 2007, not 1932! A woman's place in the world has changed dramatically. I didn't even get married until I was 35!! I have a pretty serious job and while I always knew I would want to get married and have children, I wasn't going to rush it until all the pieces were in place. I waited to marry the right person and we knew that we were professionally, financially and mentally in the right place to have a baby so that's when we did it. I think I am way more prepared to be a mother now than I would have been in my 20s. That's not to say that women in their 20s aren't mature but I think with age, you gather even more maturity, experience, wisdom and patience.

This subject really hits me hard so I'm sorry if I sound harsh but it just gets under my skin when people get bent out of shape about the evil number 35. It's really not as dramatic as everyone makes it out to be. You don't turn 35 and lose all your eggs. Don't let your age dictate when you have a baby. Do it when you are ready for it mentally, physically, financially. Ok, stepping off the soapbox now to go hug my 5 month old.

eta: ellaila and jas, I think we were all posting at the same time. I knew we were all on the same wavelength. Deep breaths!!

 

[janinegirly]

curly..thanks for your post!! i don't really get alarmed by posts since a lot of info is skewed. For me, it's reading the stats on fertility drop that scares me. plus going to my doctor and having her tell me to get moving! but i agree wtih so much of your post

one ques to some of the ladies who had babies after 35, do you think a "preconception" visit to the doctor is helpful? I never heard of this before, and am wondering if it's beneficial or just kind of unnecessary if you're otherwise healthy.

 

[ellaila]

To echo what Curly says, my doctor didn''t MAKE me take any additional tests either. I chose to have an amnio b/c my first trimeseter screening came back a little funky, but that was my decision. I don''t think I''ve had any more tests than any of the under-35-crowd on the preggo thread (?). It''s all optional. I don''t know why everyone says that there are all these mandatory tests once you''re over 35, but I didn''t experience that at all (and my doctor is a great doctor at one of the best hospitals in Boston, so I don''t think he''s just lazy and neglecting me).

I guess I just take this all personally because I feel like people are considering me a statistic and not a person having a healthy pregnancy, which is what I consider myself.

 

[Independent Gal]

First, having just been to a fund raiser for spina bifida, can I just point out that folic acid apparently reduces the risk by 70%. That makes it almost preventable, see? So take those vitamins ladies! BEFORE you get pregnant, since spina bifida occurs in the very first weeks of pregnancy, before you might even know if you're pregnant.

It's a matter of probability. So, each of us citing cases we know of healthy or not as healthy babies doesn't really help. That's called the "someone who" fallacy. As in someone makes a general claim, e.g. "X is more likely after 35" and a person tries to disprove that it's "more likely" by citing a case where it didn't happen, as in "That's not true. I know someone who...". That's not very logical! Because "more likely" doesn't equal "always", so citing anecdotal cases doesn't help.

Your chances of having a healthy baby and YOU being healthy during pregnancy are still more likely than not up to 40 and on from there even. But the chances of something going wrong get higher the older you get. It's still more likely than not that everything will be fine, it's just a matter of higher risk.

Here are some of the FACTS from the webMD cite Ebree posted:

1. "The risk of giving birth to a child with a birth defect does increase as the mother's age increases. ...Approximately 1 in 1,400 babies born from women in their 20's have Down syndrome; it increases to 1 in 100 babies born with Down syndrome from women in their 40's." That means 99% of babies born to women in their 40's will NOT have Down's syndrome. It's just that the risk is 14 times higher, but still low. Probability. Not certainty.

2. "Studies show that the risk of miscarriage (loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks gestation) is 12% to 15% for women in their 20's and rises to about 25% for women at age 40." See? So your chances of NOT having a miscarriage at 40 are 75%. Three times more likely than HAVING a miscarriage. But, the chances of having one are double what they were in your 20's. So, again, probability and higher risk, not certainty.

3. "Chronic health problems, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, are more common in women in their 30's and 40's. Be sure to get these conditions under control before you become pregnant, since they pose risks to both you and your baby."

4. "High blood pressure and diabetes can develop for the first time during pregnancy, and women over the age of 30 are at increased risk. If you are pregnant and over age 35, this makes it especially important that you get early and regular prenatal care to ensure early diagnosis and proper treatment."

5. "Stillbirth (delivery of a baby that has died before birth) is more common in women over age 35."

6. "Older women are also more likely to have low-birth weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds at birth)."

5. "Cesarean birth is also slightly more common for women having their first child after age 35."

In other words, more likely but still NOT VERY LIKELY. It's all probabilities. More common, less common. So each woman has to decide for herself what the balance of risk and other factors is for her. It's nothing to get scared about, just something to take into account.