Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

having kids?

raingirl
October 25th, 2005, 11:18 AM
I have a question for all of you out there who have kids. It's kinda personal, so don't feel you have to respond.

I have noticed that ALL my family and friends who had tried to get pregnant after 30 have always had problems, either with miscarriages or fertility. This worries me because I am 27 and getting close to that age.

A friend was in hospital last night because she is 17 weeks pregnant, and may be having a miscarriage (I am waiting to hear back as to what the status is right now). This would be her second, and she also had an ectopic last year and lost one felopian tube. She is 35. My mother had 16 miscarriages between my sister and me (16 miscarriages in 15 years. She had me at 32), and my sister had 5 between her two kids (second kid at 36).

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice this with themselves/friends/family? I know it's hard to get on in the world these days, which makes me worry even more. Even my BF has started to worry, and was thinking maybe we should start to speed things along (we want to get married, haven't set a date yet though).

Do all people start having problems after 30? Or just some?

It makes me sad because I already started to make a baby blanket for my friend, and they had just told EVERYONE because they got past 14 weeks.

Roxy's_MA
October 25th, 2005, 11:28 AM
:sorry: I am sorry your friend has to go through this. It must be very scary.

If I remember high school biology correctly, after the age of 32 the amnio sentisus(Sp????) is mandatory. That is the needle the use to exctract fluid from the womb and test for certain problems, I know down syndrome is one probem they test for..

Personally, I have made a decision to have the two kids before I turn 30. (only five years left :eek: ). My reasons are:
A. I don't want 20 year old kid when I am 60 years old
B. Less chance of problems with the pregnancy
C. The younger you are the easier it is for you body to recover from the effect of having a kid.

JMO

doggy lover
October 25th, 2005, 11:39 AM
I know ther are more risks for the baby the older you get but that is normally after 40. A co-worker of mine had a baby a few years ago she was 41, the little boy is fine. I think alot depends on the person themselves if they are healthy and so on. I had problems getting pregnant at 23 and used fertility drugs with my daughter. Then at 25 I found out I was 4 months pregnant, no drugs this time, seems that I only ovulated once every 4 monts and got the nail right on the head this time.LOL. I never had any problems with the pregnancies. I personally don't think people in their 30's are too high risk this is the norm for this day and age for women to have babies then.

Rick C
October 25th, 2005, 11:42 AM
I was searching for an article in TIME or Newsweek on this topic for you - I remembered it from earlier in the year - but couldn't pick it up. It was about career women delaying pregnancy into their 30's and the surprise many felt at how difficult it became to conceive.

BUT, I found the below articles instead that might be of interest:

http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/groups/public/%5C@fotf_troubledwith/documents/articles/twi_029838.cfm?channel=Transitions&topic=Having%20a%20Baby&sssct=Background%20Info

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885215/site/newsweek/

The wife of my business partner just had a miscarriage and the wife of a friend of mine had two in the last few years (although also birthing a boy and a girl in between) . . . . very emotionally distressing for them. Depression issues.

Carol and I don't have children - medical issues and one miscarriage as well - and decided not to adopt. But we're in our 40's now and its behind us. That's the way it is.

But we certainly hope you have boatloads of kids. There was a story from, I think, Alabama last week of a woman pregnant with her 17th. She's 39.

Oddly, I have an uncle the same age as myself . . . . so his mother birthed him in her late 40's.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

rivers
October 25th, 2005, 11:49 AM
I had my first son at 30. But I had a miscarriage before that at 5 weeks. I had to have fertility drugs to conceive the 2nd time. When my son was 1 year old, I found out I was 2 months pregnant already! Personally, I don't think I needed the drugs the first time around. I have many friends who have had children at 30 and older, and having one miscarriage seems 'normal' in the first few weeks before 10 weeks.

You still have plenty of time to have babies, don't rush it. When you hit 35, then you can start to panic, lol. Down syndrome is only a concern after you are 35. But seeing your family history of miscarriages, you should consult your gynae about the risks you face and the chances of carring full term.

Best of luck, and enjoy being fancy free and not tied down while you can!

Roxy's_MA
October 25th, 2005, 11:58 AM
I just wanted to also add to my above post. My cousin age 45 just had twin boys, and they are healthy and happy babies. Tuff and Tex, I had to add the names, they still shock me abit. Rodeo names I guess.

rivers
October 25th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Tuff and Tex? Are these shortened names? Poor kids when they have to go to school. Hopefully they have second names they can use.

Roxy's_MA
October 25th, 2005, 12:07 PM
Not shortended. Thats their names. I didn't catch the middle names, I just hope that that Tuff grows up tuff or he may run into problems in school with a name like that.

Prin
October 25th, 2005, 12:26 PM
The had an article in the gazoo here about the chances of getting preggo at certain ages. With no birth control, at 20-25, you have an 84% chance, 25-30, 76% chance and 30-35, 66% chance.

It makes sense that the older you get, the more miscarriages you have because miscarriages are unviable eggs, and the older you are, the more likely you've been exposed to different mutagens (like UV or X-rays, among other possible chemical contacts too). The more mutagens you come into contact with, the more DNA mutates causing all sorts of trouble- like cancer. But eggs are all about DNA. If there is one mistake, that mistake is replicating and replicating, so it gets very amplified. That's not so much the case when we're older when our cells just aren't dividing that much.

Picture a Calico cat.. Each patch of color represents one X chromosome (the other one shut off early in development). Imagine if one of the X chromosomes had a defect. Where ever there is orange, say, there will be something lacking, and say that it's not just the X chromosome, but others too. You know what I mean? It becomes too defective to survive.

So yeah, it's better to conceive earlier on in life.

But I also believe that a lot of it is mental. If there is 1% of your mind that is not set on having this baby and you aren't admitting it but it's there, then chances are you'll miscarry. That's just my theory, but a lot of people I know who miscarry have this doubtful aspect...

I too have a friend who has had 4 miscarriages in 3 years. She's now on hormones to try to get her to keep the baby. :fingerscr

MollysMommy
October 25th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Another thing to add too: My aunt is in her early 40s and she didn't start having kids until her late 30s. And she is having a hard time keeping up with them. She is exhausted all the time. I can only imagine it will get worse as her kids get older. It's another thing to keep in mind. Even if you have a great pregnancy and healthy kids, will you be young enough to enjoy their entire childhood?

doggy lover
October 25th, 2005, 12:51 PM
I'm glad I had my kids young, I have heard many people that waited until later complain that their kids tire them out. I guess mine did too but you can survive easier when you are young. My son never slept a night through until he was over 2 years old, he also had health problems and I almost lost him when he was 6 months to SIDS. I also worked full time starting at 6 am every morning, how I lived through this I wonder sometimes. I always said that the first 2 years of my son's life were a blur. Thankfully I had my daughter first or I don't think I would have had another after my son. My daughter was a perfect child, she slept 12 hour nights from 6 weeks on and would nap twice a day even when she started kindergarden. I'm also thankfull I had my mum around to help me out babysitting when I was at work or staying in the hospital with my son. Now I'm 41 and my kids are 18 and 16, all that stuff is behind us and they have grown up to be great kids that I have never had any problems with, so I guess in all I did a great job ( oh yeah with a little help from my hubby, but he was never great with babies).

Joey.E.CockersMommy
October 25th, 2005, 01:01 PM
I had my first had 33 and got pregnant right away. The second I had just less than three years later it took about 6 months that time.

We have friends that did invetro for the first one. The second time they did the invetro again and it didnt take. Then a few months later they discovered they were expecting their second with no artficial fertilization needed.

Also if you are thinking about getting pregnant any time in the next few years you should start taking folic acid. I am not sure exactly what it does but I know it helps prevent Spina Bifida in your baby. Maybe Cyberkitten could better explain it.

My mom had me when she was 43. Last one of eight. I couldnt imagine having one now. Although a few years ago I did think it could be a possibility, but now I am happy with just two.

I had my my kids a bit older but I don't regret it, they keep me young. The twenty something moms need to keep up with me! :D :p

Schwinn
October 25th, 2005, 01:05 PM
We've had a few friends go through miscarriage, one she was about 27. I know we were concerned because the doctor said it is difficult after age 30. Difficult my butt. We were married Sept 24, Gracie was born a day early, June 19. You do the math (as an aside, the wedding did come first, if barely).

Personally, I think you have to live your life as you planned, and let what happens happen. That is very easy for me to say, given how easy it was for us, but I've watched friends re-arrange everything and focus so much on having children, that everything else in thier relationship suffers. We almost feel guilty, knowing how hard my best friend and his wife have been trying. All I can say is that you need to focus on your relationship, and try when the time is right for you, not when it seems the optimum time biologically.

I have another friend who got married and him and his wife tried for a few years. He gave up, and then one day it happened. He's in his mid-fifties and has a teenage son. Which brings up another point that Cheryl and I were discussing. Most of her friends had kids younger, while mine are having them while they are older. Things are different now than when our parents and especially our grandparents were having children. We picture ourselves having children in our forties and then chasing the kids around with our walkers. I think, as a whole, we are a lot more active and healthier much later, and therefore, better equipped to have families later in life. Can you imagine if my grandfather bought a bicycle at age 30 that cost more than his first car (okay, I'm still an idiot, but I think you see my point). Back to my buddy in his fifties, he bought a $5 000 bike for his 50 birthday, and can out last me on the trails. So I don't think he has any issues with having a child later in life. And I know myself, that in about 14 years, I'm going to be in a lot better shape. I'm not scary enough to teenage boys yet... :D

Joey.E.CockersMommy
October 25th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Schwinn= We were married Sept 24, Gracie was born a day early, June 19. You do the math (as an aside, the wedding did come first, if barely). Right on!

we were married on April 20th and had Wesley on January 9th.

doggy lover
October 25th, 2005, 01:13 PM
I'll throw you all for a loop my great-grandfather was 72 yes 72 when my grandfather was born. The old guy still had lead in his pencil if you know what I mean. It was his 3rd marriage and she thought because of his age they would not have any more kids she had children from a previous marriage too they had 3 kids togeather. She was much younger than him mind you I believe she was in her 40's when Grandad was born. :D

raingirl
October 25th, 2005, 01:25 PM
GOOD NEWS! Just heard from my friend. Although she had some bleeding, the fetus is ok! They just did an ultrasound and the fetus is still there. YAY!

Strict bedrest though from now on! I better get out the caserole dish and make some easy food for her!

doggy lover
October 25th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Thats great news raingirl and a great idea. :highfive:

Schwinn
October 25th, 2005, 02:10 PM
We had a trip to the hospital as well. I got the call on my cell phone at 6:50 am on the GO Train. I knocked about 5 people over trying to get out, only to realize I had no idea where I was.

Long story short, Cheryl was told to stop going to work. It's all good. I know lots of people who went through the same thing, and the worst that happened was boredom from the bed rest!

melanie
October 25th, 2005, 05:40 PM
every one is different, but it has been shown that after 35yo the chances of having a full term easy pregnancy are significantly reduced. you are born with a finite amount of eggs, and from the moment your alive you are dispersing these eggs never to get them back, your fertility will naturally drop with age as you loose your eggs.

after 35yo in australia your subject to many tests when preggers as it is not guaranteed and your chasnces of probs such as down syndrome increase dramatically. sadly with this 05 lifestyle many woman are leaving it too late or into their 30's only to be disapointed by their bodies and not having the opertunity to have kids. that is one of the reasons i am preggers at 29yo, and intend to have more before im 35 at least one. im not taking the chances, even at this age your fertility is reduced but for me still intact.

but miscarriage is awful and i feel for any suffereers, but nature has its ways, for example a friend of mine has a serious genetic disease on the male side. woman in his family pregnant with boys tend to loose them by 20weeks and a large number of girls survive. we have a theory that this is natures way of dealing with the disease and saving its sufferes.

but its hardm, all i can say if you ahve the opertunity dont leave it till your 30's, a friend of mine started IVF at 25yo and did not fall till 30, so she may have had poor luck had she started any later.

hope your mates going good, what a worry. i am sure one lucky lady to have my healthy baby coming along, but i am aware that luck is not always with us and i thank the spirits of the planet daily for my fortune.

love my dogs
October 25th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Just thought I would throw in some stats from Ontario.

When I opened my pregnancy related business in 1998, I obviously had to do some target market research.

Anyway, the average age rangefor 1st time pregnancy in 1997 was 28-35, with more than 50% of pregnant women falling in that age category.

CyberKitten
October 26th, 2005, 12:59 AM
I do not have the stats at my fingertips but I can only cite my experience at work. (I cannot have children due to a medical problem). There is no doubt that having a child past the age of 30 can be more dangerous for both mom and baby. Pregancy is really not the domain of the health care system and neither should it be. However, we live in a society where women often put off childbearing until past 30 and sometimes even past 40 and we are seeing women in their 60's now giving birth!!

I do know women who have had children after 35 and have had few probs but I am reminded of a commnent made to me by a family physician the other day. In the "old days" - maybe the 60's, haha - women were seen by their family doctor throughout their pregnancy and prenatal care consisted of routine visits to his (and it tended to be more often than now "his" then) office. Now, we seem to have made everything so much more complex - from his perspective. Women have an obstetrician and use technology, take birthing classes, read books like "What to Expect when you are Expecting" that seem to highlight the problems and not the joys and spend thousands of dollars ton fertility counselling and procedures.

Now I do have to note that most doctors love attending a woman - and her family - at a time of birth but most would not touch the specialty unfortunately. The fact it is no longer such a routine part of life - at least in our culture - means it is not a highly sought after specialty. It IS a rotation med students enjoy but the fact more obstitricians are sued does not help.

Anyway - sorry to digress.

I tend to agree with him, in a sense. Pregnancy need not be so complicated not should it even be seen as a "problem". It is a wonderful life event and my experience with Drs without Borders has allowed me to see how other cultures treat it without all the techno gadgets and inordinate medical appts we do. On our ethics committee, end of life and beginning of life issues are THE MOST COMMON issues we deal with. Preemies and babies born to older moms tend to be the most frequent residents in our NICU. (neonatal ICU). And it's one thing for a preemie to be born at 7 months but tiny babies who would not have thrived just 10 yrs ago cost our society zillions of dollars. Now, I would not change that but I think women - and families - have to ask themselves these questions before they have babies. By delaying pregnancy, you just know you are increasing the odds against having a baby that is not completely healthy or having a miscarriage.

I do not think this discussion should only be the domain of would be parents either. Workplaces need to provide good daycare, have progressive women friendly policies - esp in the HR area, our society needs to be more friendly to children in general (we are not really - just look at how many places prohibit children, how many have good playgrounds, how much money we spend on education and complain about it, so women do not worry about taking some time out in their career to have a child - but that is a whole other discussion. Just try to get grant money for pediatric cancer as opposed to research on cancer for adults!!).

The thing is tho that it is not all bad!! I think the good news is tho that women no longer die "of childbirth" - as ppl used to say (sort of like ppl saying ppl die from old age. No one "dies" from old age, there has to be a diagnosis and one of my piccadillos is hearing someone say "Oh, she died of old age". Like how??? In the same way, women no longer die from bleeding that could not be stopped or potential probs can be discovered and surgery accomplished even before the baby is born. And we save so many children - just look (in Canada at least, (the US has a dismal rate for an wealthy industrial country for child mortality or prenatal probs and even death of pregnant moms - they are below Cuba even in the world in the % of children who live past their 1st birthday, a key determinant of health. But therein is where univeral heath care comes into play, another debate. :D ) at the number of babies who would never have survived just 10 yrs ago.

I think in the end this is just a very personal decision and one that depends on who YOU are, what your priorities are and how healthy you are. I do have to disagree (strongly actually) that every woman past 30 or 35 (I forget the age you cited, :) )will certainly have problems. Many women 35 and older have very healthy babies and experience extremely easy pregnancies. The hospital I work at is also a women's hospital that is a primary care provider for expectant women in a large metro area but provides tertiary care for high risk pregnancies. We have one of the lowest rates of C sections in the world - a fact we are very proud of. And the vast majority of the pregnancies of women under 40 are complication free, both pre birth and post birth. Most women under 40 also do well for the most part but that age seems to be a major cutff point for problems develping. A woman 39 may never have to worry about giving birth to a Down's Syndrome child - tho as somone involved with disability rights organizations, I doubt any parent I know would ever choose to turn back time and not have this child now. But I understand (I think) your citing it. Genetic counselling also helps of course in those illnesses. I think having a child you knew would have Huntington's Disease would be so much more upsetting than Down's Syndrome.

Anyway - I have gone off on too many tangents and better stop now. Interesting discussion tho - feel like I am at my ethics committee mtgs, lol

Prin
October 26th, 2005, 01:48 AM
But if you're in your 20's and you're not financially stable, what are you supposed to do? My step mom says that if you wait till you're financially stable, you'll never have kids at all...

Raingirl, I'm so glad your friend is ok. :) :grouphug:

Joey.E.CockersMommy
October 26th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Prin=
But if you're in your 20's and you're not financially stable, what are you supposed to do? My step mom says that if you wait till you're financially stable, you'll never have kids at all...

There never seems to be a right time to have kids. I broke up with my first long time boyfriend at 29 then was single for a few years after that. So having kids in my twenties just wasn't in the cards for me.
We werent financially when I got pregnant with my first but we managed, then we moved up here and make half what we did in Vancouver and still managed to half a second one, and pay a mortgage, bills, etc.

melanie
October 26th, 2005, 05:54 PM
quote "What to Expect when you are Expecting"

yes that is the book i love for sure, it is very informative and the added book on the back 'what to eat when expecting' ahs some wonderful tips for vegetarians.. if ya up the duff, :D i reccomend this one its really great with lots of answers. also a great book called 'up the duff' by aussie Kaz Cook, one hell of a funny read. but your right CK, i try not to over medicalise it, i try to constantly remember woman in third worlds who do this without all the stuff and fuss, and many of them survive (well the numbers are getting higer at least eg the lower number of woman suffering fissures and such overthere due to simple medical procedures, man were lucky here).

but i also think society is not giving woman the opertunity to have kids younger like my mum, she had 3 by 25yo. these days if you ahve a kid in early 20's your often judged as simple, a tart and such when you see a young mum i wonder how many ppl have said 'oh what will she misso ut on she should have had a life first'., and even now at 29yo, ppl find out im pregnant and the first question asked is 'when are you returning to work' i am constantly pressured to work work work, and earn cash, when i tell ppl i will be at home mum, well the looks you get, its like there is something wrong with you like im slow or something or jsut downright lazy sucking off my husband. so i feel such pressures maybe pushing woman into the 30s to have kids when many of them may not want to but society does not give them the chance. i have had several friends who assumed like many woman they could bear in their late 30s, hey it happens to movies stars all the time, but unfortunatly they were very disapointed and are now seeking foster or adoption. its not possible for everyone, that is what the aqustralian medical association is advertising at the mo, they are putting out warnings that its not easy for every one in their 30s and that fertility checks should be done when your late 20's if your planning to start late.its hard to know when these days in this society, i fear that the simpleness of life has disapeared.its just friggin complex these days.,


jsut thought i would add that aus statistics say that up to 15-20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so thats not to high if you ask me its pretty standard.


quote 'But if you're in your 20's and you're not financially stable, what are you supposed to do? My step mom says that if you wait till you're financially stable, you'll never have kids at all...'

thats very true, its hard to know when, but realisticalyl as mentioned before nothing can ever be perfect and hey you can loose financial stability easily, it should be about you and where you are in life rather than possessions or bank balance, dont forget woman in third worlds have babies every day without a morgage or fancy car.

hey my sister has raised 2 kids alone with nary an income and she is doin fine and dandy with 2 happy kids. so its about you, and where your at in life, thats what really counts. being happy and content in life is far more of an indicator than being rich, money cannot buy everything. :D

CyberKitten
October 26th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Re the need to be fiancially stable comment: Firstly - if my mil had said that to me - fortunately my current bf's mom is a feminist - and former Member of Parliament - so she has progressive notions about women working and pregancy - I would tell her it's not of her business, or if that would not go over well and be disruptive, I would think it ans just smile when she says it. Was she and your bf's father financially stable when they had him - and his siblings? The fact is that in spite of the increase in so called "older women" (I use the quotes because acc to the figures used for "older" women (39040 plus), I fit that category, lol), most of the babies born are to younger women or younger families/ couples.

I DO think financial status IS something that needs to be taken into consideration but one has to use common sense and look at your own needs too. I think in part because so many so called (again with the quotes, lol) "young women" - like their male counterparts - are moving out of their parents' home later in life, completing education later as they do more graduate study so we loose years in our biological clock right there and then.
Younger women - and men - make more laid back parents and while there may be drawbacks to that, lately as I listen to othe univ profs (not something I do FT but I too have noticed these Yuppie parents who want to control their chidlren's lives even at that age!!!) practically want to sit with their kids in class. When I was in univ, I could not wait for my father to go home. Now, parents arrive and stand in line with their kids in the registration table. I admittedly thought this was just a symptom of well educated middle class parents whose children had cancer but alas, I was wrong. These people are everywhere!!! (and they are not content with the empty nest syndrome).

My point - and I know that sounded like a digression - is that almost NO-ONE in their 20's worries as much as a 40 year old parent. Money is extremely helpful - (or else there would not be all those lineups for the 40 million lottery tix) - but it is not everything. I would tell your mil that you have a happy stable home, are advancing very well in school and have defined career goals, live in a city with lots of opportunity, and most important, you both love children and will make excellent parents!!

That said, I see nothing wrong with waiting but it is harder physiologically and otherwise to become a first time parent at the age of 40. It is typically a good time financially but with the present economy, even some very secure ppl run into bumps along the way.

And Mel, I agree with you. We do seem to look at parents who are 20 something and wonder what they are thinking. But that age is physiologically the best time for mom to give birth. And I have seen some wonderful 20 something parents - they have energy, they enjoy their children and play with them (they do not think all play has to have some built in educational component - which is not a bad thing they are like me, still not that far removed enuf from their own childhood that they look forward to buying toys for their kids so they can share ,lol - I often have felt that way about my nephew. It's such a great excuse to go to Disney or buy more Lego - I mean, I have lego at the office for the kids (suuuuuuuure!) but it's always good to have more - along with those fav childhood toys like EtchaSketch, Fisher Price garages, Beanie Babies, a plush toys, Spirograph (do you see a trend here, lol), Game Boy (I have to admit it was my nephew who introduced me to Game Boy and when he left and took his with him, I bought one the next day! Sure, I'd seen patients with them but with one at home, I finally had the opportunity to learn how to play it.), ect, etc,

It is a bit of reverese discrimination - we tend to judge younger women with children as not living up to their potential in terms of education or a career. We should let them live their life and enjoy their kids!! It's a superb age to become a mother!!

As for "What to Expect When you are Expecting", I swear not a day goes by that I do not see some mom to be reading that "bible" while waiting for an appt with her obgyn or for some test or another. The manager of one of our store's that sells books at the H tells me they cannot keep it in stock - it flies off the shelf.

Prin, do what you think is bet for you and your guy and your future children and make decisions not to please your mil but your own needs and situation!!

Prin
October 26th, 2005, 11:50 PM
It's changing fast here... People from my generation are having kids so young and staying home too. We're the generation who grew up with no parents, and I have a feeling it will completely flip over. If we could have 50/50 stay at home moms or dads and career moms, I think the world would be a better place. :)

Beaglemom
October 27th, 2005, 09:13 AM
I think that one of the most important things to consider before planning on getting pregnant is not just money, but are you emotionally ready to be a parent. This to me is extremely important. It is a huge responsibility and not something to take lightly. Alot of people say you should be financially stable, but you should also be emotionally ready for all that comes with raising a child. It takes alot from a person, but has much more rewards! To me, it is not about how old you are, but when you are ready for that type of commitment and responsibility. Some people are not ready until they are in their 30s, others are ready in their 20s and some just never are.

Bearsmom
October 28th, 2005, 10:14 AM
Do all people start having problems after 30? Or just some?


Some do, some don't. I became pregnant at the ripe old geriatric age of 35 (after being told I'd never have children), absolutely no problems the entire pregnancy. Our other option we considered was an overseas adoption, if I couldn't have children.

I can't STAND it when people say that because you're over 30, you're high risk. My doctors said as long as I was fine and the baby was fine, I'd be treated no more differently than someone who was 21.

As to preparing for a child? By the time we had Rob, I had already travelled, owned my own home, my own vehicles, obtained a Master's degree, dated then married my husband, and bought our house, so we were prepared financially.

If you want to have kids, have them be it early or later in life.

jackieb
October 28th, 2005, 01:05 PM
in England 35 was considered high risk they advised your for more tests
I had alot of friends when i lived in kent all over 35 with first babies no one could afford a house until they had done serious savings!
I to think it depends on genetics i have 3 boys im 30 i always wanted children younger thats what we planned! We struggle financially but i wouldnt have it any other way!

I think you should do what ever makes you happy

shannonRN
October 28th, 2005, 01:14 PM
Older mothers definitely need to be concerned about Down Syndrome. The statistic I looked up (I don't just store stats in my brain, LOL) said that only 9% of pregnancies occur in women >35, but 25% of Down Syndrome cases arise from these mothers.

I had a professor who referred to any woman having a child beyond the age of 30 as an "elderly mother." I found that to be very annoying. That being said, many elderly mothers give birth to happy, healthy children, and women are bearing children at some very ripe ages, as CK said.

It's good that you're thinking about what you value now. However, if you wait for financial stability, depending on what your definition of this is, you may be in for a long wait. You do of course need to be able to provide for your little ones, but emotional stability, a solid relationship with your S.O. and the willingness to commit to putting someone else ahead of all else in your life are more important than being perfectly financially stable, IMO.

Schwinn
October 28th, 2005, 02:59 PM
I think "financially stable" is actually a relative term. For some, it means you have enough money to put food on the table, for others, it means you have your house paid off and your watching the money pile in the basement grow.

That being said, I am one of those who wanted to wait for "financial stability", while Cheryl felt that we were already able. Needless to say, we didn't get a lot of time to discuss it :D . We both grew up in less than affluential families, but our experiences were VERY different. It's true, you do find a way. Also, I think if you are someone who is worried you won't have enough, unless you have creditors knocking on your door and you're sharing the same bowl with your cat, you're probably are in a position where you'll manage. I know that after 4 months, my fear of having to sell my bike isn't coming to fruition! ;)

The other thing is that if you are someone who is saying that you don't think you are ready, chances are, if you wait until you feel 100% ready, you'll never have kids. Speaking from my own experiences, you'll surprise yourself with just how ready you are. I'm finding fatherhood to be the most surreal and amazing thing ever.

Prin
October 28th, 2005, 03:04 PM
What happens if the baby pops out and is allergic to dogs?

Roxy's_MA
October 28th, 2005, 03:06 PM
I think if kids are exposed to pets at as babies they are supposed to be way less likely to develop allergies. Of course I am sure there are alway a few that will allergic no matter what.

Prin
October 28th, 2005, 03:11 PM
What do you do with them? (The ones who are allergic no matter what?)

jesse's mommy
October 28th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Get rid of the kid, put it in a bubble and keep the animal!! (Just kidding!) That's actually a great question. Is there medication to help control it?

Roxy's_MA
October 28th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Advice I have seen given on this site. Rip out all your floors and buy a new furnace. Hope for the best. In that case I guess you better be financially stable before having a kid. Hardwood is not cheap!

jesse's mommy
October 28th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Raingirl,

In all honesty I'm 30 now and I don't have kids yet. I'm still waiting for my ring, but that's another story. We have friends who are in their mid 30s that just had a beautiful boy about 1 1/2 years ago with no problems at all. I have a friend who had a little girl 4 years ago and it took them almost a year to get pregnant. The way I look at it, what will be will be. I know we want kids when the time is right, but we aren't going to rush it because I just turned 30 knowing all the technology and medical advances available to us to help us if we need it. If I turn out to be like my mother who was unable to have another child after me (she was 27 and had cancer after I was born), then we can still give a child a wonderful home through adoption. There are plenty of unwanted kids in this world. If we do have kids biologically, adoption is still something that I may want to pursue just to be able to give a child a second chance. It just depends on your own personal body. There is no way to tell who it's going to be easy for and who it's going to be hard for. But I will tell you I've found out in the past, the harder path usually gives you more of an appreciation to what you have. So when the time is right for you, whether it's easy or hard, it's what is in the cards for you and you just take it one step at a time. Just make sure you go to your annuals and do you self examinations in between and things should work out for the best. They usually do. Hope that helps.

CyberKitten
October 28th, 2005, 03:45 PM
I think of one worried about every potential allergy and medical problem a child might have, one would never have children!!! I understand why you are concerned about dog allergies but I think you are needlessly worrying. It is true that children raised with animals tend to have fewer allergies. My sister was allergic to dogs and cats and we had a plethora of pets. No rugs for awhile tho. Now she has no allergies, no asthma and has 2 Siamese cats, 1 Birman and 1 alpha moggie.

That sadi, almost no baby is going to be born with an allergy. It takes over a year for a baby's immune system to develop so their IgE they have does not necessarily work as well as older children. And they have hardly been around long enuf to exposed to allergens and become sensitized. And again, their immune system has not been developed yet!

There are exceptions but that is typically skin allergies like eczema or food allergies. Some babies are allergic even to milk or are born with say celiac disease and have difficulty digesting wheat products. Most of these are genetic or are a result of the mother's diet so can be either prevented or prepared for aherad of time.

A baby born in a home with two or more dogs (or cats) during the first year of life may be less likely to develop allergic diseases as compared with children raised without pets. This was the conclusion of an excellent long term study published in JAMA (Hournal of the American Medical Association). The researchers think that exposure to dogs and cats leads to lower risks of allergies because children living with these animals are probably exposed to higher levels of endotoxins, the breakdown products of bacteria commonly found in the mouth of a cat or dog. Exposure to endotoxins is thought to force the body's immune system to develop a different pattern of response that makes you less likely to become allergic.

Other studies show that urban babies develop more allergies than rural kids who living on or near farms have much more exposure to animals.

Even for the researchers in the JAMA articles were surprisd by what they found - they expected the opposite. They are not wuite ready to advocate every parent get a pet but that actually would be a solution. :)

So Prin, you worry too much!! Are you sure you are only 20 something? :p

Prin
October 28th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Problem is, I like dogs better than kids, so if it does happen and the kid is allergic, who would I choose? But of course, all the parents will be outraged and say "You won't know the love you'll feel till you have one". I say, it took me more than 25 years to figure out that maybe life would be sad and purposeless without kids; it might take me another 25 to commit to it. :D

Dogs are easier for me. If they throw a tantrum, you just lie them on their sides and make them stay there for a while. I don't think getting a kid to lie down on the floor of the grocery store will be socially acceptable. :evil:

Oh and to those who are counting on science to conceive, please don't. Remember when 9/11 happened and everybody expected wayyyy too much from the US army? This is the same thing. What you see on the news, tv and in movies is far more advanced than in real life. It's still not perfect and if kids are very very important to you, have them now and don't count on the science later. ;)

Roxy's_MA
October 28th, 2005, 04:10 PM
I actually suffer from year round allergies. I only medicate at times when they get really bad. Otherwise, I would popping way to much clariton. I may even be allergice to pets. It would never stop me from owning them. I would rather suffer with a stuffed runny nose all year round than consider living without furbabies.

free
October 28th, 2005, 05:50 PM
prin i don't think your horrible for what you said. i whole heartedly agree . i have 2 kids, one at university and the other starting to drive on monday and it was easier with the dogs than the kids. when a dog answers you back at least you don't understand what they are saying. and my hubby finds them always willing to greet you when you come home.

Bearsmom
October 30th, 2005, 08:16 AM
when a dog answers you back at least you don't understand what they are saying. and my hubby finds them always willing to greet you when you come home.

How true, how true. :D

pags
October 30th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Well after having four kids -- I guess I can safely answer that I don't have any fertility problems going on. :) I had my two boys when I was 27 & 28... and now my two girls at 32 & 34. I've never had a problem getting pregnant and I've had no pregnancy complications. My doctor told me that if I had been 35 though -- I would be considered 'high risk' for birth defects.

The amniocentesis was NOT mandatory and as a matter of fact they just plain can't make such a thing mandatory in the US. It is recommended of course but my husband and I always opt out. For one, the test is not exactly known for accuracy and from the documentation provided at the doctor's office it is apparently known for a startling rate of 'false positives' -- meaning people quite often get test results telling them their baby is deformed or has a birth defect when it is not the case. Unfortunately a lot of women have been known to base a decision to end a pregnancy on the results of one of these tests. As for my husband and I -- the testing is unnecessary for us because we would not choose to end the pregnancy for any reason and positive test results could only serve to hang a dark cloud over what should be a happy pregnancy. We always find out soon enough.

I'm not medically inclined or anything -- so I was wondering about something... My pregnancies with my boys were actually more difficult than my later pregnancies... So when we talk about having babies after 30, are we specifically talking about first pregnancies? I mean perhaps it can be a lot more difficult to have a first child after 30... But when you've had a small litter, do things tend to go a little more smoothly? :D

Thinking about it though -- my mother fits the statistic. She also had four children... My three sisters all born when she was in her early 20s.. I, however, was born when she was 35. I was a C-section baby and we both nearly died. (placenta previa) (But just to throw in a little confusion -- my mother never had an uncomplicated pregnancy or birth.. mine was just the most severe.)

So is 35 really the magic age where things go suddenly downhill? It seems bizarre to have such a specific cut off date....

Prin
October 30th, 2005, 12:37 PM
My grandmother had 6 kids all by c-section, and my mom had 5 (including one at 41) all naturally... I guess it really does depend on the woman too. It's like Kate Winslet- she comes from a family of big, child-bearing hips and she felt like a failure when she had to have a c-section...

CyberKitten
October 30th, 2005, 03:37 PM
I don't buy into there is a cutoff age but I would say after 40 (I don't agree after 35 is high risk) can be. As for C sections, that is not just dependent on a woman. The number of C sections is actually a determinant of health - in the sense that the lower the number, the better. We are very proud of our low rate here. It means we have been better at prenatal care, among other things. C sections , if only because they are surgery, are higher risk than tpical childbirth which should not been seen as an illness. That said, certainly fewer women might have died of childbirth complications in the past if C sections had been available. (I think of my grandmother's mother who died at age 39 when she hemmoraged to death as she gave birth, a not uncommon problem in those days - the early part of the 2th century).

And Prin, there is much to say for furbabies over the human kind. You do not have to worry about university tuition for one and the hormonal teenage years can be handled more easily, lol (for the most part) :D

melanie
October 31st, 2005, 05:45 PM
hey this kid cant be allergic to my dog, i would need another babysitter then, lol lol lol, oh how irrisponsible. :D

as far as alergies go, charlie will be sleeping next to the baby so i am hoping this will help aleviate any asthmas and such, they say kids who live with dogs inside are less likely to have asthma too, and thats a huge problem in aus.

Quote 'So is 35 really the magic age where things go suddenly downhill? It seems bizarre to have such a specific cut off date....'

its an individual thing, no one is the same, but from the moment your born you loose eggs, never to retrieve them, so i suppose its all down to how your body looses them and such and at what rate. buggered if im a scientist :D crap i dont know :D , i jsut think for best chances try at 29 or 30ish, then if you do have fertility probs there is time to hopefully do somethingabout the before it really is too late. :D

but then this raises the issue of older parents, isnt the point of having children young so that we can live a life with them and they will have our help for a long time, if you ahve a child at 40yo, and like me dont have a great chance of living past mid 60's (crap genetics) then that would mean at 25yo my child would be alone, thats not fiar and defeats the purpose of that natural crap.

now if you ahve em at 25, the they will be near 40yo when i die and at least i have lived enough to help and guide them in life. i dont wan to leave my kids lonely with out help too early. also i would love to be a grandparne,t and in that first scenario my kids would have to breed prettyu young for me to see my genes develop ( and thats not into levis :D ).

but your supposed to play a role as a grandparent, thats how packs and tribes grow and look after each other using all resources, well thats how i always thought it is, like a pod of dolphins really. eeeek eeeek (dolphin sounds) :D .

ah its all too bizare, do what suits you. but hey this is coming from a huge pregnant cranky hungry tired and spotty elephant, that looks alot like ET in her undies, so im probably jsut crazy and should not talk to any of you, yep thats it.......