or Connect
Mothering › Groups › December 2012 Due Date Club › Discussions › How many of us are in the "Over 35" crowd? ;-)

How many of us are in the "Over 35" crowd? ;-)

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

I am 37 but will be turning 38 before this LO is born (DH will be almost 44). My DH will be almost 50 when this LO starts kindergarten! Some of our friends will already be grandparents by then!! bigeyes.gif

 

This pregnancy is kicking my butt and I am wondering if it is because I am older this time? My first was born when I was 28, second when I was 34. I just don't remember feeling this sick and this tired. greensad.gif

 

I don't feel "older" than I did with my last pregnancy though. I eat well and am in great health (though I know I don't exercise near enough...my only exercise is chasing my 2 year old around)!  Maybe it is just that symptoms get worse with each pregnancy?

 

I was talking to a midwife the other day and she put things in perspective,,,she told me she had just left the house of one of her clients who is 46 and about to deliver any day now!! thumb.gif

post #2 of 29

Yes!  Turning 37 next month (DH too).

 

I just got my BFP on Thursday.  So far I just have very light cramps off and on fatigue.  But I also had fatigue (and quesyness) during my first trimester with DD (I was 30 then).

post #3 of 29

I'm 41! It's my first baby, so it is all new to me. I am super tired all the time!

 

post #4 of 29

I'm 35 now, and will be 36 when this one comes along.  I had my first at 21 and my second at 34 and felt a huge difference in how tired I was when I was older.  The fatigue is staring to kick in now for this one, but because it is so soon after my second, I'm pretty used to it.winky.gif  What are everyone's thoughts on having an amnio?  My husband and I are both very uncomfortable with the idea.

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 

We are definitely not doing the amnio. Actually I am not doing any testing this time. Last time I did do the standard blood work, and glucose test but refused any kind of other testing. I figured it wouldn't make a difference in carrying the pregnancy or not so I skipped it. 

I do plan on doing the 20 week u/s but other than that I am sticking with my midwives for care which means no tests. winky.gif

post #6 of 29
We are not getting an amnio, either. I have not researched what other tests they offer for the 35 plus crowd.
post #7 of 29

I'll be 38 in June.  We will be getting the nucal translucency u/s at 12 wks and the blood work that goes with it.  I've had it with every pregnancy.  I'm feeling really tired but that might just be chasing after 2 active little boys :-)

post #8 of 29

38.  this one is also kicking me down!  I fell asleep 6 times during a training day....lol

good thing I knew the instructor.

post #9 of 29

I'll be 40 in August. Turned 38 right after I had my last one. It was by far my best pregnancy and easiest birth but I was way more tired than normal.

post #10 of 29

I'm 35 now, I'll be 36 when this baby is born, so I'm kind of on the fence. We used frozen embryos, so if the fresh cycle worked, I would only have been 35 when the baby was born.

 

I really don't want to do an amnio, and if we end up having twins, that would mean getting stuck twice. I've read that they can't do CVS with twins. So, first we'll see if we're having multiples, then I'm doing the 12 week u/s and blood work, and we'll go from there. Has anyone either heard of or had the Maternit21 test, or is that just the same as 1st trimester blood work? 

 

Other than the 24-hour nausea, headaches, mood swings, and utter exhaustion, I actually feel pretty good!

post #11 of 29

I'll be 39 when the baby is born. DH is 42. We are doing CVS with this baby and did it the last two. I go to a very, very good specialist so his risk rate is very, very low. CVS is all about skill.

post #12 of 29

I am 36 and will be 37 when this baby (number 5) comes.

post #13 of 29

I am 37, but will be 38 before the baby comes.

post #14 of 29

I am 35, but will be 36 before the baby comes. I was 32 when my first was born. I too have wondered about the implications of having a baby over the age of 35 since it seems to be the age people mention when they refer to risks. 

But I read this which calmed my nerves (from The Pregnancy Book  by Sears & Sears, pg. 82):
"In our practices, we've noticed that women who have a baby when they are thirty-five or older have certain advantages. A more mature woman is likely to take better nutritional care of herself, make wiser choices in assembling her birth team and choosing a birth place, and ask more insightful questions during interviews to select an obstetrician or pediatrician."

 

I wonder, is having a baby after the age of 35 is less of a big deal than it used to be? headscratch.gif

post #15 of 29

Older pregnant women do tend to take good care of themselves. They tend to be educated and wealthier. They are more likely to breastfeed.

So those are all positives.

 

As for the negatives, they are more likely to miscarry. They are much more likely to have chromosonal abnormalities, which is why various forms of testing are available. (Also true for older fathers.)

 

 

post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post

But I read this which calmed my nerves (from The Pregnancy Book  by Sears & Sears, pg. 82):
"In our practices, we've noticed that women who have a baby when they are thirty-five or older have certain advantages. A more mature woman is likely to take better nutritional care of herself, make wiser choices in assembling her birth team and choosing a birth place, and ask more insightful questions during interviews to select an obstetrician or pediatrician."

 

I wonder, is having a baby after the age of 35 is less of a big deal than it used to be? headscratch.gif

 

I do think it is less of an issue than it used to be. I still think it is funny though that at 35 you are considered of "advanced maternal age"!

 

I like this quote from the book. I think it is so true. I am way more aware of my nutrition, exposure to cleaning products, medications etc. than I was with my first pregnancy back in my 20's. Same thing with my prenatal care....with my first I just went to the OB that all my friends were seeing even though she got on my nerves. wink1.gif

post #17 of 29

I'm 35, will probably be 36 when the baby is born. I was in my mid- to late 20s with my other two... and had super easy pregnancies. So maybe this one will not be so bad. :)

post #18 of 29

OK, the pregnancy test is just drying and I'm feeling a little old right now sigh.  Assuming everything stays healthy and goes as planned I'll have just turned 38 when this LO is born.  OMG.  I can't believe I just said it.  Just a little stunned here too.  Not sure how to feel.  And, knowing that I'm older I am concerned about the increased risks of everything.  Though I got pregnant accidentally, using artificial lube even.  Guess it only takes one time.  Sigh.  How to keep this secret...sigh?

post #19 of 29

It's not that the 'risks' of giving birth over 35 have changed - it's that in certain populations, it's become much more common than it was for a while.  

 

100 years ago, most women who had children had many children throughout their reproductive life - like, 10 kids, first born in their late teens early 20s, last born in their mid-30s early 40s.  That brings certain risks that have to do with how your body changes after bearing many children, and genetic risks.  And certain benefits that have to do with how much help you have to raise the baby!  Then once women gained greater ability to control family size, most women had several children within a relatively narrow window of their reproductive life - like, 4 kids, first born in early 20s, last born in early 30s.  That leads to the 'nuclear' family which can be isolating for parents, but relatively few physical risks.  Now, in upper socio-economic settings, many women are delaying childbearing until mid to late 30s.  This brings certain risks that have to do with age and inexperience, and certain benefits that have to do with resources & maturity.  

 

So where I live, for example, in a major metropolitan area, 'elite' doctors and midwives are quite used to women in their 30s & 40s having their first babies so may be less freaked out by it than they used to be.

 

I am 35 and will be when this baby is born.  I know there are some increased genetic risks vs. when I had my previous babies at 27, 29, and 32, and I'm not exactly happy about them.  But life is full of risk and unless I want to adopt (could never afford to) or stop at 3 kids, I have to accept those risks.  I think DH and I would be able to rise to the occasion as parents to a special needs child, although I worry about how it would affect my other children.  That's just a . . . magnification, though.  I worry about how having another child will affect my other children anyway.  (Not enough to not do it, though!)  And I know that whatever child we have will bring gifts to all of us we cannot know about ahead of time, whether neurologically or physically typical or not.

post #20 of 29

i'll be 37 in july, was almost 36 when the previous was born and 34 before that. the last two were my two easiest births, but the pregnancies are getting rougher on my pelvis. 

  Return Home
  Back to Forum: December 2012 Due Date Club
Mothering › Groups › December 2012 Due Date Club › Discussions › How many of us are in the "Over 35" crowd? ;-)