Max age limit for first child birth - Page 2

[USAmma]

My mom had me at 19, brother at 22, then a huge gap and had my half-sibs at 35 and 39. The last two kids were with just one ovary, as one was removed after forming a huge cyst. The one that had the most issues was my brother born after me. He had Cornelia DeLange Syndrome. The other two were fine and she carried to term. I remember her talking about her AMA.

Yes your chances of genetic things are greater, but all the people IRL that I know with babies with Downs and other things are all under the age of 25-26.

[Storm Bride]

One thing I will mention - I did find carrying a baby much easier at 24. I hardly knew I was pregnant, as I had no nausea (except once during a blood test), no pain in hips or back (I remember ligament pain in my groin twice), no trouble sleeping...nothing at all.

While dd and this one are still easy pregnancies by most standards, I have to say that they've been generally harder to carry than my first. Of course, dd was a much bigger baby, and I don't know if firsts are usually easier than subsequent ones.

I'm thinking of a fourth and looked at the stats for Downs Syndrome. That one is a little scary, but it has to be each mom's choice, of course.

Jaydedayz: My sister had chlamydia scars on her tubes and was told she's probably never get pregnant, either. She's had her tubes done, but not until after her four kids...

[FancyPants]

When, historically, have the women in your family had kids? Have any had kids later? Have they had any problems? For some reason women in my family have married late (comparatively) and stayed fertile a long time (I'm talking 3 kids in your 40s,-42, 43, 48, not expected, no IVF). I had my kids at 29 (almost 30) and 32 (almost 33). I really had to wait to become mature enough emotionally - but that is just me! :LOL
Also it took 8 mos for the first but it didn't worry me because I had read that you should only worry/see the dr if it has been a year or more TTC.

Anyway, if at all possible, you might poll your extended kin. : It won't be completely accurate but might give you an idea of what is possible - if there is a lot of Downs with pregnancies past 30 or something you might want to start now or something.
It's true about the energy levels too (20s compared to 30s). If you are going to wait I recommend getting on the best diet/exercise program now.

Best wishes!

[wannabe]

The limiting factor would be fertility rather than physical ability to carry the child.

Your fertility declines from 35, steeply at 38 and drops to almost nothing by 43.

After then you'd need to have an egg donor, but you could still give birth.

[stafl]

Originally Posted by wannabe

Your fertility declines from 35, steeply at 38 and drops to almost nothing by 43.

After then you'd need to have an egg donor, but you could still give birth.

I disagree, and know many moms who conceived after the age of 40, even after the age of 45 without donor eggs. Why the need to perpetuate agism myths? Some women are still quite fertile well into their 50's. And some women go through menopause at 26. You just can't make generalizations like that without hurting people's feelings.

[wannabe]

Why the need to perpetuate ageism myths? Are you really serious? How about the need to fight back against the media perpetuating the myth that you can have it all and use fertility treatments whenever you want a baby?

Biology is ageist, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The woman who conceives with her own eggs after 43 is the lucky exception to the rule. Until you've been told you won't be related to your children you cannot begin to imagine the pain - and some of these women truly beleived what people like you tell them, that 40 is the new 30, and are truly shocked when they discover there's nothing a doctor can do to help them.

Yes, there is the occasional woman who is fertile into her 50's, but have you ever seen teh IVF success rates for women in their 40s?

You just can't make generalizations like that without hurting people's feelings

Get back to me when you've had the donor egg talk and tell me about hurt feelings then.

[Cajunmomma]

31, 34, 38, and 45. You never know what can happen.

[AdinaL]

Gently.

What is true is that every single woman is different. EVERY SINGLE one.

It is not helpful to tell anyone that they would need to have an egg donor after 43. Some may, some may not. You don't know until you try. Like wise, it isn't helpful to tell any 26 year old that they will never have trouble conceiving because of their age. They may, they may not.

As for hurt feelings, really, just because you have dealt with the pain of infertility, doesn't mean you shouldn't take others feelings into account. That pain is not the only one out there.

And yes, I HAVE seen the IVF success rates for women in their 40s.

Bottom line - try to get pregnant when you are ready to have children. Keep in mind the older you get the harder it may be. Also keep in mind that you may, in fact, conceive on your first try when you were expecting to have a few months. You can only plan so far. Educate yourself, make sure you know what you need to know.

[Cajunmomma]

AdinaL, Brava! Absolutely.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by stafl

The worst thing about having children after 30, and even more so if you are over 35 or 40, is the way doctors treat you.

ITA

[wannabe]

Adina, how can you possibly say that warning women that the media liying to them about their fertility, and that getting pregnant easily after 40 is rare can hurt their feelings?

And for those lucky few women who are fertile into their 40's - why would their feelings be hurt by reminding them how lucky they are? If they have compassion for others they should be prefacing every reiteration of thei age when they conceived with the warning that it's not common.

And what on earth do you mean by saying that there are other pains out there than infertility? Of course there are, but we are discussing age and fertility, and the biggest pain with regard to age is discovering you were lied to when they said it wouldn't be a problem.

It is not helpful to tell anyone that they would need to have an egg donor after 43. Some may, some may not.

Yes, it is very helpful to warn women that if they really really want to have children, and if they want those children to be related to them, that they need to be aware of the limitations of age.

No matter how much you wish that we could overcome biology with modern medicine, we can't, and we need to be active in warning other women that the media is lying to them when they say if you look young, your eggs are young. We are doing a disservice to other women if we do anything but that.

[AdinaL]

What I am saying, is that your absolute is no more helpful than the doctor's absolute that they can get a woman of any age pregnant.

The media hasn't lied - all I have heard in the last several years is the loud admonishment that fertility declines after 27...from everyone, doctors and media. In fact it is almost frenzied at times.

It is one thing to tell someone that they may have an easier time getting pregnant when younger, it is another to scare them into having children when they may not be ready.

Unfortunately, while I understand your point of view - it sounds like you were dealt with poorly - I don't think that fearmongering is a good idea on either side of the fence. I take less issue with what you are trying to say, more with HOW you are saying it. While I take fertility problems VERY seriously, I also don't think that ANYTHING is accomplished by telling a woman harsh things about her fertility. She hears that kind of crap all the time, from every doctor she sees, from the media who squawks about "older" moms all the time, from every news caster who carries the newsflash that holy crap! fertility in women is a finite thing??!!! We all know. We have all heard it. We are all clear that once we pass 3 decades, things start to change.

HOWEVER, fertility is a very very very personal issue. And while easy pregnancy after 40 is LESS LIKELY (not rare, but statistically less likely) it doesn't mean it is impossible for every one. Nor does it mean that EVERY woman over 43 will not be able to have a child that is genetically their own. And frankly, it does a disservice to them to tell them that. Causing a woman to be scared and undergo unneccessary medical treatments because someone told her she would need an egg donor after 43 is NOT helpful, nor is it "empowering" anyone but the doctors.

There are real challenges that come with trying to get pregnant at ANY age. I am sorry for whatever trials you have gone through regarding your fertility, I understand how hard it is, and wish you nothing but the best.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by AdinaL

It is one thing to tell someone that they may have an easier time getting pregnant when younger, it is another to scare them into having children when they may not be ready.

ITA

[wannabe]

Adine, I'm glad that you have missed the prevailing media message about age - I too did the research, and knew that I should begin ttc before 38, but I have many friends who didn't, who beleived it when they read Geena saying that pilates got her pregnant. And they are shocked and devastated when they find out they were lied to, when they bought into the lie that they could use fertility treatments to get pregnant whenever they wanted.

Causing a woman to be scared and undergo unneccessary medical treatments because someone told her she would need an egg donor after 43 is NOT helpful, nor is it "empowering" anyone but the doctors.

If you can convince a doctor to let you undergo a 'medical treatment' after 43 I bet I know which clinic you're at.

People don't undergo IVF if they think they might have a problem, they do IVF when they HAVE a problem. And if they're 43, the IVF probably won't work. If they're 45 it definitely won't work. Those are the facts. Those same women for whom IVF fails at 45 would probably have been fine if they had tried at 37, or even after a few tries at 40.

There are real challenges that come with trying to get pregnant at ANY age.

Yes, but in general the younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance.

[Jane]

I think it's important to remember that nothing changes dramatically on your birthday. You are just one day older on the slow slope downhill from birth to death. No 1 year olds are fertile, no 80 year olds are fertile, but most 20 year olds are fertile. We are all on the continuum somewhere - prefertile, fertile, postfertile, and all of us hope that we're fertile when we want to conceive a child.

I think these questions are more important: What is your family like - what is your personal history. If all the women in your family go through menopause at 32, it's probably more important for you to have your babies sooner. Are you in poor health? Do you have endometriosis? A history of PID? Fibroids? Ovarian Cysts? Have you ever been pregnant? Do you have a partner now? If not, do you want a partner? Do you expect to find one? How would you feel to be childless? Is that an acceptible result to you? How would you feel to have a baby when you "weren't ready"?

[AdinaL]

I wouldn't say in general a younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance, my friend. I am living proof of that. As Apricot just said, it is a continuum. And we are all at different places at different times. Just like we don't all start menstruating on the day of our 13th birthday. And we don't all go through menopause at 50 on the dot.

And given that I am in the middle of my IVF cycle...I know why women go do IVF. I also know that fear is a powerful thing, and that doctors often push women into IVF when they are not entirely ready for such a medical endeavor, but fearful they might not have a child.

What is important is that a woman knows her body and what it can do and when. Not some arbitrary number. If women choose not to educate themselves, they aren't going to listen to layman's advice anyway. And the louder someone shouts at them the less they will hear.

Apricot - your questions are dead on!

[Viola]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

One thing I will mention - I did find carrying a baby much easier at 24. I hardly knew I was pregnant, as I had no nausea (except once during a blood test), no pain in hips or back (I remember ligament pain in my groin twice), no trouble sleeping...nothing at all.

Both my pregnancies were like this, and I was pregnant at 31/32 and 36. And I'm morbidly obese to boot. I'm done having kids, though. I have a feeling it just gets harder and harder with each pregnancy. My sister had all her children in her teens/20s, but didn't get varicose veins until her third pregnancy and they just got progressively worse with 4, 5 and 6.

[Viola]

Originally Posted by wannabe

The woman who conceives with her own eggs after 43 is the lucky exception to the rule.

I really think you are blowing this out of proportion. How many women at 43 and up are having babies with donor eggs vs. women who are having them with their own eggs? And how many of these women would have had problems even in their 20s or 30? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just honestly unaware of a statistic that says the majority of mothers in their 40s have to use donor eggs to have a baby.

[wannabe]

I wouldn't say in general a younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance

Pick a diagnosis, any diagnosis, and I'll guarantee you that egg for egg the younger woman has the better chance. Sure, a 20 year old can turn up a poor responder, but compare a 20 year old poor responder with three eggs and a 40 year old poor responder with three eggs and I'll put my money on the 20 year old for a take home baby.

the national live birth per transfer pg rate in under 35 is 43%, and 6.6% for over 42. How can you argue with that? Even for DOR, the under 35s have 35.7% and the 42+ have 7.1%. And that's per TRANSFER - it doesn't include all the cancellations, or cycles that never made it to transfer.

How many women at 43 and up are having babies with donor eggs vs. women who are having them with their own eggs?

Well, if you assume that a 43+ year old will try two cycles with her own eggs before moving to DE, and that none of them are cancelled, and they all make transfer, then at least 85% could move to DE, assuming they are willing.

What is important is that a woman knows her body and what it can do and when.

I am glad you have this ability, but most of us are totally unaware that we face fertility issues.

[AdinaL]

Look - I give. You and I disagree. You think it is fine to say these things to people who are already told so much about how their bodies betray them at every turn, be it with birth, health, what EVER...and I think that perhaps a more gentle approach is better. I also think that a woman's BEST tool is to know her body - to do HER OWN research and not always to trust what some doctor or what statistics say. That is part of what this site is about. Learning and trusting yourself about yourself.

I don't find being told that I am going to fail at something empowering, nor helpful. I find the hows and whys helpful. I find KNOWING to be helpful. Just spitting out a statistic and saying "yep, you are gonna be in this group" doesn't DO anything. It doesn't help anyone understand. All it does is generate fear that yes, once again the almighty doctor is correct, and you are broken, inadequate, wrong.

If that is the way you want to face it, that is your business. I DO NOT have to agree with you.

For the record...I have PCOS - I am doing IVF - I am 30 years old and have been trying for 3 years to get pregnant. Unfortunately - my eggs could be crap, all immature and unable to fertilize. We don't know yet. A 43 year old who produces 3 eggs and doesn't have PCOS - may VERY WELL have better eggs than me. Generalizations help no one. Ever.