User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:51:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Mid 30's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:52:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Once a woman hits mid-thirties, the probability of certain child defects begin to increase significantly. Wife is an OB/GYN; went in to do a C section so can't ask her directly. She and I have had this conversation before so info. should be good. Risk to mother doesn't increase much. Mainly just higher risk to baby.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:52:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mid 30's |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:52:53 PM EDT
[#4]
In the 30s is when chances of problems start going up. By 40, they are much higher
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:54:23 PM EDT
[#5]
70, see the story of Abraham and Sara in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:54:48 PM EDT
[#6]
I am on match and there are a couple of profiles of 50 yo woman with a 4-5 yo that is theirs . One is a widow who had a husband with cancer .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 3:58:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say.
Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:01:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. But the Gold-diggin' lasts for life. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:03:42 PM EDT
[#9]
SO says 37
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:07:27 PM EDT
[#10]
87, maximum
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:08:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Part of it depends on whose eggs are used. An older woman can use the eggs from a younger woman with assisted reproduction. But a woman's eggs are getting pretty much past the use by date by 40. Women have all the eggs they will ever have when they are born whereas men continue to make new sperm. Unfortunatly as men age the sperm become more compromised. Sort of a copy of a copy of a copy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:09:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:09:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
70, see the story of Abraham and Sara in the Bible. I could be wrong but I think back then it also said people lived to be like 300 years old too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:10:47 PM EDT
[#14]
My wife was 34 & 35 when our kids were born (13 months apart).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:12:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Ya, but they where catholic and had there first kid at 17 and where working on number 8 and where already grandparents.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:13:34 PM EDT
[#16]
My brother's wife is about 42-44 (not exactly sure) and she just gave birth to my nephew a week ago. Healthy.
Honestly, I think they were pushing it but they knew what they were getting into and accepted the risk. It paid off for them. If it matters, she's a health nut, no discernible body fat, takes vitamins, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:13:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once a woman hits mid-thirties, the probability of certain child defects begin to increase significantly. Wife is an OB/GYN; went in to do a C section so can't ask her directly. She and I have had this conversation before so info. should be good. Risk to mother doesn't increase much. Mainly just higher risk to baby. +1 Fertility peaks between 18 to 26 then declines significantly until 35, and then drops off precipitously after that. So just getting pregnant becomes a problem after 35, and birth defect rates increase quickly. Age and smoking are the two biggest factors affecting fertility in an otherwise healthy woman. In terms of physically carrying a baby (donated eggs), she can do that well into her 40's if she is otherwise healthy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:15:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. Concur. 40 is about the reasonable cut off for most women. Obviously, there are older women out ther that have children, and quite often. But risks to both the mother and child increase dramatically after that age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:16:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. Sure, it CAN be done. But it shouldn't be the norm. Women go into peri-menopause in their 40s for a reason. Miscarriage risk increases and Down Syndrome risk actually doubles within a few years. Labor is a major stress on the body and the older you are, the more difficult it might be to recover. Sure, most babies will be born perfectly healthy and each woman has to decide for herself what she's comfortable with but, in general, over a population, it's healthier to not have kids once you're close to 40. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:16:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Ask anyone named Abraham. I've know one woman to give birth in late 40s
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:16:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Concur. 40 is about the reasonable cut off for most women. Obviously, there are older women out ther that have children, and quite often. But risks to both the mother and child increase dramatically after that age. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. Concur. 40 is about the reasonable cut off for most women. Obviously, there are older women out ther that have children, and quite often. But risks to both the mother and child increase dramatically after that age. Isn't 40 what they've determined is when the risk of autism starts to increase a lot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:18:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. No flame, but that is bullshit. Yes, it's possible for some women to have children into their 40's, but statistically the vast majority of children are born to young women. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:19:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Interestingly, 70% of Down's Syndrome children are born to women under 35 since they have most of the kids. A mother age affects the chances having a pregnancy with Down syndrome. At age 20 the chance 1 in 1441; at age 30 it is 1 in 959; at age 40 it is 1 in 84; and at age 50 it is 1 in 44. Although the probability increases with maternal age, 70% of children with Down syndrome are born to women 35 years of age and younger, reflecting the fact that younger people have more children. An older age of the father is also a risk factor in women older than 35 but not women younger than 35 and may partly explain the increase in risk as women age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:19:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My brother's wife is about 42-44 (not exactly sure) and she just gave birth to my nephew a week ago. Healthy. Honestly, I think they were pushing it but they knew what they were getting into and accepted the risk. It paid off for them. If it matters, she's a health nut, no discernible body fat, takes vitamins, etc. My younger brother (by a year) got married when he was 47 and she was 40. Their kid is now 5 years old, and not only is she a really cute kid, but sharp as a whip. I guess it's all luck of the draw. LC |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:21:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Concur. 40 is about the reasonable cut off for most women. Obviously, there are older women out ther that have children, and quite often. But risks to both the mother and child increase dramatically after that age. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. Concur. 40 is about the reasonable cut off for most women. Obviously, there are older women out ther that have children, and quite often. But risks to both the mother and child increase dramatically after that age. Yes, I'd NEVER judge a woman for having a baby late in life but from debate standpoint and speaking in generalities, there IS a reasonable cut-off. Hell, I'm almost 37 and if I got pregnant now I'd be thrilled. He's fixed so I'd have to name the baby Jesus but a girl can dream, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:22:14 PM EDT
[#26]
I have an aunt who gave birth at 44. My cousin is 20 now and insanely smart, studying physics in college and shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:23:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Wife is 33 we just had our first 4 months ago. She had five miscarriages prior to that. The baby is healthy but she sure did give us a scare the whole time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:24:55 PM EDT
[#28]
My mom had my brother when she was 42, he turned out OK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:27:12 PM EDT
[#29]
In a large circle of "friends" three married couples have children with "issues". All waited til later in life, autism and Downs in two children, learning disabilities and Aspergers or whatever its called in the two others.
Two other couples had theres older I think, no problems. Take my small sample for what its worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:27:55 PM EDT
[#30]
under 50 after 25
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:28:28 PM EDT
[#31]
The actress Laura Linney just had a kid at 49.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:29:32 PM EDT
[#32]
My great great grandma had her last kid at age 45.
Granted, she has 14 other kids before that, so she has a great deal of experience bringing children into the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:30:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Birth defects and other biological issues aside, what people in their right mind wants a toddler at 40+?
I see parent in their 30s that can't handle the energy level of their toddlers. FFS people, have kids when you are young, dumb, and fully of energy But then again that, interferes with binge drinking and the weekend night life 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:33:28 PM EDT
[#34]
I don't think age should be a factor, financial stability on the other hand should be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:35:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think age should be a factor, financial stability on the other hand should be. you should file a formal protest with the ministry of biology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:35:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Birth defects and other biological issues aside, what people in their right mind wants a toddler at 40+? I see parent in their 30s that can't handle the energy level of their toddlers. FFS people, have kids when you are young, dumb, and fully of energy But then again that, interferes with binge drinking and the weekend night life
For my brother, he was focused on his career and hadn't found the right woman. I agree with what you're saying. He'll be 60 when the kid graduated high school. Not my cup of tea, but it's what he wants and now he has it. I had mine fairly young. I'll be 41 I think when mine graduates HS. So I'll have my 40s and 50s free! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 4:45:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you should file a formal protest with the ministry of biology. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think age should be a factor, financial stability on the other hand should be. you should file a formal protest with the ministry of biology. oops I for some reason thought it said minimum age 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:01:37 PM EDT
[#38]
We started when the wife was 32 and finished when she was 46...
That's all I got.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:04:56 PM EDT
[#39]
My ex-gf of a few years ago was born when her mom was 43.
I always assumed that was why she was a heartless, overly obsessive bitch. Bad eggs and all that.But she had graduated second in her class at Vet school. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:09:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: That is, for both the health of the mother and for the child. Yes, I can research this on the internet, but in my experience the responses on this site are far more informative. Thank you for your time.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:12:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No flame, but that is bullshit. Yes, it's possible for some women to have children into their 40's, but statistically the vast majority of children are born to young women. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maximum? Early 40s, I'd say. Ideally childbearing would be over by the mid-thirties. You guys realize that only a few decades ago it was common for women to be having kids into their 50s, don't you. For a first child the late 30s, maybe early 40s is not out of the question. I know several women who didn't have their first until after 35, including my sister's oldest who just had her first after one miscarriage. A miscarry is the bigger issue in my experience with later pregnancies, as all the cases I'm familiar with were born healthy and normal. No flame, but that is bullshit. Yes, it's possible for some women to have children into their 40's, but statistically the vast majority of children are born to young women. Thanks. I didn't want to be the one to say it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:19:05 PM EDT
[#42]
I know several women who have had children after 40, all kids are normal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:27:16 PM EDT
[#43]
How old is too old for a woman to reasonably consider it? I'd say early 40s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:38:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Medical practice and research has determined and considers any woman at the age of 35 and older as a high-risk pregnancy.
Women have a shorter reproductive window than men. It should be obvious as to why for anyone with the most basic grasp of human physiology(which seems to be very few these days). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:42:05 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
That is, for both the health of the mother and for the child. Yes, I can research this on the internet, but in my experience the responses on this site are far more informative. Thank you for your time. It sort of makes a difference if it's a first child vs. 3rd. Speak with your doctor and go over your family history. Then, off the cuff. I'd venture to say, that the doctors would say that for a woman, after 35 you're "high risk." Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:46:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sort of makes a difference if it's a first child vs. 3rd. Speak with your doctor and go over your family history. Then, off the cuff. I'd venture to say, that the doctors would say that for a woman, after 35 you're "high risk." Aloha, Mark Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is, for both the health of the mother and for the child. Yes, I can research this on the internet, but in my experience the responses on this site are far more informative. Thank you for your time. It sort of makes a difference if it's a first child vs. 3rd. Speak with your doctor and go over your family history. Then, off the cuff. I'd venture to say, that the doctors would say that for a woman, after 35 you're "high risk." Aloha, Mark The physician would certainly know more about the risk to the mother. As for risk to the child, diagnostic tests are pretty amazing now but there are still things that can't be caught before birth. If the mother's health checks out, I'd weigh the risk between having a possible abnormality or the child not given a chance to be born at all. That's a question only the mother and father can answer and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer(unless the mother is still "young enough" and is considering waiting. Then it's kind of a no-brainer). Quoted:
My ex-gf of a few years ago was born when her mom was 43. I always assumed that was why she was a heartless, overly obsessive bitch. Bad eggs and all that.But she had graduated second in her class at Vet school. Did she have a special fondness for horses? If so, I think I know just the type of girl you're talking about. It's such a common phenomenon that it should be a diagnosable personality disorder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:56:52 PM EDT
[#47]
In Iowa, it's 16.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 6:04:17 PM EDT
[#48]
My wife had our last kid at 41.
Risks of many things increase with age, childbirth included. Interestingly he has been the most pleasurable for us as parents. We have the most experience and time. When we were in our late 20's and had our first we knew the least and were the most stressed about things that make us chuckle now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 6:06:33 PM EDT
[#49]
To just stir the pot here. The hospital where I work had a 24 year old grandmother and the great-grandmother was 40.
Yeah, we paid for it all. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 6:09:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
24 year old grandmother How the fuck... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
