When is it too old to have a baby?

Winterlong · 13-10-2016 02:35PM

I think it all depends on the circumstances.
You can have 50 year olds who are fitter and healthier than lots of 30 year olds.
A fit 50 year old with health and wealth can give a child a great upbringing. Not to mention their added maturity should make them better parents.

To be honest, I would not be judging anyone on the age they have their kids at, would not want them judging me.

ted1 · 13-10-2016 02:41PM

Winterlong wrote: »

I think it all depends on the circumstances.
You can have 50 year olds who are fitter and healthier than lots of 30 year olds.
A fit 50 year old with health and wealth can give a child a great upbringing. Not to mention their added maturity should make them better parents.

To be honest, I would not be judging anyone on the age they have their kids at, would not want them judging me.

Fitness does not take away the risks associated with being over 40

Winterlong · 13-10-2016 02:42PM

ted1 wrote: »

Fitness does not take away the risks associated with being over 40

Yeah, but it is a good indicator that someone has a better chance of a long life than an unfit person who has ongoing health issues, is over weight etc...

ted1 · 13-10-2016 02:45PM

Winterlong wrote: »

Yeah, but it is a good indicator that someone has a better chance of a long life than an unfit person who has ongoing health issues, is over weight etc...

I think that you are missing the point. There is a high chance that a baby born to someone over 40 will have a birth defect.

Winterlong · 13-10-2016 02:48PM

ted1 wrote: »

I think that you are missing the point. There is a high chance that a baby born to someone over 40 will have a birth defect.

'Higher' chance....not high. Check the numbers.

Musketeer4 · 13-10-2016 02:48PM

ted1 wrote: »

It's not the media, it's science , realistically your body is designed to have baby's in your mid to late teens.

Fúcking totally obsolete design at this stage:D.

conorhal · 13-10-2016 02:49PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Don't think anybody has the right to judge. I know so many people who struggled or are struggling to have children. Once the child is loved. So much pressure from the media and society to have kids now. It's not fair on women. We are expected to have it all - career, house, kids and if you don't tick the boxes by the time you're 35 you're a no -hoper.

I got my fertility checked (I'm 32) and was told I'd "better go" before 37. wtf?

I don't quite get what's so WTF?

If you want to have kids it's best to do so before your mid thirties after which fertility goes into a steep decline. Most of my friends put off having kids into their late thirties and at least half of them had to have fertility treatments to get pregnant, that just nature.

Lucyfur · 13-10-2016 02:52PM

ted1 wrote: »

I think that you are missing the point. There is a high chance that a baby born to someone over 40 will have a birth defect.

There are many people who don't freak out over a birth defect.

There are also many people under 40 who give birth to children with birth defects.

I get your point but some people aren't ready to have kids by 40. And many people aren't fortunate enough to have kids by 40.

I don't think anyone should be judged for the age they are when they have children.

eviltwin · 13-10-2016 02:58PM

conorhal wrote: »

I don't quite get what's so WTF?

If you want to have kids it's best to do so before your mid thirties after which fertility goes into a steep decline. Most of my friends put off having kids into their late thirties and at least half of them had to have fertility treatments to get pregnant, that just nature.

Easier said than done. First you can't do it alone and your partner needs to be on the same page. Most people want a bit of stability behind them too. What do you say to a couple in their late thirties who have just reached a point where they are ready to have a child.....tough, you're past it?

Musketeer4 · 13-10-2016 02:59PM

I think a birth defect is good reason to freak out. It's not fair to bring a child with a serious birth defect into the world. It's not fair on them for the suffering and reduced quality of life they will have. Its certainly not fair on the other siblings on whom they might become a burden in time, depending on the defect.
Personally I am in favour of legislation that allows for the ending of a pregnancy where a serious quality of life limiting defect is present to cater for such situations. I think it is especially important nowadays when many people are waiting to the 40 mark before starting a family so rates of parental age related defects are going to increase. That's a fact.

silverharp · 13-10-2016 03:00PM

Lucyfur wrote: »

There are many people who don't freak out over a birth defect.

There are also many people under 40 who give birth to children with birth defects.

I get your point but some people aren't ready to have kids by 40. And many people aren't fortunate enough to have kids by 40.

I don't think anyone should be judged for the age they are when they have children.

it works both ways though, people that would have had children or healthy children or no miscarriages if they had acted in tune with their priorities and had their children earlier would have experienced a lot less heartache.
Sending out a message that 40 is grand is walking couples into trouble. On the other hand nobody would actually judge anyone negatively for having a baby at 40 , there are always outliers

ted1 · 13-10-2016 03:01PM

Lucyfur wrote: »

There are many people who don't freak out over a birth defect.

There are also many people under 40 who give birth to children with birth defects.

I get your point but some people aren't ready to have kids by 40. And many people aren't fortunate enough to have kids by 40.

I don't think anyone should be judged for the age they are when they have children.

Yes there are many people under 40 who give birth to children with birth defects, but statistically the numbers are vastly higher when the mother is over 40.kerp your head in the sand , all you want and don't afjed to be judged , but at the end of the day it's nature that is judging not anyone else

Musketeer4 · 13-10-2016 03:06PM

At the end of the day, maternal age related defects are typically down to degraded ovarian function. There is a procedure where basically a part of an ovary is removed and frozen to preserve it until such time as a person is ready to have a baby. Then it can be put back in and it generally goes back to working as normal.
Again given our way of life and social dynamic these days I think it's wise for the government to introduce a subsidised scheme whereby people can avail of this if they don't want a family until 40ish or whatever.

Lucyfur · 13-10-2016 03:06PM

silverharp wrote: »

it works both ways though, people that would have had children or healthy children or no miscarriages if they had acted in tune with their priorities and had their children earlier would have experienced a lot less heartache.
Sending out a message that 40 is grand is walking couples into trouble. On the other hand nobody would actually judge anyone negatively for having a baby at 40 , there are always outliers

Not always. I started fertility treatment at 30. I had several miscarriages at that point. You mostly hear only the negative stories of people 40+ giving birth. But really many many women over 40 give birth with little or no problems.

eviltwin · 13-10-2016 03:07PM

ted1 wrote: »

Yes there are many people under 40 who give birth to children with birth defects, but statistically the numbers are vastly higher when the mother is over 40.kerp your head in the sand , all you want and don't afjed to be judged , but at the end of the day it's nature that is judging not anyone else

Higher but not high. 1 in 108 over the age of 42 is pretty good odds and screnning is available for those who want it.

silverharp · 13-10-2016 03:10PM

Lucyfur wrote: »

Not always. I started fertility treatment at 30. I had several miscarriages at that point. You mostly hear only the negative stories of people 40+ giving birth. But really many many women over 40 give birth with little or no problems.

individual stories aren't relevant , the only interesting information is a statistical graph with age as one of the axis and whatever you are looking at on the other, unless its a straight line its telling you medial facts and probabilities. And like anything "may the odd be ever in your favour"

Lucyfur · 13-10-2016 03:12PM

silverharp wrote: »

individual stories aren't relevant , the only interesting information is a statistical graph with age as one of the axis and whatever you are looking at on the other, unless its a straight line its telling you medial facts and probabilities. And like anything "may the odd be ever in your favour"

Is it not individual stories that make up the information required for the statistical graph?

silverharp · 13-10-2016 03:17PM

Lucyfur wrote: »

Is it not individual stories that make up the information required for the statistical graph?

so here is a graph

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7qdO_rqtKwk/Uj3UF66wZbI/AAAAAAAAAJM/n2oR-8g_Vuc/s1600/Miscarry+rates.png

Musketeer4 · 13-10-2016 03:19PM

Again, you have to consider that those graphs are made up from statistics averaged from the general population - a generally unhealthy population where the majority are overweight or obese, do not get anywhere near enough exercise and have appalling nutrition.

Wibbs · 13-10-2016 03:26PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Higher but not high.

+1. Yes the risks are higher, but not as high as some seem to panic about. Indeed IIRC there are a couple of conditions where older mothers have sightly less risk. IMH it is also majorly down to individuals and individual fitness. Some people, men and women age more rapidly on a biological level. As you get older you really start to see that in peers after around 30. Some turn into oulwans and oulfellas more rapidly, while others stay in much better condition. Now women do have a natural limit of course and it's better to have kids earlier on a few levels, but the idea that over 35 is crazy town is a bit much.

The rise in autism is beyond the scope of this thread I'd reckon, but for me anyway yes older mothers and fathers may play a role, but I would bet the farm there are other cofactors yet to be nailed down(and no, not requiring vaccine conspiracies).

Older fathers are harder to quantify. Mainly because stats are based on average couples where the woman is also older. In the last few years deeper analysis seems to show that again the mother's age is the bigger factor as couples where there was a greater age gap the risks reflected on the mother's age far more. Again depending on the physical and genetic condition of the father in question. There could also be another factor at play here too. Namely the kind of older man who can still attract a much younger woman is more likely to be in better physical condition than his male peers. Better social "condition" too. So the stereotype of the older richer guy with the young woman would also increase the chances that his and her environment is better. Better diets, more medical attention, less financial stressors etc. All of which would increase the chances of successful pregnancies and births and early childhoods. Put it another way and of course in the extreme; Mick Jagger's soon to born latest kid with a woman in her 30's(a dancer IIRC so fit as fook) will have a dad in his 70's, but said dad is a fit as a butchers dog and with more cash than Croesus. Their kid has essentially won the life lottery.

ted1 · 13-10-2016 03:29PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Higher but not high. 1 in 108 over the age of 42 is pretty good odds and screnning is available for those who want it.

1 in 108 is pretty shocking. That's just Down syndrome, and at 45 it's a 3.2 in 100

Those are high , real high when compared to younger ages.
At age 20, 1 in 1,441.
At age 25, 1 in 1,383.
At age 30, 1 in 959.
At age 35, 1 in 338.
At age 40, 1 in 84.
At age 45, 1 in 32.
At age 50, 1 in 44.

silverharp · 13-10-2016 03:29PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Again, you have to consider that those graphs are made up from statistics averaged from the general population - a generally unhealthy population where the majority are overweight or obese, do not get anywhere near enough exercise and have appalling nutrition.

Im sure you could tease it out a little but the driver is age, even if you looked for a graph of middle class no smoking or heavy drinking white women with gym memberships, the graph would be upward pointing.
If an obese 40 year old goes to a doctor, the doctor is going to say you have 2 risks, age and obesity and certainly will not say you fit perfectly on the first graph.

eviltwin · 13-10-2016 03:32PM

ted1 wrote: »

1 in 108 is pretty shocking. That's just Down syndrome, and at 45 it's a 3.5 in 100

Those are high , real high when compared to younger ages.
At age 20, 1 in 1,441.
At age 25, 1 in 1,383.
At age 30, 1 in 959.
At age 35, 1 in 338.
At age 40, 1 in 84.
At age 45, 1 in 32.
At age 50, 1 in 44.

It's high in the context of comparison to younger women but is certainly not high. It wouldn't put me off.

seamus · 13-10-2016 03:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure you could tease it out a little but the driver is age, even if you looked for a graph of middle class no smoking or heavy drinking white women with gym memberships, the graph would be upward pointing.
If an obese 40 year old goes to a doctor, the doctor is going to say you have 2 risks, age and obesity and certainly will not say you fit perfectly on the first graph.

That's the thing.

You can "offset" the stiffer joints and diminished fitness of a 45-year-old with maturity and wealth that a 20 year old doesn't have.

But there's no "offsetting" the age-related genetic risk factors. You could be in the shape of your life at 45, a marathon every month, but a 20-year-old fatso will still have a lower risk of foetal defects and FFAs than you will.

No amount of anecdotes or "but an older parent can..."'s, can change the simple statistics.

Musketeer4 · 13-10-2016 03:36PM

Of course, you are correct the graph will always be increasing regardless of lifestyle but probably at a lower rate for people who take care of themselves physically. I'm not suggesting the graph would be flat.

What I'm getting at is that it's not just as simple as taking a well fed, fit as fook 40 year old and an overweight smoker living on McD's 40 year old and saying they have an equivalent risk.

Walter H Price · 13-10-2016 03:37PM

I think realistically 40 is the limit , tbh huge risks of disability etc... going later than 40

As well as that do you really want to be dealing with teenagers into your late 50's

silverharp · 13-10-2016 03:48PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Of course, you are correct the graph will always be increasing regardless of lifestyle but probably at a lower rate for people who take care of themselves physically. I'm not suggesting the graph would be flat.

What I'm getting at is that it's not just as simple as taking a well fed, fit as fook 40 year old and an overweight smoker living on McD's 40 year old and saying they have an equivalent risk.

it depends what the objective is, if someone is 40 and they want a kid, the answer is still go ahead you have nothing to lose, however if the advice is to twenty somethings the advice ought to be earlier is better.

13-10-2016 04:02PM

Walter H Price wrote: »

As well as that do you really want to be dealing with teenagers into your late 50's

The plan is I will be fathering my next two children around the time I hit 40. So yea - teenagers in my 50s are on the cards

But I am 37 and I have kids of 6 and 2.5 so teens in my 50s were on the cards anyway.

silverharp · 13-10-2016 04:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The plan is I will be fathering my next two children around the time I hit 40. So yea - teenagers in my 50s are on the cards

But I am 37 and I have kids of 6 and 2.5 so teens in my 50s were on the cards anyway.

teenagers in your 50's is ok, toddlers NO NO NO :eek: , as someone said, tis a young mans game

Walter H Price · 13-10-2016 04:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The plan is I will be fathering my next two children around the time I hit 40. So yea - teenagers in my 50s are on the cards

But I am 37 and I have kids of 6 and 2.5 so teens in my 50s were on the cards anyway.

Fair play man , i wouldn't fancy it 26 now hoping to be done and all by 33 / 34 the latest with 3 or 4 :P My OH would be totally in agreement

When is it too old to have a baby?

Comments