To be worrying about my fertility?

[black2cat]

I turn 35 next year and it is a concern as obviously I have heard that fertility really drops after 35.

I do really want to have my own children in the future and am worried I won't be able to!

How true is the '35' thing!?

I think that's it - it's not that you'll necessarily have problems conceiving after 35 (you'd think from some of the scare stories that your ovaries actually fall out the minute you hit that age - I remember one commenter on a news article claiming confidently that it was impossible to get pregnant at 40 without medical intervention, which was news to me, as I was 40 and pregnant at the time), but that it gives you less time to work with if you do have a problem.

Once you go much past 40 though you are a lot more likely to have difficulty conceiving. That said it's definitely not impossible - having children well into your 40s was apparently very common in the days before widespread contraception, it's certainly not a "those crazy modern career women DEFYING NATURE" thing.

Personally had mine at 37 and 40 and actually got pregnant faster at 40.

I had my dc after 35 and struggled to get pg both times, I had one mc and one missed mc.

I think if you know you want kids, try to make it a priority, lots of people really struggle to get pg.

I don't think anyone in an infertility clinic would say 'relax, you have 7 years...', they tend to say, get on with it as young as possible.

My dd was born when I was 43 after years of trying, giving up, trying with clomid and then she appeared against the odds. But I feel now, she was really against the odds!

Sorry I mean I had two dc, one mc and one missed mc altogether, I am very sub fertile so find it hard to even get pg in the first place.

Me again.

I had my first at 28, #2 at 30 and #3 will be whilst I'm 32.

#1 is now in her first year of school. DH and I are at least 10 years younger than most other parents there. At least - I'd say lots of them are mid 40s. Meaning they had their children in the early 40s.

In my personal experience, loads of people have babies late 30s/early 40s: I have always felt an incredibly young mother.

The biggest issue is finding someone who wants the same as you. I don't think you can mess around at 35 with commitment phobic men or fellas that will string you along. Realistically, even if you met someone next week and clicked it would probably be 36/37 at the earliest before you would be looking to start a family. I think you do need to be clear early on in a relationship with what you are looking for. There is definite pressure to make a good choice man wise!

At the moment, I am not really looking for a man. I know - gasps of horror! - but I'm not in a position where I can or want to.

I will in the future however but I've got a few months of "me work" first.

I did read The Single Trap and to my surprise couldn't relate at all but I think my singleness is to do with the fact I've lived a fairly unconventional life for a myriad of reasons. Hoping things will settle now. :)

Didn't want to read and not respond.

I had DD at 37 and DS at 45

It took us a year of trying at that age - but that is still within the realms of normal! What worked best for us was temp taking and charting - FertilityFriends is a good (and free) website.

I'm sure you'll be fine

No offence wishmiplass but how can you possibly be sure the OP will be fine? IME, for people dealing with/worrying about infertility, the assertion that they will be fine because it worked out well for the asserter or someone he/she knows, is at best misguided and at worst patronising claptrap.

Sorry, but it's true.

I don't agree that it's a case of being fertile or not - at least not in every case - otherwise secondary infertility wouldn't affect so many. I was fertile one minute and then not the next.

Sometimes it's a purely physical issue which is treatable such as endometriosis.

OP - you've asked for experiences of people who have had children over 35 and lots of people have given you that and also some advice on things you might want to consider looking into if you're concerned. You've been, if I may say so, a little dismissive and snippy in response. If you don't want to do anything don't but it's a little pointless asking for other people's experience because theirs will have nothing to do with you and your ability to have children. This is a hard lesson you learn when going though infertility and you're trying desperately not to hate other women who seem to fall pregnant at the drop of a hat - you repeat the mantra that their fertility has no connection to yours.

But Hester no one really knows if the OP will be fertile or not, or fine or not. Only she will be able to find that out if and when she tries for a baby.

I get the impression this thread was written so lots of people would just come along and say 'yep, you have loads of time, don't worry'. The reality was that lots of people turned up to give a frank and slightly less positive version of TTC later and obviously that went down like a turd at a tea party.

So perhaps a cheery 'it'll be fine' is the better choice here. Makes everyone feel better and maybe it really will be fine. Who knows!

Hester - noted, although I think you're possibly taking it a bit far. Patronising claptrap? Really?

I would have responded differently had the OP said that she and her partner had been ttc and she was desperate and unhappy and so on. I wouldn't try to be "light" in that case. In fact, I probably wouldn't respond because that's not my experience and I have nothing to offer in terms of commenting.

My response was based on the fact that I had children at the age of 37 and 45, which was the question in point (am I too old?) and that she's single and not having sex.

HTH.

Sorry if my wording was too strong wishmi. It's just that people pointing out that they have conceived easily at, let's face it, unusually late ages doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether the OP will be fine or not. I don't think blithely telling someone they will "be fine" is helpful. If you read my original post I said what a lot of people said - that if there were no underlying problems then the OP will probably be ok, but the risk of leaving it until late is if there ARE problems conceiving, then people often run out of time to tackle them. This is really common. That's why I suggested making sure she was in tip top condition physically from now. I'm really not trying to pick a fight, honest. It's just something I feel strongly about - that "Aw you'll be fine hun, I know it will happen for you. It did for me," is not a helpful comment (not saying that's what you said exactly).

These threads on fertility never take into account learning difficulties or autism.

Seriously every couple I know where either man or woman was over38yrsold, at least one of the children has learning delay/ suspected autism, aspergers. ADHD, waiting to be diagnosed.

Every time I see a naughty child with one older parent - esp dads over 45, I find it difficult to be interested in the parents' worries about child behaviour issues. I don't know why their isn't more public discourse about it.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 10 families where it is confirmed and about 5 where investigations ongoing into at least one child.

If there is any family of learning problems/ male brain issues/ dyspraxia/ ADHD I would personally never Ttc over age 38 unless I was prepared for it.

Sorry if harsh but it is very very common - a relative who works in a special school also has noticed same trend where never ever sees any families where both parents were aged under mid 30s when child born. Ie the parents are v old of the children with non-normal spectrum.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but I don't know why age isn't more strongly linked to these issues esp for men as well as women. It is unfair people don't seem aware of the risks.

People are aware of the risks. They weigh them up and act accordingly.

I taught a child with Down's whose mother was 21 when she had him.

I don't know whether they are though. Personal and relatives exp seems to be over38 and quality degrades of eggs or sperm.

Downs I think everyone discusses a lot. The more hidden ones people can't see are less known I think .

Whenever there is media discussion of age-related infertility or congenital conditions linked to the age of parents, there is someone complaining they 'weren't told'. Who do they think should have told them though? People have to take responsibility for educating themselves about these issues.

"Seriously every couple I know where either man or woman was over38yrsold, at least one of the children has learning delay/ suspected autism, aspergers. ADHD, waiting to be diagnosed."

Not here, no issues with either son. Or my father's family (both he and his brother born when his parents were in their 40s), or the several other families I know with older parents. Actually everyone I know on the spectrum was born when their parents were relatively young (including my friends' two autistic daughters, my Aspie cousin). A friend of mine is a psychologist who works a lot with autistic people says that the biggest risk factor she's seen is family members who are also on the spectrum, diagnosed or not (a lot of "bit socially odd"/"very nerdy" relatives, etc.).

Do you have any actual hard evidence that parental age is anything more than a mildly elevated risk, or are you just scaremongering based on anecdata/"I've noticed a trend"? There's also a rather unpleasant tone of "fuck them, they should have known they'd be guaranteed a special needs child by breeding at that age" in your post, I don't know if you intended it, but it's there.

The internet would seem to suggest that it's, at the very least, inconclusive: "Most studies examining autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and advanced paternal age have demonstrated a statistically significant association between the two, but some have not."

(and by "statistically significant", it's "elevated risk" from looking at the studies, not "you are guaranteed some kind of mental infirmity in your children once you're over 38". Also it's only associated with paternal age, not maternal age.)

Everybody in my ante-natal group, post-natal group and baby swimming classes was between 29 and 39 when they conceived (all first timers). Most were around 36/37 possibly because they'd been spurred into action by the 'cliff at 35' newspaper headlines. I would not say that having a baby at 36/37 is at all unusual, it seems to be the norm where I am.

Those saying the OP to 'not leave it' or 'do something' what exactly do you suggest? If you're not in the position to have unprotected sex with somebody who you would like to co-parent with then you're not in that position. And rushing desperately into finding a potential father is not the way to a stable and loving relationship.

The only advice I'd give is that if babies are the aim within a loving relationship then keep loving yourself and boosting your own self-worth and self-esteem and don't waste time dating idiots. And maybe think seriously about whether it has to be 'children' or whether 'a child' would be ok too.

There is no intended unpleasant tone at all. Just hard to get facts based on both parents ages and risks of these conditions - I believe it is not currently available. That's why I highlighted a trend in south east myself and relatives at special school openly discuss.

This is no way whatsoever a fuckyou or whatever someone said. My heart just sinks a bit whenever a child demonstrates odd behaviour and a parent starts talking about referrals and I realise they are older parents over38 at conception that is all.

People dont realise te risks nor the difficulties ie rarely get invited on play dates, parties, someone usually mother had to give up career, driving miles to special school. Educating at home, no respite. That is all.

I get the challenges of having a special needs child, I'm just wondering if you are basing this on anything other than "I have personally noticed this pattern amongst people my relatives and I know". As I said, the actual studies (and there have been quite a few, it's not information that's "not currently available") don't seem to indicate anything nearly as conclusive - some came up with no statistically significant association, some more came up with a raised risk. Your post seems to indicate that you are virtually guaranteed a child with ASD if you are reckless enough to have children with either parent past 38 and that this is "something more people should know about", but I'm not sure if people should know about it if it isn't true.

There is no intended unpleasant tone at all.

Fine, except:

Every time I see a naughty child with one older parent - esp dads over 45, I find it difficult to be interested in the parents' worries about child behaviour issues.

is really not very nice.

Eg two recent studies that agreed on paternal age being a risk but disagreed on maternal age:
sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2014/studies-diverge-on-role-of-mothers-age-in-autism-risk

The key line here being "In the meantime, Malaspina cautions, couples should not base their decisions about having a family on these findings. “The risks are actually quite small for any individual parent.”"

Ratbag, that was the line that I found unpleasant as well. Very "well, it's your own fault your child has issues, you've made your bed, etc. etc."