To think 36 isn’t that old for a first baby

[Youcanbesweet]

Old school friend has told me that people are saying she’s too old to be pregnant.

Jesus Christ, the deep rooted misogyny and plain fucking ignorance on this thread is grim. So people genuinely seem to believe that women having children over 35 are almost certain to have a disabled child and are therefore ‘selfish’. Jesus. This is often from those who had their children ‘young’. Interesting. Where do these mindsets come from? Is it a lack of education or some sort of bitterness? confused

I think the mindset comes from ideas of 'success' still being attached to being someone's wife and mother. Some women who 'achieved' those things earlier than others feel pleased with themselves because they weren't 'left on the shelf' or 'shrivelling up'. Older, often single or childless women have historically been demonised - look to various witch trials and the women who were accused and the idea of the 'wicked stepmother' or the 'unnatural mother' in literature. It's depressing. All very fair to say its not what you'd choose yourself, but for the judgey 'too old' brigade, there seems to be an undercurrent of vitriol.

@Cam2020

It isn't about the woman though, it's about the fact that there's a higher chance that the child will be born with a severe disability.

Those risks are still minimal! There's a higher chawnce of poverty if a woman hasn't had a career or solid work history should things go wrong within a realtionship. Everything is a risk!

There are risks linked to a mother older than 35, with an even higher risk aged 40+:

www.nct.org.uk/pregnancy/tests-scans-and-antenatal-checks/pregnancy-and-birth-for-women-over-35

“The chance of having a baby with Down’s syndrome increases from less than one in 1,000 under age 30 to one in 400 for women who become pregnant at 35. The likelihood of Down’s syndrome continues to increase as a woman ages. So by age 42, the chance that a pregnant woman will have a baby with Down’s syndrome is one in 60. By age 49, the chance is one in 12.”

So why did my risk of Downs come back at 1 in 10,000 both times, 35 or over both times? It's nowhere near as simplistic as that.

PS I know why my risk got calculated like that really, it was a rhetorical question.

@momtoboys

I had my first at 35, two more at 37 and two more at 39. I do feel sometimes like I am their grandmother compared to parent of their friends! I'm always so happy to meet someone close to my age. LOL

You had 5 kids, inc two sets of twins in your mid to late 30s? You’re a fucking super hero. I’m 39 and the thought of one baby at this point in my life makes my knackered old bones cry

God I hope not! I’m 35 and only just starting to look at TTC

It depends entirely on your area and level of education.
I had my first at 36 and although there are plenty of mums at school who are a very similar age to me. Around half of my uni peers have had their first child after me too.

It depends. It’s not “too old” but for example, I am from the North East originally and all my friends who I went to school with and who didn’t go to Uni had their first kids in their late teens and early twenties. I went to uni in the south east and all my university friends are just now having first babies at 33, 34.

I had my 2nd at 35 and was told geriatric in terms of pregnancy. I definitely couldn't do it now I'm pushing 40.

I’m 36 and I have 4…the oldest being 17 and youngest 10. So I wouldn’t have anymore and am glad I had mine young.

But as for too old? No not at all. What’s good for me isn’t necessarily what’s good for someone else.

I was 32 when I had our first child. My mil was horrified and asked how did it happen 😆, my husband is the same age as me and we'd been together since uni!! I'm not quite sure at what age my mil thought it was acceptable to have a child? They told us their reaction was "shock" 🤣 and that they were having issues accepting my husband was an adult - at 32 🤣🤣🤣. So by my mils standards it's probably still a little young.

Back in the real world I don't think 36 is too old for your first, it just means you have to have them close together if you want more than 1. I've just had my 3rd at 37, no issues, well apart from a few niggles. My personal cut off was 38, but that was for me, I didn't want to be 50 still doing primary school drop offs and I want to have a life the other side of having kids. As long as you are aware it might be more difficult to get pregnant and potentially harder physically I don't see the issue late 30s. I found my third the hardest physically and there were more niggles but that could just be the fact it was my third and my body has had enough (3 pregnancies in 5 years, 4 if you count a miscarriage between 2 and 3).

@FirewomanSam

I’m 37 and loads of my friends my age are still thinking about having kids or just starting TTC. I spoke to a fertility doctor once who told me that your chances of getting pregnant naturally and having a successful birth over the age of 35 are about 50% so not as dire as some people think (that’s without IVF or any other intervention).

The whole ‘game over after 35’ thing is a toxic narrative spun by the media as yet another way to make women feel like shit. There is a definite decline but it’s a gradual one and not the cliff-edge that some would have us believe.

There is very little difference at all and certainly no cliff edge, you are correct. It is 78% after 35 and 84% before. It is myth that was based on data from 1700s in France that has never been challenged.

I think it is too old, but would not say so to a 36 year old mother-to-be.

I think it is too old, but would not say so to a 36 year old mother-to-be

Why do you think it’s too old?

I can't actually believe people are saying 36 is too old to have a baby. Anyone would think you are walking around with a zimmer frame, drawing out your pension!

my friend with PCOS conceived naturally at the age of 37. She was actually very worried about her fertility.

@Daphnise

I think it is too old, but would not say so to a 36 year old mother-to-be.

Is it too old because of the risks to the child, because you're just too old at 36 to care for a child or because of the ages later on etc?

So funny that it's too old to some people! You'd be maybe 57/58 when the child leaves university. I'll still have ten years to work at that point.

I'm having my first at 35 and intending to have a couple more! I mean I don't really mind if people thing I'm too old or tell me so...it's just a bit weird!

@Mazblue86 me too! i had my first at 35 and will have my second next year at 38. I'd love somebody to tell me i was too old so I could laugh in their face.

I had twins at 32 and sn old fashioned colleague reminded me that multiples occur more in older mothers as the eggs age!

Nothing to do with the five other sets of twins in my family then...

Nope. I was 35 when I had DS. I did want to crush all the nubile young slips of girls in my ante natal classes.
I went into our local cafe with some mum friends when he was a few weeks old. the cafe owner came over to take order, spoke to the babies, asked names, first baby etc. Got to mine, looked at me and went 'you're a bit old for your first baby aren't you?'
Told her to fuck off, we went elsewhere for our coffee.

My SiL had her first at 41. Socially I think its normal to wait till you're older to have a kid. Biologically it is a bit old, but a PP mentioned better healthcare, longer life spans.
Everyone has their own journey. I never had a child earlier as I never met anyone I wanted to reproduce with until then!

@onlychildhamster

my friend with PCOS conceived naturally at the age of 37. She was actually very worried about her fertility.

I have pcos and needed ivf - my consultant said we’re more likely to become fertile during peri. It certainly explains why both sets of grandmothers and one great gran had babies at 50 and 51.

[quote Noodella18]@Mazblue86 me too! i had my first at 35 and will have my second next year at 38. I'd love somebody to tell me i was too old so I could laugh in their face.[/quote]
It's also not that historically unusual. Lots of women after the wars had babies later just because they had to wait for the war to be over. And people might not have been having their first baby at 35 in the 30s and 40s but they were definitely having their 4th or 5th.

I found this question quite funny. 36 is hardly old. I had mine at 42 and 44, and since I had them I've met a number of women who had their first child between 36 and 43. All were naturally conceived too, so if nature allows it, it seems churlish to judge. In answer to concerns about birth defects, both of my children are ahead of average academically and developmentally. None of my older friends' children are behind with anything- they all seem very bright, beautiful and capable. It's an odd, primative idea that they must be defective in some way. More frequent miscarriages are a sad part of being older, and the process of TTC is stressful in a way few 20somethings can really fathom, but the babies who do make it through are exceptionally good specimens! I don't think age matters half as much as people think. I think young mothers can be just as wonderful as older mothers, but I would say I've noticed the older ones care a lot less about going out, partying, couples weekends away etc- the (great) mums I know around 30 or younger had some struggles with resenting their children on some level for keeping them from living their social lives. The older mothers have been there, done that and are completely happy to stay in every night with the kids. There's nobody more devoted than a 41 year old with her first baby. There are plenty of unacknowledged advantages like that.

It's everyone's personal choice and judgement on when to have children. I didn't want to have children in my 40s. I had my children mid to late 20s and I'm glad I did. If my children have children I want to be around to enjoy my grandchildren for as long as possible.