Aibu to think that 36 is still relatively young to have a child?

[Hdaniels11]

I have a Dd who's 9 and a Ds who's 6 and i'm thinking of having another baby. I'm 36 now and was amazed when i find out once you turn 34 you are classed as a geriatric mother! I always thought 25-38 was the prime time to have babies. Aibu to think you shouldn't be classed as an older mother until you are in your 40s?

It’s a good age for you, go for it. There is a link between older mums and neurodiversity - diagnoses on the rise. Think we’ll see more said about this in coming years.

Most women are absolutely fine and will have healthy pregnancies and babies, but nevertheless it is not just fertility that declines as women age, nor just an increased chance of chromosomal abnormalities. There is also a higher risk of pregnancy and childbirth complications in older mothers (and extremely young mothers). Without modern medicine, there would be a lot more concern about the increasing average age of childbirth than there is, which makes the shortage of midwives and problems with the NHS concerning. Women over 35 do get more checks done than younger women, all other things being equal, because statistically they have a higher risk of high blood pressure in pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, premature birth, low birth weight, multiple pregnancy, and need for interventions during the birth itself.

@StayedUpLateAgain I thought that was older dads?

Yes, that’s the link from studies. I’ve noticed it, many older parents, and many people with referrals.

No, older dads. Which isn’t what you said earlier.

No it's not young. I had my first baby at 20 and four kids by the time I was 29. If 36 is young then that suggests the average age for women to start having babies is in their 40s, which I don't think is true.

Err no. Take off 20 years and I would say so.

Sorry, I bring both parents to the giving birth party. You’re right, you do occasionally get different aged parents but often in same bracket.

I had my second child when I was 29 and I was classed as geriatric then! Obviously this has changed as many women have children in their late 30's and early 40's - and beyond for some. There is sometimes more difficulty in conceiving though.

One of those questions that functions as a Rorschach test on here, just pointless!

The real joy is parenting a teenager as you go through the menopause - pass me the gin please…….

Well you may not think you should be classed as a geriatric mother....but afraid its science that decides that. The risks of conditions increase with age....the prime time to have kids is before you are 30...in the 70s we considered women over 25 elderly primagravida's (first time mums). Its to do with your risks...they arent being rude.

I’m 48 with a 5 yr old! 😬Oh and also have a teenager. I didn’t think this through.

Utter Tosh

I am a member in a pregnancy forum…
all of the expectant mothers over 40… eldest is 46 have sailed through their pregnancies with barely any complications … we are all due within a month to 6 weeks away !

Yet the younger mums to be 25 upwards have all gone through some awful complications and very stressful pregnancies.

the science you talk of is based on very outdated statistics … Google it

go to a London hospital where the majority of mums are late 30s and over 40s and they will provide you with very different information!

Each to their own I suppose. I feel too old to have a 3rd at 31.

I had my first at age 36.

Medically, it is not young, no. Hence the term geriatric. However it's a perfectly normal, unremarkable age to have a baby.

YANBU.

Maybe it’s the circles I’m in but it’s rare round these parts to find a mum who had her first under the age of 30.

Then again this is MN whereby middle age is classed as 35 😂

Certainly not physiologically. The prime time for a woman's body is 18-25. After 30 miscarriage rates increase considerabl

Source?

^ medically speaking anyway. Lots of other factors play into what society thinks is young Vs old ect ect

That’s interesting although our oldest (now 37) was on the spectrum, as were the two would have been 33 and 30 now and our 27 year old and our 18 year old. So maybe genetics is part of it as well?

Medical research = outdated. Ignore it.

Older mums forum = gospel, representative of women, it is way better to have babies 40+ if you don't want complications

Point is complications are more likely as your older and we all know it. And miscarriages etc.

There is no point sending medical research is you aren't is qualified to critically appraise it. It is well knows that women over 35 have increased complications, stillbirths and miscarriages. Hence women age over 40 being offered an induction and consideration for those over 35 depending on other factors. You can find studies from the UK looking at rates of miscarriage that account for other social factors and not just age. In these cases younger women may have higher risk of complications due to social behaviours causing risks to foetus in that population, i.e - drinking alcohol, smoking ect.

If you solely are looking at age then yes the human body is fitter and more productive at a certain time. You don't often see athletes aged above 39 for a reason. It isn't a surprising fact. That being said many women are very fit and healthy to have a baby age 40 and beyond, but ofcourse fitness and health depends on other factors other than age.

@Dappy1211 except you didn’t say over 25 you said over 30 and the risk is ‘considerably higher’ of miscraiiage.

What makes you think I need to critically appraise medical research 🤣 just read it.

Incidentally a quick google will tell you the NHS states miscarriage risk is generally higher in women over 35 but not considerably so, and the risks are only ‘high’ after 45. Not 30.