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 is a medical term not a cultural one.

Agre 36 is a normal age to have a child, particularly a third child. I had all of mine over 35 and it was only when I was over 40 that I was classified as geriatric. It does vary from area to area and over time though. My cousin was classed as a young Mum at 25 in the late 90s whereas my DSis worked with an older woman who was classed as a geriatric first time Mum at the same age 20 years earlier!

The early baby boomers were very young when they had children though, there's an excellent graph of the average age to have a first child in the 20th century and from the 1940s to the 1970s it gradually drops then it starts increasing and now we're the same as the 1930s again. (Linky to a description of this)

You can't just read medical research, it doesn't work like that. If you can't analyse research and identify between good and bad studies then the conclusion you will arrive at is pointless. You could be reading a research article from a journal with really bad credibility and wouldn't even know.

I'd rather trust the doctors who actually are completing the research and arriving at conclusions and guidance based on multiple studies that they are trained to critically appraise.

You've also just answered the question. It is higher at 35 therefore 39 is not young. And the rate of miscarriage does increase after 30 but this isn't included in the guidance as the risk is not as significant as it is past the 35 age mark.

The perception of risk is also very personal and what is a considerable increase will vary amongst the woman you ask. The risk of miscarriage is 1/10 for those under 30 and 2/10 after 35. This piece of information will be perceived differently amongst women. The risk of miscarriage from ages 25 to 30 which is 1/10 to roughly 1.5/10. That's a 50 percent increase and for some women that is considerable.

I'm not saying women shouldn't have kids after 35, 40 ect. You are as young as you feel. I am just sticking with the facts.

It’s not up to you to judge if I can analyse data. What makes you think I can’t? I just asked for a source. Do you have one or not?

Also it depends how you are defining ‘young’. 36 (not 39) is medically slightly more risky than 35 but that doesn’t make it an ‘old woman’ pregnancy nor does it mean old women are having babies.

Sorry but it's quite evident that you can't. You can Google NHS miscarriage rates. They don't give specifics on rates 30-35 because it's just unnecessary as 35 is the age they are more precautions about. That being said miscarriage rates aren't the only factor, there are others to take into account like birth complications ect ect...

I do also think the term geriatric isn't a nice one at all. It doesn't mean you are old at 36, just means you are now in the "older" category medically speaking. It would be the same in the sporting world. Culturally, many women will in this age group are definitely young.

I think the key word here is "relatively". Relative to what? Relative to culture, it isn't old. Relative to medicine, it is in the "older" category.

To think 36 is a "normal" age to have a 3rd baby?
No. Your fertility is decreasing. Geriatric mother. So biologically speaking, no it's not a young age or any more 'normal' than other ages.

So you’re not gonna link to a source despite me asking because you have decided I’m of clever enough 😂 right oh. Im sure that source that states miscarriages ‘increase considerably’ once you hit 30 definitely exists.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425455/

This is just one example. If you really really wanted something to read. The others a bit more difficult to read.

I meant difficult for me. Don't have time to look through what's a good piece of research atm.

That source doesn’t correlate with your claim that when a woman reaches 30 the risk ‘increases considerably’. It states the lowest point is aged 27 (around 10% chance) and when a woman reaches 30 the risk rises linearly to a point where it’s 54% chance by the age of 45.

Thats very different from BAM you’re 30 and suddenly you’re at a much higher risk of miscarriage.

Actually the studies that were done based on age and fertility are actually wildly out of date now. I read an article on it recently, off to find it so I can link it.

You just asked for a source and you aren't even reading it. This is why I said there is no point sending research if you can't read research. Look at the results section. Not just the abstract at the top lol. You need to scroll down and actually have a look. Look at figure 2 then, that's the most simple thing I can find in the article, look at age 30 and see the increase. It's clear you won't understand the rest. No point asking for medical sources if you can't read medical research.

Are we looking at the same thing? Figure 2 only starts showing a steady rise from the age of about 36 then goes into a more rapid rise 40+. Aged 30 it’s pretty much the same as age 29.

Also I don't even think you read the abstract. The most simple part of the paper.

"The risk of miscarriage was lowest in women aged 25-29 (10%), and rose rapidly after age 30, reaching 53% in women aged 45 and over."

slate.com/technology/2020/08/fertility-cliff-advanced-maternal-age-outdated.html

there’s a medical journal too which I’ll find after dinner

I didn't have ds until I was 36 and laughed when I found out that is how I was classed, while geriatric could be replaced with a more favourable word such as advanced age, extra mature (like cheese 🤣) etc, it doesn't change the facts egg (and sperm) quantity and quality reduce with age and there are some medical risks associated with that to both the mother and the child.

Personally I think extra care for older mothers, and research into associated risks for mothers and children, should be welcomed and encouraged rather than getting our knickers in a twist about a traditional, perhaps dated, medical term.

This. It's far from young, biologically speaking!

You have no clue what you’re on about.

Im over 40 and have been pregnant 3 times whilst being over 40.

The medical research that is being quoted here is grossly out of date - when it was published over 60 years ago and the term geriatric mother was coined - bias towards women was rife…. There were no such things as scans

i actually do have conversations with the OBs who predominantly function in a hospital that predominantly cares for women over the age of 35 and their feedback has always been that most of the quoted research is out of date …. Google it yourself

Yes fertility does decline with age… yes you are more susceptible to miscarriages the older you get…. But that doesn’t warrant a lot of the Tosh banded about on here

Women over the age of 40 who do get pregnant and there are many many many… tend to lead much healthier life styles than those who are much younger!

As I mentioned the pregnancy forum … all of the older mums are sailing through their pregnancies where as a lot of the younger mums have had a whole array of complications ! I noticed this too during my other two pregnancies

you haven’t got a clue.

Agree ! With scans etc they are able to carry out a lot more conclusive research regarding pregnancies in women of advanced maternal age.

The biggest declining factor towards fertility is actually life style…. Sugar, alcohol, being over weight, smoking, drugs etc diminish your egg supply and quality of eggs fat faster than ageing does - that is what I was told by the professor of fetal medicine at the hospital which I attend.

advances in scanning technology and understanding many factors … is making a huge difference regards fertility treatments too - treatments other than IVF!

In my area it is quite common to have a child around 38-42…

According to the fetal medicine unit I attend … it is more difficult for that data to be considerably correct. They do not understand how many women actually miscarry as there are many undiagnosed cases of miscarriage.

it’s actually a very interesting subject … and the reasons behind why women miscarry isn’t fully understood.

I had 4 miscarriages all in my early 30s…. Yet once I reached my 40s had no problem conceiving at all !

Thank you ! Yes they are! And we’re concluded way before scans were available !

That's what literature reviews are for - the most reliable kind of research that looks at many different pieces of research and highlights their strengths and weaknesses.

@Dappy1211 I do agree with what you say about perception of risk. And trusting doctors- the NHS website is always sound.

I don't think it's young. Isn't it only the last generation or so that being a first time mother in one's 30s became common?

My sister is 38 with three, eldest being almost 10. I didn't think she was overly young when she had first at 28.