# Max age limit for first child birth



## prolife (Jul 12, 2005)

Hi, Could anyone tell what is the max age limit for a women to postpone her first child birth so that no complicacies occurs.
And wht is the best age for going for the first child.


----------



## ombra*luna (May 1, 2003)

It really depends on the individual. Of course there's never a guarantee there won't be complications, no matter what the mother's age is. I know plenty of women who've had their first baby in their forties and everything went fine. There are plenty of statistics out there, if that's what you're looking for, but all in all it's really about one's own comfort level and life circumstances.


----------



## prolife (Jul 12, 2005)

Thanks queenie, But i am not thinking about late 40's.
I am 26 now and planning for first baby at around 30 and second at around 35. Just wanted to know if this is ok.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Your fertility begins to decline after age 30, and declines more quickly the second half of that decade of your life.

Doesn't mean you can't get pregnant then, though.

Kaly


----------



## Suzetta (Dec 21, 2003)

There is no way you can predict or plan when to get pg. My "plan" was also to have a baby in my early 30's. Imagine my shock to find out my dh had severe male factor infertility, and we had go through many cycles of IVF before being successful and having first child at 35. Had second at 36.

I have a cousin who got pg with first 3 kids within a month of trying, her first was in her late twenties. In her mid thirties she tried for #4, only to have to try for well over a year.

You just can't predict.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prolife*
I am 26 now and planning for first baby at around 30 and second at around 35. Just wanted to know if this is ok.

There are many, many, many women in this age group having children.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

I had my first at 31 and my 2nd at 33. We both kids, I got pregnant the same month that we decided to start trying (My DH and I joke that all we have to do to make a baby is say "wouldn't it be nice to have a baby?" and then pass in the hallway







). There were complications with both births, and although I wanted natural childbirth, I had 2 c-sections.

There are no guarentees about anything. Some women conceive very easily, and some don't. Some women have easy pregnancies and some don't. Some women have easy births, and some don't. Some women breastfeed easily, and some find it very hard to get started. It all was easy for me except for the actual birth. And honestly, watching the absolute hell that women go through who have fertility problems or are prone to miscarrages, and I feel very lucky and blessed.

I think it if you talking about the difference between having a child at 27 and having one at 30, how your particular body works is the biggest factor in how it will all go though. The 3 years won't make much of a difference. As far as your 2nd child goes, the way the birth of the first one goes is the biggest determining factor. My sis had her 3rd and last child at 38 and had a very very easy birth -- she was in labor 3 hours and the baby just popped out. It was the same as her first 2 births, but the labor time became shorter with each child.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

35 is when the medical community considers you an "elderly" mother







: and when risks and such greatly increase. granted I know a lot of people who have had perfectly healthy kids at that age.


----------



## NoraB (Dec 10, 2002)

I despise the term "elderly primipara" or "advanced maternal age." Utterly digusting and sexist IMO.

I think the main problem w/ waiting is the possiblity of fertility issues. I think most women and couples never imagine that they will be the ones to suffer IF. For me, I wasn't willing to wait and risk it...and it still took a little while to conceive both of my children (8 months for DD and 14 months for this baby...not long in the grand scheme of things and not long compared to many, many womens' journeys, but long enough to scare me and make me glad I didn't wait).

On the other hand, many many couples wait and have no problems conceiving or having healthy children.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't think 30 is too old. I had my first at 24...but my 2nd and 3rd were/will be at 34 and 37.

On the other hand, I learned the hard way how unpredictable these things are. I expected to have my four kids by about age 31 or so. After ds was born, I couldn't get pregnant...nobody ever figured out why (although I think my ex's then-secret drug use contributed). It took me almost four years to conceive again, and I lost that baby and the next two...thus the 10 year gap between ds and dd.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see no problem with having your first at 30, but when it comes to planning it...all bets are off. Fertility problems are more common than many people realize. And, I don't think anybody ever thinks it will happen to them, until it does.

Good luck!


----------



## hottmama (Dec 27, 2004)

Your fertility begins to decline at 28. At 35, the risks of genetic abnormalities (like Downs Syndrome) are much higher than at 25 or 30.


----------



## BensMom (May 4, 2002)

We conceived DS when I was 27 on the very first try. Then when I was 31 we started TTC for baby #2 and it took 9 months to "take." Not that 9 months is an eternity by any means, it just seemed like a very long time to me. I also had very regular cycles, clear signs of ovulation, and DH was even tested and was ok (borderline motility issues, but everything else fine) so there was really no reason why we couldn't conceive quicker other than my age I suppose.

So I do think its "best" to have babies in your 20's in terms of fertility and egg viability, but life doesnt always work out so well. If you think you will be emotionally, physically, financially (or whatever) better able to handle a baby in your 30's then go for it.

I have a friend who was told she was AMA at 31, so some Drs just want any excuse to treat a pregnant woman like she has a disease.







:


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BensMom*
I have a friend who was told she was AMA at 31, so some Drs just want any excuse to treat a pregnant woman like she has a disease.







:

They must love me...I'm healthy as a horse - but I've also had three m/c, two c-sections, I'm 37 and I'm very overweight. Sometime, I think they're disappointed when my b/p and pulse and everything else are perfectly fine.


----------



## hollyhobbie (Jun 13, 2002)

well, i got pg by accident the first time at 36. i mean without even trying. we got close to the big O and that was it. the second and third time i got pg the first month i tried but i had early miscarriages with both. i was still bf'ding my first and was exhausted but wanted to start trying b/c by then i was 38ish. the fourth time i got pg, again it was the first try and this time i have had zero problems and a very healthy pregnancy. i am 39 and will be 40 in november.

i didnt intend to wait this long but x-dh really didnt want to have a kid but kinda kept stringing me along etc etc. the only reason i got up the gutts to leave him was b/c i was going to do donor insemination on my own!! but then i ended up with the dh i have now and he said well if i am gonna be around, i might as well be the daddy! i think we just are a good match b/c i did have unprotected sex with x-dh and nada.

so, it's not ideal to wait too long but i dont have any real regrets. my only eye opener was the fact that you are more likely to have miscarriages as you age not just problems getting pg. ya know i was prepared emotionally for it to take 6 months - a year even to get pg but i was NOT prepared to have the m/c's. i did take some proactive steps before becoming pg this last time i mean like balancing my hormones, getting more rest and weaning dd (at 22 months).

sorry to go on and on!! i say just keep an open mind. i always thought i would have my first at 29 and that would be it. never thought i would be the momma of two kids at 40!!! but i have to believe the universe is unfolding as it should!


----------



## CharlieBrown (Jan 20, 2004)

i had my children at 35,37 and 41. all healthy. m/c at 39. no problems getting pregnant but now at 43 i am having 50 days between periods. we never know natures plan


----------



## Jaydedeyz (Jun 23, 2005)

Storm Bride - Don't feel bad,the docs hate me too!not only am I overweight,but I've had 2 m/c's,1 c-sec,and even though I'm normaly very healthy,I am prone to seasonal infections.And you're right,they do seem to be dissapointed when they can find nothing wrong with me.
BTW,my mom had me [#4] when she was 41,30 minutes of labor,and here I am!
As for the OT,I won't be 21 until Nov.,and I've already got 2 kids.And the ironic part?I had 3 different,non-affiliated docs tell me when I was 13 that I'd never birth my own children b/c I had extensive scar tissue build-up from past fibroid tumors in my uterus. How depressing can that be for a 13 y.o.?! I had 2 early m/c's before I was 16 [just wasn't my time to be mom yet,I guess].Started dating my LP in Oct. '01,and I was preg in March of '02,w/o even trying!Just goes to show,everyone's different.Fertility IS NOT concrete and everlasting.And no matter what your life's plans are,remember,Nature knows you better than you do,you'll be a mom when it's time,regardless of the schedule.
Best of luck mama-to-be!


----------



## Mamabeakley (Jul 9, 2004)

One factor I considered, too, in "planning" my life, is that breastfeeding your first child b/f age 30 has a greater protective effect against breast cancer than doing so after age 30.

I'd like to be done having babies by age 34. Since I am 28 now, but would like 4 total, I'd better get a move on :LOL! But I'm not stressing about it. I know that it'll work out as it should, one way or another.


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

I had m/c first then my first son at 24 second at 27 third at 36, M/c (6/05) at 38 and am TTC again. The way my OB explained it when I asked about my age was it depends on the womans eggs. Some women have "overly mature" (pc of saying old) at 30 some women dont hit the that point until mid 40's. I have always gotten pregnant very easily either by accident or the 1st month. My OB gave me the go head to ttc. As for the complications they can occur at anyage. I m/c at 15 weeks when I was 22.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

The worst thing about having children after 30, and even moreso if you are over 35 or 40, is the way doctors treat you. IMO, there is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about being an older mother, but the fear doctors feel creates most of the problems (with the exception of genetic anomalies).
I waited until 32 to have my first, though we had been trying for a bit longer than most due to my endometriosis. I wouldn't change a thing. When I was in my 20's I was not ready to have children. I was not quite mature enough to handle the sort of stress that comes with being a parent. I have a different perspective than some of my younger mommy friends, and it seems easier for me to deal with things that other parents perceive to be huge problems.


----------



## daekini (Jun 17, 2004)

Circumstances are so varied for each individual, and for many reasons - not just age. I got pg at 31 with my first child after trying for over a year. This time, at 33, we have a "houdini" baby - we weren't even trying.









just reiterating what others are saying - there are some things you just can't "plan" for very predictably...


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

My mom had me at 19, brother at 22, then a huge gap and had my half-sibs at 35 and 39. The last two kids were with just one ovary, as one was removed after forming a huge cyst. The one that had the most issues was my brother born after me. He had Cornelia DeLange Syndrome. The other two were fine and she carried to term. I remember her talking about her AMA.

Yes your chances of genetic things are greater, but all the people IRL that I know with babies with Downs and other things are all under the age of 25-26.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

One thing I will mention - I did find carrying a baby much easier at 24. I hardly knew I was pregnant, as I had _no_ nausea (except once during a blood test), _no_ pain in hips or back (I remember ligament pain in my groin twice), no trouble sleeping...nothing at all.

While dd and this one are still easy pregnancies by most standards, I have to say that they've been generally harder to carry than my first. Of course, dd was a much bigger baby, and I don't know if firsts are usually easier than subsequent ones.

I'm thinking of a fourth and looked at the stats for Downs Syndrome. That one is a little scary, but it has to be each mom's choice, of course.

Jaydedayz: My sister had chlamydia scars on her tubes and was told she's probably never get pregnant, either. She's had her tubes done, but not until after her four kids...


----------



## FancyPants (Dec 25, 2004)

When, historically, have the women in your family had kids? Have any had kids later? Have they had any problems? For some reason women in my family have married late (comparatively) and stayed fertile a long time (I'm talking 3 kids in your 40s,-42, 43, 48, not expected, no IVF). I had my kids at 29 (almost 30) and 32 (almost 33). I really had to wait to become mature enough emotionally - but that is just me! :LOL
Also it took 8 mos for the first but it didn't worry me because I had read that you should only worry/see the dr if it has been a year or more TTC.

Anyway, if at all possible, you might poll your extended kin.







: It won't be completely accurate but might give you an idea of what is possible - if there is a lot of Downs with pregnancies past 30 or something you might want to start now or something.
It's true about the energy levels too (20s compared to 30s). If you are going to wait I recommend getting on the best diet/exercise program now.

Best wishes!


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

The limiting factor would be fertility rather than physical ability to carry the child.

Your fertility declines from 35, steeply at 38 and drops to almost nothing by 43.

After then you'd need to have an egg donor, but you could still give birth.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
Your fertility declines from 35, steeply at 38 and drops to almost nothing by 43.

After then you'd need to have an egg donor, but you could still give birth.

I disagree, and know many moms who conceived after the age of 40, even after the age of 45 without donor eggs. Why the need to perpetuate agism myths? Some women are still quite fertile well into their 50's. And some women go through menopause at 26. You just can't make generalizations like that without hurting people's feelings.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Why the need to perpetuate ageism myths? Are you really serious? How about the need to fight back against the media perpetuating the myth that you can have it all and use fertility treatments whenever you want a baby?

Biology is ageist, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The woman who conceives with her own eggs after 43 is the lucky exception to the rule. Until you've been told you won't be related to your children you cannot begin to imagine the pain - and some of these women truly beleived what people like you tell them, that 40 is the new 30, and are truly shocked when they discover there's nothing a doctor can do to help them.

Yes, there is the occasional woman who is fertile into her 50's, but have you ever seen teh IVF success rates for women in their 40s?

Quote:

You just can't make generalizations like that without hurting people's feelings
Get back to me when you've had the donor egg talk and tell me about hurt feelings then.


----------



## Cajunmomma (Nov 21, 2001)

31, 34, 38, and 45. You never know what can happen.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Gently.

What is true is that every single woman is different. EVERY SINGLE one.

It is not helpful to tell anyone that they would need to have an egg donor after 43. Some may, some may not. You don't know until you try. Like wise, it isn't helpful to tell any 26 year old that they will never have trouble conceiving because of their age. They may, they may not.

As for hurt feelings, really, just because you have dealt with the pain of infertility, doesn't mean you shouldn't take others feelings into account. That pain is not the only one out there.









And yes, I HAVE seen the IVF success rates for women in their 40s.









Bottom line - try to get pregnant when you are ready to have children. Keep in mind the older you get the harder it may be. Also keep in mind that you may, in fact, conceive on your first try when you were expecting to have a few months. You can only plan so far. Educate yourself, make sure you know what you need to know.


----------



## Cajunmomma (Nov 21, 2001)

AdinaL, Brava! Absolutely.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
The worst thing about having children after 30, and even more so if you are over 35 or 40, is the way doctors treat you.

ITA


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Adina, how can you possibly say that warning women that the media liying to them about their fertility, and that getting pregnant easily after 40 is rare can hurt their feelings?

And for those lucky few women who are fertile into their 40's - why would their feelings be hurt by reminding them how lucky they are? If they have compassion for others they should be prefacing every reiteration of thei age when they conceived with the warning that it's not common.

And what on earth do you mean by saying that there are other pains out there than infertility? Of course there are, but we are discussing age and fertility, and the biggest pain with regard to age is discovering you were lied to when they said it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

It is not helpful to tell anyone that they would need to have an egg donor after 43. Some may, some may not.
Yes, it is very helpful to warn women that if they really really want to have children, and if they want those children to be related to them, that they need to be aware of the limitations of age.

No matter how much you wish that we could overcome biology with modern medicine, we can't, and we need to be active in warning other women that the media is lying to them when they say if you look young, your eggs are young. We are doing a disservice to other women if we do anything but that.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

What I am saying, is that your absolute is no more helpful than the doctor's absolute that they can get a woman of any age pregnant.

The media hasn't lied - all I have heard in the last several years is the loud admonishment that fertility declines after 27...from everyone, doctors and media. In fact it is almost frenzied at times.

It is one thing to tell someone that they may have an easier time getting pregnant when younger, it is another to scare them into having children when they may not be ready.

Unfortunately, while I understand your point of view - it sounds like you were dealt with poorly - I don't think that fearmongering is a good idea on either side of the fence. I take less issue with what you are trying to say, more with HOW you are saying it. While I take fertility problems VERY seriously, I also don't think that ANYTHING is accomplished by telling a woman harsh things about her fertility. She hears that kind of crap all the time, from every doctor she sees, from the media who squawks about "older" moms all the time, from every news caster who carries the newsflash that







holy crap! fertility in women is a finite thing??!!! We all know. We have all heard it. We are all clear that once we pass 3 decades, things start to change.

HOWEVER, fertility is a very very very personal issue. And while easy pregnancy after 40 is LESS LIKELY (not rare, but statistically less likely) it doesn't mean it is impossible for every one. Nor does it mean that EVERY woman over 43 will not be able to have a child that is genetically their own. And frankly, it does a disservice to them to tell them that. Causing a woman to be scared and undergo unneccessary medical treatments because someone told her she would need an egg donor after 43 is NOT helpful, nor is it "empowering" anyone but the doctors.

There are real challenges that come with trying to get pregnant at ANY age. I am sorry for whatever trials you have gone through regarding your fertility, I understand how hard it is, and wish you nothing but the best.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AdinaL*
It is one thing to tell someone that they may have an easier time getting pregnant when younger, it is another to scare them into having children when they may not be ready.

ITA


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Adine, I'm glad that you have missed the prevailing media message about age - I too did the research, and knew that I should begin ttc before 38, but I have many friends who didn't, who beleived it when they read Geena saying that pilates got her pregnant. And they are shocked and devastated when they find out they were lied to, when they bought into the lie that they could use fertility treatments to get pregnant whenever they wanted.

Quote:

Causing a woman to be scared and undergo unneccessary medical treatments because someone told her she would need an egg donor after 43 is NOT helpful, nor is it "empowering" anyone but the doctors.
If you can convince a doctor to let you undergo a 'medical treatment' after 43 I bet I know which clinic you're at.

People don't undergo IVF if they think they might have a problem, they do IVF when they HAVE a problem. And if they're 43, the IVF probably won't work. If they're 45 it definitely won't work. Those are the facts. Those same women for whom IVF fails at 45 would probably have been fine if they had tried at 37, or even after a few tries at 40.

Quote:

There are real challenges that come with trying to get pregnant at ANY age.
Yes, but in general the younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

I think it's important to remember that nothing changes dramatically on your birthday. You are just one day older on the slow slope downhill from birth to death. No 1 year olds are fertile, no 80 year olds are fertile, but most 20 year olds are fertile. We are all on the continuum somewhere - prefertile, fertile, postfertile, and all of us hope that we're fertile when we want to conceive a child.

I think these questions are more important: What is your family like - what is your personal history. If all the women in your family go through menopause at 32, it's probably more important for you to have your babies sooner. Are you in poor health? Do you have endometriosis? A history of PID? Fibroids? Ovarian Cysts? Have you ever been pregnant? Do you have a partner now? If not, do you want a partner? Do you expect to find one? How would you feel to be childless? Is that an acceptible result to you? How would you feel to have a baby when you "weren't ready"?


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I wouldn't say in general a younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance, my friend. I am living proof of that. As Apricot just said, it is a continuum. And we are all at different places at different times. Just like we don't all start menstruating on the day of our 13th birthday. And we don't all go through menopause at 50 on the dot.

And given that I am in the middle of my IVF cycle...I know why women go do IVF. I also know that fear is a powerful thing, and that doctors often push women into IVF when they are not entirely ready for such a medical endeavor, but fearful they might not have a child.

What is important is that a woman knows her body and what it can do and when. Not some arbitrary number. If women choose not to educate themselves, they aren't going to listen to layman's advice anyway.







And the louder someone shouts at them the less they will hear.

Apricot - your questions are dead on!


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
One thing I will mention - I did find carrying a baby much easier at 24. I hardly knew I was pregnant, as I had _no_ nausea (except once during a blood test), _no_ pain in hips or back (I remember ligament pain in my groin twice), no trouble sleeping...nothing at all.

Both my pregnancies were like this, and I was pregnant at 31/32 and 36. And I'm morbidly obese to boot.







I'm done having kids, though. I have a feeling it just gets harder and harder with each pregnancy. My sister had all her children in her teens/20s, but didn't get varicose veins until her third pregnancy and they just got progressively worse with 4, 5 and 6.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
The woman who conceives with her own eggs after 43 is the lucky exception to the rule.

I really think you are blowing this out of proportion. How many women at 43 and up are having babies with donor eggs vs. women who are having them with their own eggs? And how many of these women would have had problems even in their 20s or 30? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just honestly unaware of a statistic that says the majority of mothers in their 40s have to use donor eggs to have a baby.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

I wouldn't say in general a younger woman ALWAYS has a better chance
Pick a diagnosis, any diagnosis, and I'll guarantee you that egg for egg the younger woman has the better chance. Sure, a 20 year old can turn up a poor responder, but compare a 20 year old poor responder with three eggs and a 40 year old poor responder with three eggs and I'll put my money on the 20 year old for a take home baby.

the national live birth per transfer pg rate in under 35 is 43%, and 6.6% for over 42. How can you argue with that? Even for DOR, the under 35s have 35.7% and the 42+ have 7.1%. And that's per TRANSFER - it doesn't include all the cancellations, or cycles that never made it to transfer.

Quote:

How many women at 43 and up are having babies with donor eggs vs. women who are having them with their own eggs?
Well, if you assume that a 43+ year old will try two cycles with her own eggs before moving to DE, and that none of them are cancelled, and they all make transfer, then at least 85% could move to DE, assuming they are willing.

Quote:

What is important is that a woman knows her body and what it can do and when.
I am glad you have this ability, but most of us are totally unaware that we face fertility issues.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Look - I give. You and I disagree. You think it is fine to say these things to people who are already told so much about how their bodies betray them at every turn, be it with birth, health, what EVER...and I think that perhaps a more gentle approach is better. I also think that a woman's BEST tool is to know her body - to do HER OWN research and not always to trust what some doctor or what statistics say. That is part of what this site is about. Learning and trusting yourself about yourself.

I don't find being told that I am going to fail at something empowering, nor helpful. I find the hows and whys helpful. I find KNOWING to be helpful. Just spitting out a statistic and saying "yep, you are gonna be in this group" doesn't DO anything. It doesn't help anyone understand. All it does is generate fear that yes, once again the almighty doctor is correct, and you are broken, inadequate, wrong.

If that is the way you want to face it, that is your business. I DO NOT have to agree with you.

For the record...I have PCOS - I am doing IVF - I am 30 years old and have been trying for 3 years to get pregnant. Unfortunately - my eggs could be crap, all immature and unable to fertilize. We don't know yet. A 43 year old who produces 3 eggs and doesn't have PCOS - may VERY WELL have better eggs than me. Generalizations help no one. Ever.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola*
Both my pregnancies were like this, and I was pregnant at 31/32 and 36. And I'm morbidly obese to boot.







I'm done having kids, though. I have a feeling it just gets harder and harder with each pregnancy.

That could certainly be it. I know this one has been the hardest (although still awfully easy, when I look at what a lot of women I know have been through). On the other hand, I've also been dealing with nightmares and depression related to the probability of a third c-section, and I didn't have that feeling with the first two, as both those sections were unexpected. Maybe this is more about my psychological state than about being 37.


----------



## HaveWool~Will Felt (Apr 26, 2004)

Hugs Adina.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes, Adina, and I beleive that education is key - that when you walk into the RE's office is too late to discover they won't treat a 43 year old.

If you know, you can make a decision.

I'm not surprised you find it hard to beleive that you can be refused treatment - PCOS is pretty easy to treat - they just need to tweak the stims for maturity.


----------



## katenyc (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
but when it comes to planning it...all bets are off. Fertility problems are more common than many people realize. And, I don't think anybody ever thinks it will happen to them, until it does.









:

I went off bcp on my 26th birthday and gave birth when I was 29. Dh is a year older than I am. No health problems, nothing diagnosible...just took 30 cycles (including 3 failures w/"medical help") to get pg. We conceived by "accident" a few months before a planned IVF.

I have a friend who is 32 who definitely wants a child. I keep telling her not to wait too long (well, it's more brainwaves, because it isn't my business) because you just never know.

Infertility was a gift, though, in a way, because dh and I used to be such obsessive planners about what our family was going to look like (such and such # of kids, spaced so and so apart)--now I don't even think about it anymore. I just love my baby in the here and now. Someday I'd like her to be a big sister, but it's really not in my control!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
I'm not surprised you find it hard to beleive that you can be refused treatment - PCOS is pretty easy to treat - they just need to tweak the stims for maturity.

I have NEVER said that...NOT ONCE. I know you can be refused treatment. Very clear on that. I don't find it hard to believe at all.

As for PCOS being easy to treat...thank you so much for minimizing my journey.







It is nice to know that my fertility problems are so simple.


----------



## Camellia (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
If they're 45 it definitely won't work. Those are the facts.

I just have to jump in here and say that my husbands aunt is pregnant as a result of IVF and is definately over 45. I'm not sure of her exact age, but she is closer to 50 than 45.

I'm not educated enough on this subject to contribute much, but just wanted to point out that the above statement is not fact.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
Your fertility declines from 35, steeply at 38 and drops to almost nothing by 43.

After then you'd need to have an egg donor, but you could still give birth.

But you're talking about IVF success rates, which isn't exactly the same thing as "fertility." It may be true that almost no woman 43 or older will get pregnant through IVF with her own eggs, but most women in their 40's who get pregnant or try to aren't using IVF. There are probably a lot of 43 year old women who are able to get pregnant naturally. (I'm one of them! I also did IVF successfully at 40.) My understanding is that older eggs often aren't able to withstand all the manipulation involved in IVF as well as younger eggs. But the fragility of those older eggs is less of an issue if you're not trying to remove them from the body. (Though of course there are other issues, like an increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities.)


----------



## hollyhobbie (Jun 13, 2002)

i will be 40 in a couple of months. i got pregnant this time on the first try and this has been my easiest and best pregnancy!! (maybe i said this in my last post) i agree that every woman is different and i feel very blessed for my fertility and would not want to wait this long if i had to do it all over again.

i agree with adina that each woman needs to find her own path and be really educated. scare tactics and hard cold facts do not help!! i worked in adoptions for a while and there are TONS of stories of couples who had infertility issues and decided to move on to adoption then had babies!! over and over. no medical explanation. no facts can explain these types of things. i will tell any woman i meet not to wait and about the heartbreak of m/c and the possibility of not getting pregnant. but i also tell em my story and tell them to learn everything they can.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Lindsay, I don't want to intrude on your aunt's decisions, and things she may not want to discuss with the whole world before she discusses them with her child, but please understand that an IVF pregnancy from their own eggs in someone nearing 50 would have been reported as a case study in one of the journals.

But I'm going to leave you all in your fantasy world now, where people just *know* their partner has azoospermia, or their tubes are blocked by endo, and that if they feel healthy they can have babies when they're 50.

As you've said, facts are not welcome here - I was sadly mistaken in thinking that people asking questions wanted factual, truthful answers.


----------



## nora--not a llama (Feb 25, 2005)

Um, wannabe, dontcha think your words are kind of rude and hateful and hurtful? Don't other people's feelings matter at all?


----------



## anythingelse (Nov 26, 2001)

In a perfect plan you can have one child at 35 and another at 37 and everything goes well







but IRL I have never met one mom that had things go exactly how they planned.

I have 4 children (16, 11, 8, and 5) and am in my early 40s. I miscarried between pregancys - and also had babies with birth defects. Most of my gf are my same age, the ones that are starting their families are all having lots of $$$$ related to that and health issues, problems staying pregnant. I was not financially or emotionally 'ready' when my oldest was born but it was definately the easiest pregnancy and healthiest child.

IMHO have your babies in your 20 and early 30s if you know you want them & want more then one. I would not wait till 35 and think I was going to be able to have 2.


----------



## Camellia (Jun 2, 2004)

See, I have very little knowledge in this dept. They must not have been her eggs









Anyway, I will leave this discussion now.


----------

