Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I doubt that it's a double standard, after all the man only donates the sperm while the health of the child primarily depends upon the health of the mother. The older you are the greater the risk of complication. While everyone may feel different in terms of how old is too old, reality and the aging process dictates otherwise.
But "having a baby" also includes "being a parent." Being a parent is a whole lot more than who physically goes through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. That lasts less than a year. Being a parent is a 20+ year commitment for BOTH the mom and dad.
There's truth in your statement. However, according to the nichd - women under the age of 35 have more children with DS because they have more children period. My bad, I was speaking about odds. This is a nice site... it even provides the odds of having a child with DS as one ages. But I guess to some women this is irrelevant.
Well, yeah, I think a lot of the double standard is the fact that many women are not still fertile at 47 even if they haven't gone through menopause. And many women do not wish to be pregnant at that age. I personally think it's great you naturally conceived and successfully gave birth at 47. It's atypical. That doesn't mean it's bad. Quite the opposite IMO if that's something you wanted.
No, it was not something I wanted at the time, It was something that never crossed my mind as I didnt think it possible. I really think it was just 'meant to be' whether anyone beleives that or not, I do. Of course, he is the love of my life now.
Also,because I had all my kids after 40,I was shown those statistics on down syndrome.But then they translated them for me into percentages,and when it is done that way,it is not quite so scary.I'm not good at math[or remembering things]so I couldn't tell you what they were.But for instance,where it says at 46 your chances are 1/20 of having a Down syndrome child,that still means obviously percentage wise,the chances are good you will have a normal child.
Anyway,for me it wasn't like I was just intentionally waiting until 40 to have kids.I didn't marry til 38.Thank God I waited for Mr Right instead of all those frogs I dated[several of whom are now divorced!
LK - I'm glad everything worked out for you and that you were able to have your kids naturally - what a blessing! And I'm with you on waiting for Mr. Right and not getting permanently entwined with all those toads that have passed through our lives (I married at 36). Can't hurry love or the resultant family all of the time!
I personally wouldn't have kids past 35. Others can do as they wish.
You seem to have a very iron clad opinion.I don't know how old you are now,but lets just say for the sake of keeping the discussion going,that something happened and you and your husband were no longer together.Then at age 37 you meet Mr. Wonderful, man of your dreams.It's his first marriage[he's been waiting for you all of his life] and he wants children.Do you mean to tell me that you would flat out say,"sorry,no kids for me after 35!" ???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
