Would you consider having a baby at 47?

amother

Periwinkle

Thu, Dec 06 2018, 2:46 pm

amother wrote:

It's not a matter of "if". At 47, treatments (not without health risks) is the only way this 'may' happen -- and there is no guarantee for this either. What would happen if you get married to him and you both find out that you cannot have children together? Will the marriage last?

Oh my, you must think that 47 is really old if you think the ONLY way one can conceive at that age is through treatments.
Are you even aware of all the women who conceived naturally at that age?
Are you aware of all the women who are in that age bracket who are using birth control to prevent possible pregnancies which could definitely happen to a woman in her mid/upper 40’s?

amother

Indigo

Thu, Dec 06 2018, 2:58 pm

OP I feel compelled to answer because I was in your shoes a few years ago. I didn't read all the responses and I won't get into the issue with the Rav and what he is telling your prospective husband.

Anyhow, I have children from my first marriage. Conception, pregnancies, and deliveries were easy as pie, and I naively believed that I would have no issues.....

At the age of 39 I got remarried after my divorce and being single for a while. We really wanted to have one child together. I thought there wouldn't be issues, after all I conceived easily, always had the easiest pregnancies and was in good health and great shape, with regular cycles and all.

I had a few miscarriages. Started treatments along with the prior testing since I knew the clock was ticking. I found out that as I was reaching 40 certain hormone levels in my body had already drastically changed or dropped from the ideal. AMH and so on

Anyhow, that in itself is not a concern it just makes matters much more difficult. Even with treatment, at an advanced age you are much less likely to conceive, and conceive a healthy child. Eventually I did get pregnant at 40, and would have delivered before my 41st birthday.
However, we found out 16 weeks into the pregnancy that I was carrying a baby with chromosomal abnormalities and very difficult diagnosis. Additionally, this issue caused problems with my placenta ( I forgot the term) and this secondary diagnosis could have led to a serious health problem for me down the line. I had to terminate the pregnancy at 18 weeks. I cannot begin to tell you what I went through, the emotional pain was immense.

It is a fact that after 35 fertility declines and healthy eggs decline. Even more so after 40. Yes, there are exceptions few and far in between. Think it through carefully.

amother

Indigo

Thu, Dec 06 2018, 3:37 pm

I wanted to respond to the poster above. Yes, 47 is "very old" in terms of fertility. Other than that, no it's not old. I don't believe that there are many women for whom conception and delivering a healthy child comes easy at that age. Like I said, very few perhaps. Women that age are still taking birth control bc they are most likely done having kids and don't want to take a chance with an unplanned pregnancy at that point in their lives, or chas v shalom a sick child. Again, it's the OP's decision and because of what I went through I have a cautious view about this.....

amother

Plum

Thu, Dec 06 2018, 5:01 pm

"But there is one key risk factor for Down syndrome: maternal age. A 25-year-old woman has a 1 in 1,200 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; by 35, the risk has increased to 1 in 350; by age 40, to 1 in 100; and by 49, it's 1 in 10, according to the National Down Syndrome Society. If you are over 35 and thinking about getting pregnant, you and your partner may want to undergo genetic counseling to more precisely pinpoint your risk."

So the risk is 1 in 100 for a 40 year old, and 1 in 10 for a 49 year old. I guess at 47 it would be much closer to the 1 in 10 risk.