A friend of mine who is 30 is trying for a baby (first one) with her husband of 58 years old. Once I've read that ideally the ages of both partners added together should not exceed 70. Are they less likely to conceive?
2006-09-07 07:08:57 · 8 answers · asked by little_friend 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Trying to Conceive
More the age of the female than the male partner.
If she is 30 then she has a good 5-6 years left before it gets "advisable" to not concieve. Barring medical issues she should still be fertile.
I'd be more concerned about her not having a father around through university for the child. But each to their own. If they love each other, etc ...
2006-09-07 07:17:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG where the hell did you hear that! Thats RUBBISH!!!
I'm having my first baby. I'll be 35 when he's born. My boyfriend (who is younger than me) will be 24. I have not been considered "high risk" at all, in fact my pregnancy is textbook perfect, and any doctor who says that having a baby over 35 is "dangerous" needs to resign or be struck off because he does not know what the hell he is talking about!!!!
My Ob/Gyn Consultant said that 35 is a great age to have a baby!!!
My mum had her babies at 36 and 42. My dad was 52 when I was born and 58 when my brother was born!!!
My grandmother had hers at 36, 38 and 40.
Let me tell you - there were NO problems in any of the pregnancies. None of us were born with any problems or defects, the pregnancies were straightforward and conceived naturally the births were fine.
And hey - my gran had her kids way back many years before advanced medical care, screening tests etc. She had 3 lovely healthy baby girls!
And if you beleive having them younger means it will be easier/safer, well my BF's mum started trying for a baby at 16 - she found it really hard to conceive, had several miscarraiges, stillbirths etc. My BF was born when she was 19 after a terrible high risk pregnancy and he was not expected to live as he was so sick and premature! He had to have major life saving surgery at 5 weeks old! And thats after being born to a "young" mother!
In contrast, my mum conceived really quickly and easily at 36 and 42 and SAILED through her pregnancies, and had two really big healthy bouncing babies!
People please get out of the dark ages! It is crap to say its "risky" to have kids "later", unless you have specific health problems that make it so. And you can have them at ANY age!!!
As for being more difficult to conceive when you're older, it can be so, but then I know loads of people who conceived really easily at 35+ and some who just couldn't concieve for love nor money at 21! It depends on the individual. We are not all prepackaged robots with identical bodies!!!
2006-09-07 07:37:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your risk of certain birth defects do go up at 30, 35 and 40 or older, but when you really look at the statistics, they are still overwhelmingly in favor of having a healthy child. Also, you are past your peak fertility, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will have ANY trouble conceiving.
One needs just to look at my grandmothers as examples of how age is just one tiny factor. My dad's mother was 19 and 20 when she had her kids; she had hard pregnancies and even harder deliveries and was warned not to try to have any more babies. My mom's mother was 32 and 44 when she had her kids and sailed through both pregnancies and deliveries with ease.
2006-09-07 07:59:50 · answer #3 · answered by mockingbird 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
30 is a perfect age to conceive. I had my first at 36 and they put me in a high risk category. My doctor said anything over 35 is dangerous. Depending on the person. If she is not to much over weight then she should be fine after the age 35. Good Luck.
2006-09-07 07:15:43 · answer #4 · answered by aimstir31 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there will be any problems for them to conceive, assuming he has a healthy reproductive system (enlarged prostate might cause a problem.) I always figured once you reached 70 you were risking not living to see your child into adulthood, but there could be some degrading of the sperm after that point. Women's eggs start to degrade after the age of 35 or 36 but they can still have healthy babies.
2006-09-07 07:16:49 · answer #5 · answered by S. O. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats a myth. Variables must be taken into account such as heath and genetic weaknesses but having a child at 45 is not uncommon. A first child should be had by at least 35 for the body to "remember" the process for further children. The mans age is irrelevant unless he is taking medication and/or has a low sperm count. 30 is fine, it is also better for mental reasons(stability). peace.
2006-09-07 07:15:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they can probably conceive however they are at a higher risk of birth defects. men over 40 alone have a higher risk of having children with autism and women nearing their mid 30's alone have a risk of having a baby with downs syndrome. but as long as it doesnt matter to them and they love whatever they have then god bless them! we need more people like that and less people killing them because of their own risky behavior (sorry i just think teen pregnancy is at a ridiculous high)
2006-09-07 07:34:43 · answer #7 · answered by toolate 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She's at a good age so propably there a re no risks involved. Since he is on the older side his sperm count might be lower than it used to be so they might take a little longer than other couples with a younger father.
2006-09-08 03:56:34 · answer #8 · answered by Nicky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋