Absolutely NOT!
I had my first baby at 39, and am pregnant with my second...I will be 41 next month.
After age 42, the docs want you to have amniocenteisis and all that testing done for defects, but 34 is plenty young.
2007-08-19 08:11:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by gg 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
No, not at all. But this is the wrong place to be asking this question. Most YA pregnancy/parenting posters are in their teens and early twenties, and have a very skewed view on age. They believe that people who are 40 are "like...really old."
Your wife, at age 34, is still a very young woman and should have no age-related risks at all.
I am 39 and just had an uneventful pregnancy and gave birth to my first child, a healthy girl.
2007-08-19 17:16:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not at all.
Most doctors consider a woman to be higher risk after age 35... but this just means that she is more likely to have some increased risk of preeclampsia (pregnancy induced hypertension) or gestational diabetes, possibly some increased risk with the baby. At 35, prenatal patients are usually monitored a little closer.
But these are mild risks... many will agree that it's not until over 40-45 that the real risks are to worry about, and these are for the woman only.
Men are fine at any age... the only thing is for men who plan children in their 60s on purpose, I think is somewhat selfish... because the life expectancy for the average male in the US is like 70... so you'd be setting up your 10 year old to grieve your death... that's not fair in my book.
2007-08-19 15:40:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tanya 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, of course not. If your wife was 39 too, then maybe it would be a bit risky.
Right now is perfect time for you to have children because you're both mature, probably materially safe and really want a child.
2007-08-19 15:14:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Aatami 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, I questioned it myself when I wanted to get pregnant. I'm 32 and turning 33 when my baby is born in Dec. my husband is 33. We already have a nine year old son (big difference in age) but I think we are better off having waited for our sake and our daughter-to-be. we were also lucky that we conceived rather quickly after deciding we were ready so go for it and enjoy!!! Remember they grow up really fast so the sooner the better.
2007-08-19 15:56:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by helpful one 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i am 39, my kids are 17 15 12 2 1
you are both just right, have many
amnio's are requested after 35 not 42, but not pushed
2007-08-19 15:13:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by melissa s 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Absolutely not. It'll keep you in shape, though, chasing the little one and rescuing him from playing in the toilet :). I thought when I saw your prompt that you were in your late 50s or something--like that lady who had a baby at 65. I think that's terrible, because that baby is going to lose his mom much more quickly to old age, than, say, your child.
Go for it. I'm rooting for you.
TX Mom
not a dr
2007-08-19 15:14:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by TX Mom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Schedule both of you to have a physical check up, doctor will go trough some personal and family question. Then have your wife visit an OB/GYN and study the possibility to conceive at her age.
2007-08-19 15:18:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by R M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just remember in 18 years you will be at a graduation, In 24 years you will be at another graduation. In 26 years you will be at a wedding. Do you want to see your grandkids?
Its your chioce. My husband is 27 we decided to have our child because he does not want to be 50 running around with a 8 year old. Good luck
2007-08-19 16:49:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by hotmomma 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
No not at all. I think its great to be parents when your readys. Your mature and theres lots of years left for you to raise and enjoy your little one. Im 25 and my boyfriends 23 and we wished we could of got a few more years in before starting a family...but we didnt.
2007-08-19 15:11:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by lovelylady 5
·
0⤊
0⤋