Wow, y'all have a funny(to me)-sounding idea of what 'old' is
I had my first at age 39 and the other one last year at 42.
First one was in a hospital but entirely with midwives, no nurses or doctors; second was at home with midwives.
Neither pregnancy was all that much fun - arthritis, and a body with numerous decades' worth of experience being Not Pregnant, take their toll - but I did not have any complications in a 'have to be referred to medical care' sense, just stupid aggravations like pubic bone separation, falling down stairs and breaking tailbone
, killer leg cramps, etc.
The first labor was ok (not painless, but, no drugs) and I think it was rather longer than it should've been on account of the whole going-to-hospital thing. The second was only a few hrs from start to finish (I think standing helped, and having worked hard the previous few wks to keep the baby in the right position), and despite virtually-constant contractions (ow), the actual birth itself was quite easy and really kind of fun
The
main 'risk' of having kids at an older age is really just the increased rate of miscarriage. And therefore worrying through the whole first trimester or so. Myself I was only batting .500 or less
but can't really complain since I did end up with two kids. (Well sometimes I -do- complain about the two kid but that is different <g>)
Quote:
This is factually absolutely correct and people should pay more attention to it than they do, especially when their doctors are suggesting otherwise in order to rope women into doctor's-butt-covering tests and interventions
I *highly highly highly* recommend a good midwife for anyone for whom it's an option, as avoiding a lot of counterproductive interventions and making things go much more smoothly and no less safely.
Best of luck,
Pat