It's 35. But my doctor told me just this morning that I have the ovaries of a MUCH younger woman (true story!), so those rules clearly don't apply to me. *blows on knuckles and shakes them*
35. It's just a number. Each individual body has its own clock. I figured I could have kids into my 40s (which I did) because three of my relatives did. My grandma had her last at 47.
Every time anyone sees my ovaries, they're all, "OMG! These are so young and fresh looking!" It's just so HARD to have such young looking ovaries, KWIM??
Every time anyone sees my ovaries, they're all, "OMG! These are so young and fresh looking!" It's just so HARD to have such young looking ovaries, KWIM??
Lmao!
I think it's weird that people get all mad about it. Our bodies are programmed to do their best breeding at an age that is currently socially unacceptable.
Post by CaliSpiderman on Oct 19, 2012 17:20:39 GMT -5
When I said something to my doctor about being close to "advanced maternal age" (while making quotation fingers and rolling my eyes), she said something about that actually being 32 or something (I forgot already because I'm so old...memory is going). She had another name for what 35 was. So basically my 35 year old ovaries fall asleep after watching Matlock.
Post by underwaterrhymes on Oct 19, 2012 17:41:43 GMT -5
As far as I know amnio is never mandatory - regardless of your age. Granted, I go to a hippy dippy practice, and they're very non-invasive in their approach. Amnio was never mentioned other than to bring it up as an option if the NT scan revealed potential issues. I pushed for MaterniT21 because I'm anxious enough about the genetic issues our baby might have and wanted to rule out the trisomies, but wanted a non-invasive approach.
It wasn't suggested to me. I mean, I think my dr mentioned it as something to possibly do based on the results of other screening, but it certainly wasn't pushed on me. I would have refused.