2 ms·
That risk is not pronounced past 30, but 35. Adding to that, it negligible. It's not like 50% of babies have issues, it's just that a greater percentage do comp
by run4yourlives 19y ago
That risk is not pronounced past 30, but 35. Adding to that, it negligible. It's not like 50% of babies have issues, it's just that a greater percentage do compared to women in their 20's.
Most families these days are started by parents in their 30's.
- sspencer 19y agoMaybe I'm not understanding you, but are you saying beyond 35 the risk plateaus? This graph seems to say otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trisomy21_graph.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trisomy21_graph.jpg I wouldn't even consider starting a family later than 35. And look at 45! More than a 1 in 33 chance you will have a child with Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) after 45...those are definitely not gambling odds.
- run4yourlives 19y agoNo, I'm agreeing with you... data I had seen showed an even larger increase after 35. I think though, at 35, you may feel a little differently about those risks, especially given that down syndrome can be detected in-utero.
- imsteve 19y agoThose numbers are far too small to base such a life changing decision on. And this kind of risk to the baby is not nearly as serious as a risk to the mother. You can always try again. These are the stats you should be considering.