37-year-old woman in early menopause gives birth to baby boy

Saturday 21st November, 05:51 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

15 Comments

kirakira25 at 05:08 PM JST - 21st November

Aaah! Good for her! Congratulations!
Miyaratmosphere at 09:39 PM JST - 21st November

Congrats!! Blessings and endless health for both mother and baby!
shufu at 11:48 PM JST - 21st November

yes congrats etc ... however a 37 year old going through the menopause is NOT early (although i appreciate she went through this in her twenties.)

By the mid thirties the biology of the human body dictates that the woman is getting too old to have a child, which is why menopause occurs.

There are some serious ethical dilemmas about giving fertility treatment to women of this age - she is already well into elderly primigravida by this point - the point where it is biologically extremely dangerous for both mother and child to carry a baby, regardless of what society or the mother feels about this age.

Its great that the baby was fine, however doctors should not be encouraging pregnancy at this age... its not natural and its not safe.
illsayit at 05:02 AM JST - 22nd November

In fact most births in Japan are in the 30's. Women are having children over 40 in lots of health, too, Japan is quite knowledgeable in this. There is a lot of hidden facts by the medical field and practioners concerning this, because of the arguments about it. Women do have children older than what is supposed, and the medical industry denying this leads only to, well, Id say less happiness. But hey if you want early menopause, go ahead. Thats not how I choose to see womens fertility, or my own, in fact, proove the dangers? But this article speaks of the medical industry helping. So shufu, becoming early obaachan, what ethical dilemmas are you suggesting?
Ah_so at 06:29 AM JST - 22nd November

shufu: I think you are getting a bit carried away here - 37 is both natural and safe, although women are likely to find it a bit harder to get pregnant at this age and the child is a little more likely to have Down's. It is laughable to say that it is, "biologically extremely dangerous" to have a baby.

Had you been talking about a mother in her 40s, I might have agreed, but you are not.
JHansen at 06:56 AM JST - 22nd November

good for her! As to the age, 37 is a fine age to have a child.
Belesarius at 08:52 AM JST - 22nd November

WOW...this is a classic OOOps moment for somebody. :D

Grats!
numbskull at 09:13 AM JST - 22nd November

What? Nobody going to say this is against the will of God?
shufu at 10:25 AM JST - 22nd November

illsayit - yes most births in Japan are by women in their 30s, however this is a social factor, not a biological one. Women are choosing to have their baby later for their own reasons - they "want" a career, they "want" to spend all their money on louis vuitton bags etc. Biology dictates that the prime age for conception and pregnancy is between 16-25 years of age. After age 25 (which we consider to be so young) the quality, and size or the eggs start to decrease, meaning a significantly higher risk of birth defects. Also the female body is more likely to miscarry a pregnancy later in life.

In a 2007 study done by a leading british university, they found women over the age of 35 carry an higher risk in pregnancy than those of appropriate child bearing age. Women over 35 are - more likely to gain sagnificant amounts of weight, more likely to undergo a cesearean, have diabetes, miscarry, have to undergo amniocentesis, and are a whopping 80% more likely to have a premature baby.

And ah-so - the risk for downs syndrome is not slightly higher, its quite considerably so! A woman in her early twenties has a 1 in 2200 chance of having a downs syndrome baby, a woman of 36 has a 1 in 250 chance. Plus there are much worst genetic conditions than downs syndrome that older women are at risk for!

Im not saying that people who are over/under 35 are better/worse mothers, but its just too biologically old, the body is not designed to carry a baby safely at that age - the body doesnt realize we are in 2009 in japan, no matter what fertility junk the doctors can do.
illsayit at 10:52 AM JST - 22nd November

The body is designed to carry a baby as long as the woman can fall pregnant. You can choose whatever you like within the design. What fertility junk are you talking about?
kirakira25 at 11:51 AM JST - 22nd November

The average age of menopause is 45-55, so I`m sorry to disagree with you Shufu but - a 37 year old experiencing MENOPAUSE (as opposed to peri-menopause) IS young. Some women experience premature menopause for reasons such as anorexia, excessive physical training, autoimmune disease, etc. Some women experience artificial menopause (eg ovarian removal due to cancer etc). A very few experience a natural early menopause.

Yes, statistically it is better to have children younger as there is more chance of a healthy outcome, medically speaking. However, this is the modern world, and women and their partners dont make and often CANT make decisions about when to start a family based purely on medical factors. Life is far more complicated than that.

Statistically speaking you can also say that women in their thirties make better parents than those in their teens. So which is it to be - medical benefits or societies benefits?

We dont know why this woman experienced early menopause. It could be a random act of God, it could be prior medical history, or even a combination of both. But if the medical technology exists to help her, why shouldnt it?

Are you saying that because of the medical facts that you quoted (which by the way I don`t actually disagree with) that no women over the age of 25 should have a baby because it is "biologically extremely dangerous"?
Laptop7 at 04:10 PM JST - 22nd November

i had my baby at 37. i was ready - mentally and financially. both baby and i are healthy today. i had no morning sickness, no complication, easy labor (out in 5 hours), etc. nowadays, women in their 30s are a lot younger than before. nothing dangerous, maybe a little harder to get pregnant but it's not a biggie to have one or more when you're over 30s.
Laptop7 at 05:26 PM JST - 22nd November

By the way, I am 37 but I don't own 1 Louis Vuitton bag. I think women who like to spend all their savings in Louis Vuitton bag are younger in age (below 30). I was focused on career but doing other things as well. Women have a lot more choices today. Also, I have three brothers and my mom had the last one at age 40 and he turned out to be the brightest. Harvard grad, etc. Eggs not bad at 40 huh??
dolphingirl at 05:53 PM JST - 22nd November

shufu: Women over 35 only have slightly increased chance of having medical complications during pregnancy. Plus, older women are more physically fit than they were 20 years ago. On top of that, these women have the maturity to raise children and look after their own health. They are more likely to make good choices and ask better questions when they see a doctor. Overall, the risks faced by women over 35 during pregnancy have been exaggerated. If the woman is in good health, she will most likely have a healthy baby.

I'm happy to hear that this woman could have a baby despite her early menopause.
Apsara at 11:28 PM JST - 22nd November

"Somewhat increased risk of complications" does not equal "biologically extremely dangerous". The large number of women in their late 30s and early 40s who have had normal pregnancies and healthy babies that I know shows me that it isn't extremely dangerous.

As for women delaying having babies due to wanting to buy Louis Vuitton bags, please. People aren't getting married until later and it isn't because they are career focussed or anything like that. I didn't get married until I was 34- why? because I wasn't asked until then. Same goes for a lot of women I know.