Why do people get so much angrier at women having babies over 45 than men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

Huh?

I have a friend who just got pregnant with her first at 42. No interventions, just sex with spouse. Seems like literally the most “natural” thing that could possibly happen?

Check back in to let us know if she carries to term. And again at high school graduation (at 60) to see how she's managing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

Huh?

I have a friend who just got pregnant with her first at 42. No interventions, just sex with spouse. Seems like literally the most “natural” thing that could possibly happen?

Check back in to let us know if she carries to term. And again at high school graduation (at 60) to see how she's managing.

is this really that unusual to you? So many people have babies at this age! You are a little weird.

[Anonymous]

this thread is proof positive of its theory - women hate women who have babies late in life. And it's bizarre bc they dont seem to have the same contempt a. for dads, b. for women who have babies super early and cant take care of them.

Modern medicine is very good at helping moms have safe pregnancies. Why do women care so much if a woman has a baby late, but not a man? SO ODD to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

Huh?

I have a friend who just got pregnant with her first at 42. No interventions, just sex with spouse. Seems like literally the most “natural” thing that could possibly happen?

Check back in to let us know if she carries to term. And again at high school graduation (at 60) to see how she's managing.

Are you hoping for bad outcomes? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because how dare a woman do what she wants to do with her body.

Are women so self-centered that they can’t grasp that their offspring have different DNA than they do? The kid is not THEIR body.

Are some people so self-centered that they think they should have any say in the reproductive choices of other people?

No one ever answers this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this thread is proof positive of its theory - women hate women who have babies late in life. And it's bizarre bc they dont seem to have the same contempt a. for dads, b. for women who have babies super early and cant take care of them.

Modern medicine is very good at helping moms have safe pregnancies. Why do women care so much if a woman has a baby late, but not a man? SO ODD to me!

Why do you think the DCUM Special Needs threads have so many posters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

This is not true. Before birth control women had children into their 40s all the time.

Not their first child.

My mom had her two children after the age of 42. Both are doctors.

Are you suggesting she should have not had children?

My grandmother too, back in the 50s. 43 and 46. Lived to 98.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

Huh?

I have a friend who just got pregnant with her first at 42. No interventions, just sex with spouse. Seems like literally the most “natural” thing that could possibly happen?

Check back in to let us know if she carries to term. And again at high school graduation (at 60) to see how she's managing.

Your ill will toward this person you don't even know is disturbing. You are sick.

[Anonymous]

And this thread has devolved into exactly what OP was talking about...all focus and anger at older MOTHERS.

Do an AI search of paternal age or maternal age and special needs children and you can see that both increase the risks. But it also talks about how advances in medicine mean MANY kids of older moms are fine and live healthy lives.

Maternal age AI summary:
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 or older) is associated with an increased risk of having a child with special needs, including Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and intellectual disabilities. While risks for conditions like autism increase by roughly 18% for every five-year increase in maternal age, the overall risk remains relatively small.

NOTE overall risk remains relatively small.

Also mentions that risk is HIGHER in mothers younger than 20, so the PP talking about kids having kids at 15 can go pound sand.

AI summary for paternal age:
Advanced paternal age (generally defined as 40–50+) is associated with an increased risk of having children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, most notably autism and schizophrenia, due to accumulation of de novo genetic mutations in sperm. Studies indicate that men in their 40s or 50s are 2 to 6 times more likely to have a child with autism compared to men under 30, with risks increasing incrementally.


Now everyone go talk about something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this thread has devolved into exactly what OP was talking about...all focus and anger at older MOTHERS.

Do an AI search of paternal age or maternal age and special needs children and you can see that both increase the risks. But it also talks about how advances in medicine mean MANY kids of older moms are fine and live healthy lives.

Maternal age AI summary:
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 or older) is associated with an increased risk of having a child with special needs, including Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and intellectual disabilities. While risks for conditions like autism increase by roughly 18% for every five-year increase in maternal age, the overall risk remains relatively small.

NOTE overall risk remains relatively small.

Also mentions that risk is HIGHER in mothers younger than 20, so the PP talking about kids having kids at 15 can go pound sand.

AI summary for paternal age:
Advanced paternal age (generally defined as 40–50+) is associated with an increased risk of having children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, most notably autism and schizophrenia, due to accumulation of de novo genetic mutations in sperm. Studies indicate that men in their 40s or 50s are 2 to 6 times more likely to have a child with autism compared to men under 30, with risks increasing incrementally.


Now everyone go talk about something else.

No one said girls at 15 should be having kids. The fact as stated is that most are able biologically to have kids. You can go pound sand for your misinterpretation of a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this thread has devolved into exactly what OP was talking about...all focus and anger at older MOTHERS.

Do an AI search of paternal age or maternal age and special needs children and you can see that both increase the risks. But it also talks about how advances in medicine mean MANY kids of older moms are fine and live healthy lives.

Maternal age AI summary:
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 or older) is associated with an increased risk of having a child with special needs, including Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and intellectual disabilities. While risks for conditions like autism increase by roughly 18% for every five-year increase in maternal age, the overall risk remains relatively small.

NOTE overall risk remains relatively small.

Also mentions that risk is HIGHER in mothers younger than 20, so the PP talking about kids having kids at 15 can go pound sand.

AI summary for paternal age:
Advanced paternal age (generally defined as 40–50+) is associated with an increased risk of having children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, most notably autism and schizophrenia, due to accumulation of de novo genetic mutations in sperm. Studies indicate that men in their 40s or 50s are 2 to 6 times more likely to have a child with autism compared to men under 30, with risks increasing incrementally.


Now everyone go talk about something else.

No one said girls at 15 should be having kids. The fact as stated is that most are able biologically to have kids. You can go pound sand for your misinterpretation of a fact.

The presentation of that fact was creepy AF. Stuff it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this thread has devolved into exactly what OP was talking about...all focus and anger at older MOTHERS.

Do an AI search of paternal age or maternal age and special needs children and you can see that both increase the risks. But it also talks about how advances in medicine mean MANY kids of older moms are fine and live healthy lives.

Maternal age AI summary:
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 or older) is associated with an increased risk of having a child with special needs, including Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and intellectual disabilities. While risks for conditions like autism increase by roughly 18% for every five-year increase in maternal age, the overall risk remains relatively small.

NOTE overall risk remains relatively small.

Also mentions that risk is HIGHER in mothers younger than 20, so the PP talking about kids having kids at 15 can go pound sand.

AI summary for paternal age:
Advanced paternal age (generally defined as 40–50+) is associated with an increased risk of having children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, most notably autism and schizophrenia, due to accumulation of de novo genetic mutations in sperm. Studies indicate that men in their 40s or 50s are 2 to 6 times more likely to have a child with autism compared to men under 30, with risks increasing incrementally.


Now everyone go talk about something else.

No one said girls at 15 should be having kids. The fact as stated is that most are able biologically to have kids. You can go pound sand for your misinterpretation of a fact.

The presentation of that fact was creepy AF. Stuff it.

Sorry you don't like facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not natural. And it's not healthy for the mom or baby.

This is not true. Before birth control women had children into their 40s all the time.

Not their first child.

My mom had her two children after the age of 42. Both are doctors.

Are you suggesting she should have not had children?

My grandmother too, back in the 50s. 43 and 46. Lived to 98.

But they are the outliers, not the norm.

NPR did a segment on this many years ago where they discussed the existence of super breeders (or some similar term) who remained fertile long past the typical range and lived longer. They discussed how the existence of these select few super breeders essentially was a disservice to women since it provided false hope that everyone could simply delay having babies but still get pregnant down the road. It simply isn’t the case for most women. We know this.

But nobody is angry with women who have babies early, late, whatever. The reality is nobody really cares what people do…and instead those who might be insecure in their choices or sensitive to any commentary interpret even the most innocuous comments as criticism or anger. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this thread has devolved into exactly what OP was talking about...all focus and anger at older MOTHERS.

Do an AI search of paternal age or maternal age and special needs children and you can see that both increase the risks. But it also talks about how advances in medicine mean MANY kids of older moms are fine and live healthy lives.

Maternal age AI summary:
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 or older) is associated with an increased risk of having a child with special needs, including Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and intellectual disabilities. While risks for conditions like autism increase by roughly 18% for every five-year increase in maternal age, the overall risk remains relatively small.

NOTE overall risk remains relatively small.

Also mentions that risk is HIGHER in mothers younger than 20, so the PP talking about kids having kids at 15 can go pound sand.

AI summary for paternal age:
Advanced paternal age (generally defined as 40–50+) is associated with an increased risk of having children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, most notably autism and schizophrenia, due to accumulation of de novo genetic mutations in sperm. Studies indicate that men in their 40s or 50s are 2 to 6 times more likely to have a child with autism compared to men under 30, with risks increasing incrementally.


Now everyone go talk about something else.

No one said girls at 15 should be having kids. The fact as stated is that most are able biologically to have kids. You can go pound sand for your misinterpretation of a fact.

And outcomes in children ages 15-19 who give birth are poor, including elevated risk for preeclampsia and diabetes. For babies born to children, there is an increased risk of low birth weight, lower APGAR scores, and correspondingly, higher NICU admissions.

So what exactly was your point in bringing up 15 year olds again?

[Anonymous]

I had a surprise baby at 45. We were thrilled but nervous and very lucky to welcome our third child into the world. Yeah it’s more nerve racking as the risks go up but you don’t see the same public criticism for overweight moms, for instance, so I agree it’s still a bit taboo. People run marathons and compete in Olympics at that age which I definitely could not do. I wasn’t some bastion of health. It does run in my family. I actually breastfed until 48! Talk about a weight loss peri menopause plan! Just live your life and ignore the haters. No one has irl criticized me though (I guess I’m about to hear it from here). Although if I complain to my close girlfriends about being tired/overwhelmed I def get the ‘no accidental babymaking’ lecture which is fair enough!