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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If the Epstein files have not taught us that people (ESPECIALLY other women) hate women, I don't know what will.

Why ESPECIALLY?

Do you think women turning a blind eye to other women being abused by men is MORE hateful than the actual abuse?

[Anonymous]

You guys are crazy. I know so many people (including myself) that had healthy babies after 40. Yes, the risks for everything goes up - by a few percentage points. For instance, the risk for preeclampsia goes from 2.5% in younger women to 5% in those over 40. And a lot (not all) of those risk factors are greatly mitigated by the overall health of the mother and family history.

[Anonymous]

I don't get mad, but I do tend to roll my eyes when a 45+ y.o. woman lies to herself and others about how much energy she has chasing a toddler, and how it was the best decision ever to wait. It's the trying to convince themselves and others that's irritating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If the Epstein files have not taught us that people (ESPECIALLY other women) hate women, I don't know what will.

Why ESPECIALLY?

Do you think women turning a blind eye to other women being abused by men is MORE hateful than the actual abuse?

DP/NP
What Bondi did to the victims seemed like another round of abuse. She refused to investigate clear first hand testimony from multiple people and directly dismissed them when physically ignoring their presence at the recent hearings. I hurt for them and it didnt happen to me. Women were bringing those girls in and abusing them too.

[Anonymous]

Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

While I understand what you're saying, being a "marathoner" doesn't say anything about your risk of genetic disorders.

[Anonymous]

Because I’m operating under the belief that having that child was ultimately the woman’s choice. Her body, her choice. I think men are selfish to do this but they are mostly fathering children with younger women. It’s really not the same situation.

[Anonymous]

Literally no one cares! People mind their own business.

[Anonymous]

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

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

Presumably your OB knows the statistics—both research as well as anecdotal from his/her own experience—and has a better understanding of the risks.

ICYMI: plenty of otherwise healthy women without any warning signs end up with serious complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If the Epstein files have not taught us that people (ESPECIALLY other women) hate women, I don't know what will.

Why ESPECIALLY?

Do you think women turning a blind eye to other women being abused by men is MORE hateful than the actual abuse?

DP/NP
What Bondi did to the victims seemed like another round of abuse. She refused to investigate clear first hand testimony from multiple people and directly dismissed them when physically ignoring their presence at the recent hearings. I hurt for them and it didnt happen to me. Women were bringing those girls in and abusing them too.

That’s accurate. It doesn’t explain the ESPECIALLY other women accusation.

At worst, some women hate women as much as many men hate women. But to say ESPECIALLY women is, quite frankly, misogynistic. (You’re either holding women to a higher standard than men OR you are tacitly blaming women for men’s behavior.)

All that being said - OP no one is angry about old moms. Nobody really cares about anyone outside of their own immediate circle. This is a problem that exists in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are crazy. I know so many people (including myself) that had healthy babies after 40. Yes, the risks for everything goes up - by a few percentage points. For instance, the risk for preeclampsia goes from 2.5% in younger women to 5% in those over 40. And a lot (not all) of those risk factors are greatly mitigated by the overall health of the mother and family history.

The overall rate becomes a few percentage points, but the increased risk is huge. Chromosomal abnormalities are 25 *times* more likely in mothers aged 45 years old compared to those 30 years old.

If you're going to try for kids at advanced age, you need to test and be prepared to terminate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using age as an overall metric for the mother's health galls me. The OB for my 2nd birth at 42 would regale me with a new vivid account of some risk I was running. He tried to get everyone to induce early since he was a single MD practice with no one covering for him. I always had to google to ascertain that all the gory pictures he was painting had warning symptoms that I didn't have. I don't think a marathoner from a long lived family who conceived in two months at 42 should be lumped in with the general population of 42 year olds.

THIS is the arrogance I am talking about.

Somehow, this one individual is immune to the researched and evidenced risks of AMA.

Give. Me. A. Break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what bothers me is when women have their first in their mid 40: (especially celebrities) everyone says "I totally believe it was natural, my grandmother had her 10th baby at 48."

The reality is that having your first without intervention in mid 40s is like lightening-bolt rare. I worked at a DMV IVF clinic and we were doing hundreds of donor egg IVF cycles per year on middle age women and there are hundreds of clinics worldwide like ours.

This is not an anti IVF screed. My own kids are the result of ART. I just hate when people pretend that most women can have kids naturally for 3 decades. It does not help women.

Ok but plenty of women can get pregnant naturally in their 40s. I also have a great grandmother that had her last baby in her 40s in 1931. Clearly not the result of reproductive assistance.

If you want to help women, be open and honest about every fertility FACTS, so they can advocate for themselves.
Getting pregnant naturally for the first time in your 40s, and keeping the pregnancy, is the exception, not the rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what bothers me is when women have their first in their mid 40: (especially celebrities) everyone says "I totally believe it was natural, my grandmother had her 10th baby at 48."

The reality is that having your first without intervention in mid 40s is like lightening-bolt rare. I worked at a DMV IVF clinic and we were doing hundreds of donor egg IVF cycles per year on middle age women and there are hundreds of clinics worldwide like ours.

This is not an anti IVF screed. My own kids are the result of ART. I just hate when people pretend that most women can have kids naturally for 3 decades. It does not help women.

Ok but plenty of women can get pregnant naturally in their 40s. I also have a great grandmother that had her last baby in her 40s in 1931. Clearly not the result of reproductive assistance.

If you want to help women, be open and honest about every fertility FACTS, so they can advocate for themselves.
Getting pregnant naturally for the first time in your 40s, and keeping the pregnancy, is the exception, not the rule.

How about we assume women are not stupid?

I don't know anyone who tried to get pregnant in their 30s without atleast telling their doctor and getting checked out for health. I'm sure they will get all the statistics they need.