Am I Going to be Obscenely Old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you in a relationship now, OP? I think my biggest worry would be meeting, falling in love with, and then starting a family with a stranger within the next few years. I place a lot of value on old friendships and I knew my husband for several years before we dated/got married, and we had gone to school together so I knew his friends. I probably have a greater fear than most about this, but that would be my worry, not being too old to have a baby! Sorry to be a psycho and add more stress!

Most people get married after 2-3 years together, I think, no? How long are you suggesting people need to date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

[Anonymous]

As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

Okay, I was defending you because I thought a lot of women were misinterpreting your comment but I see you're psychotic, too. Yes, only 5% of women over the age of 40 get pregnant and deliver a healthy baby. That sounds correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

Okay, I was defending you because I thought a lot of women were misinterpreting your comment but I see you're psychotic, too. Yes, only 5% of women over the age of 40 get pregnant and deliver a healthy baby. That sounds correct.

I could not care less if you believe me. Look it up. Just don't go around telling a bunch of 36 year olds that they have a bunch of time. Because they don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m my circle of acquaintances, I know of a “miracle baby” (wink, wink...medically enhanced miracle) born to a 47 YO mom, another who had her 1st and 2nd at 42 and 44 and a relative who “adopted” (used a surrogate who carried the baby) at 46.

47 is obscene, sorry. Bring on the hate posts but you're not only risking severe abnormalities but you will stick out as a weirdo.

Also people that you think are your friends well do wink wink jokes behind your back. tacky af pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

Okay, I was defending you because I thought a lot of women were misinterpreting your comment but I see you're psychotic, too. Yes, only 5% of women over the age of 40 get pregnant and deliver a healthy baby. That sounds correct.

I could not care less if you believe me. Look it up. Just don't go around telling a bunch of 36 year olds that they have a bunch of time. Because they don't

Source your stat, because it doesn’t match the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

Wow, I know so many women then who have beaten the odds since they had their babies when they were 40+. What are the odds of that, I wonder.