Should single women over 35 settle if they want children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35 is too old dangerous for the baby

It's not. Relative risk is higher, but absolute risk is low, you rearhat.

The best biological window for pregnancy is generally the 20s to early 30s. That is when fertility is highest, egg quality is better, miscarriage risk is lower, and pregnancy complications are generally lower. ACOG says fertility starts declining by around age 30, declines faster in the mid-30s, and by 45 has declined so much that natural pregnancy is unlikely for most women. ASRM also says fertility begins dropping in the late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after 35.
That does not mean every woman over 35 cannot have a healthy baby. Of course many do. But it is dishonest to pretend 35 is medically the same as 25 or 30. It is not. ACOG specifically classifies pregnancy at 35+ as "advanced maternal age" because risks are higher for both the mother and baby, including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.

And no, "absolute risk is low" does not erase the issue. Relative risk matters when you are talking about fertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and genetic abnormalities. A risk can still be statistically meaningful even if many pregnancies turn out fine.

After 35, women are often told to seek fertility evaluation after only 6 months of trying, not after a full year, because fertility declines with age. CDC says some providers evaluate and treat women 35+ after 6 months of unprotected sex, and NIH/NICHD gives the same general threshold.
Also, fertility treatments are not magic. Hormone stimulation, IVF, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, and high-risk OB monitoring may become more relevant with age, but they do not fully undo age-related egg quality decline. ASRM says women delaying pregnancy after 35 should get information on testing and treatment while staying realistic about the chances of success.

So the accurate medical statement is this: the ideal biological age to have a baby is usually in the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility is lower and pregnancy risks are higher. Plenty of women still have healthy babies after 35, but pretending age does not matter is misinformation.

I was responding tothe poster that said that pregnancy at 35 is too old and dangerous. There's a big difference between this statement and the fact that infertility and risk rates are statistically higher than at 35 than at 30. The majority of women are still fertile at 36, the majority of pregnancies won't end in miscarriage at that age. Stillbirth and ds rates are under 1%. Also, these risks increase over many years. It's not like you're perfectly able to have healthy children at 34 and then at 36 pregnancy turns dangerous, that's why understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk is essential

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to settle but it's better to rethink your criteria. Assuming there are multiple options at play or you're in a relationship you may not think is the one, you really need to prioritize the type of person who would be a good parent vs the hot guy who may not be that into you. I actually was in this situation in my mid 30s and broke it off with the hot noncommital guy and stuck with the nice guy who on our first date said "I know I'm not supposed to do this but I want you to know I really like you." We've been married 18 yrs and have 2 teenagers. The hot guy decided he loved me after I broke it off for the nice guy, but sorry, it was too late. I actually ran into him 2 yrs later at a grocery store with my infant son and he said "aww - I see you got what you really wanted" and gave me a hug. I never saw him again but know that he never married. He's a good person but was not on the path I wanted...and I know I made the right choice.

Why do people seem to assume that every woman in OP's place is trying to choose between the hot non-commital guy and the average nice guy that wants commitment? What about hot commital men, what about average non-commital guys? What about average commital guys that are attractive to the woman in question?

It took me a while to find a partner. I didn't care if the guy didn't look like young Brad Pitt, but there was no way in hell I would commit to someone I personally didn't find attractive just because he wanted me.

Your framing is wrong. What many are trying to point out to OP is that, once you are years down the road raising kids, it’s common to realize that some of the qualities you value most in your partner were not the ones you prioritized while dating.

My point is that commital and attractive by a particular woman's standards are not mutually exclusive qualities. If OP just doesn't feel the spark with a guy doesn't mean that she's chasing hot non-commital men, it also doesn't mean that it's a good idea agreeing to a relationship with a guy she doesn't find attractive just because in ten years she might decide that attraction isn't that important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you recently see yourself single or you've been single for a while with little to no previous romantic experience?

Why does this matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is it better to be childless than partner up with someone you don't want?

By "settling" I don't mean "dating someone imperfect or bad on paper", I'm talking about getting with someone you're not that attracted to.

Heck no. The worst possible option there is especially for the child. Choose to be a single mother by choice if you want and don’t settle. You’ll regret it and will age quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35 is too old dangerous for the baby

It's not. Relative risk is higher, but absolute risk is low, you rearhat.

The best biological window for pregnancy is generally the 20s to early 30s. That is when fertility is highest, egg quality is better, miscarriage risk is lower, and pregnancy complications are generally lower. ACOG says fertility starts declining by around age 30, declines faster in the mid-30s, and by 45 has declined so much that natural pregnancy is unlikely for most women. ASRM also says fertility begins dropping in the late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after 35.
That does not mean every woman over 35 cannot have a healthy baby. Of course many do. But it is dishonest to pretend 35 is medically the same as 25 or 30. It is not. ACOG specifically classifies pregnancy at 35+ as "advanced maternal age" because risks are higher for both the mother and baby, including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.

And no, "absolute risk is low" does not erase the issue. Relative risk matters when you are talking about fertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and genetic abnormalities. A risk can still be statistically meaningful even if many pregnancies turn out fine.

After 35, women are often told to seek fertility evaluation after only 6 months of trying, not after a full year, because fertility declines with age. CDC says some providers evaluate and treat women 35+ after 6 months of unprotected sex, and NIH/NICHD gives the same general threshold.
Also, fertility treatments are not magic. Hormone stimulation, IVF, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, and high-risk OB monitoring may become more relevant with age, but they do not fully undo age-related egg quality decline. ASRM says women delaying pregnancy after 35 should get information on testing and treatment while staying realistic about the chances of success.

So the accurate medical statement is this: the ideal biological age to have a baby is usually in the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility is lower and pregnancy risks are higher. Plenty of women still have healthy babies after 35, but pretending age does not matter is misinformation.

I was responding tothe poster that said that pregnancy at 35 is too old and dangerous. There's a big difference between this statement and the fact that infertility and risk rates are statistically higher than at 35 than at 30. The majority of women are still fertile at 36, the majority of pregnancies won't end in miscarriage at that age. Stillbirth and ds rates are under 1%. Also, these risks increase over many years. It's not like you're perfectly able to have healthy children at 34 and then at 36 pregnancy turns dangerous, that's why understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk is essential

Stop soft-pedaling this. It is not compassionate to give women comforting half-truths that can cost them the chance to have children.

No one is saying every 35-year-old pregnancy is doomed. That is the dodge people use to avoid the real medical point: 35+ is not the same as 25 or 30. Fertility is lower, egg quality is lower, miscarriage risk is higher, chromosomal abnormality risk is higher, and pregnancy complications are higher. That is why doctors treat 35+ differently, recommend earlier fertility evaluation, and often add more screening and monitoring.

"The majority are still fertile" is a dangerously misleading argument. The majority of people may still be fine, but the women who are not fine do not get those years back. By the time a woman finds out she is in the unlucky group, she may be facing IVF, hormone stimulation, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, high-risk pregnancy care, or no biological child at all.

And yes, absolute risk matters. But using "under 1%" to dismiss Down syndrome, stillbirth, miscarriage, or infertility is reckless. These are life-altering outcomes, not debate points.

The honest message women need is simple: the best biological window for having babies is generally the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility declines faster and risks rise. After 40, it gets much harder. Plenty of women still have healthy babies later, but telling women "relax, most are fine" is not empowerment. It is misinformation dressed up as reassurance.

[Anonymous]

If you want kids but don't want to settle, freezing your eggs like today should be a priority.

If you are over 35 now then by the time you'll find your attractive guy, date and lock him for marriage and babies, you'll be 37-38. That is difficult even with IVF, kids may not happen at all.

[Anonymous]

As someone who married for love and has the family I wanted, I would never tell someone else to settle. I will say that my friends who met their person late in life—too late for kids—have very happy marriages. But of those who are not partnered, my divorced friends with children seem much happier than the childless friends who have never married. I know statistically this last group is supposed to be incredibly happy but I just don’t see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:35 is too old dangerous for the baby

It's not. Relative risk is higher, but absolute risk is low, you rearhat.

The best biological window for pregnancy is generally the 20s to early 30s. That is when fertility is highest, egg quality is better, miscarriage risk is lower, and pregnancy complications are generally lower. ACOG says fertility starts declining by around age 30, declines faster in the mid-30s, and by 45 has declined so much that natural pregnancy is unlikely for most women. ASRM also says fertility begins dropping in the late 20s or early 30s and falls more rapidly after 35.
That does not mean every woman over 35 cannot have a healthy baby. Of course many do. But it is dishonest to pretend 35 is medically the same as 25 or 30. It is not. ACOG specifically classifies pregnancy at 35+ as "advanced maternal age" because risks are higher for both the mother and baby, including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.

And no, "absolute risk is low" does not erase the issue. Relative risk matters when you are talking about fertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and genetic abnormalities. A risk can still be statistically meaningful even if many pregnancies turn out fine.

After 35, women are often told to seek fertility evaluation after only 6 months of trying, not after a full year, because fertility declines with age. CDC says some providers evaluate and treat women 35+ after 6 months of unprotected sex, and NIH/NICHD gives the same general threshold.
Also, fertility treatments are not magic. Hormone stimulation, IVF, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, and high-risk OB monitoring may become more relevant with age, but they do not fully undo age-related egg quality decline. ASRM says women delaying pregnancy after 35 should get information on testing and treatment while staying realistic about the chances of success.

So the accurate medical statement is this: the ideal biological age to have a baby is usually in the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility is lower and pregnancy risks are higher. Plenty of women still have healthy babies after 35, but pretending age does not matter is misinformation.

I was responding tothe poster that said that pregnancy at 35 is too old and dangerous. There's a big difference between this statement and the fact that infertility and risk rates are statistically higher than at 35 than at 30. The majority of women are still fertile at 36, the majority of pregnancies won't end in miscarriage at that age. Stillbirth and ds rates are under 1%. Also, these risks increase over many years. It's not like you're perfectly able to have healthy children at 34 and then at 36 pregnancy turns dangerous, that's why understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk is essential

Stop soft-pedaling this. It is not compassionate to give women comforting half-truths that can cost them the chance to have children.

No one is saying every 35-year-old pregnancy is doomed. That is the dodge people use to avoid the real medical point: 35+ is not the same as 25 or 30. Fertility is lower, egg quality is lower, miscarriage risk is higher, chromosomal abnormality risk is higher, and pregnancy complications are higher. That is why doctors treat 35+ differently, recommend earlier fertility evaluation, and often add more screening and monitoring.

"The majority are still fertile" is a dangerously misleading argument. The majority of people may still be fine, but the women who are not fine do not get those years back. By the time a woman finds out she is in the unlucky group, she may be facing IVF, hormone stimulation, egg retrieval, genetic testing, donor eggs, high-risk pregnancy care, or no biological child at all.

And yes, absolute risk matters. But using "under 1%" to dismiss Down syndrome, stillbirth, miscarriage, or infertility is reckless. These are life-altering outcomes, not debate points.

The honest message women need is simple: the best biological window for having babies is generally the 20s to early 30s. After 35, fertility declines faster and risks rise. After 40, it gets much harder. Plenty of women still have healthy babies later, but telling women "relax, most are fine" is not empowerment. It is misinformation dressed up as reassurance.

Please go back to the original post I'm responding to. That poster literally says that pregnancy at 35 is dangerous. Pregnancy at 35 or 36 isn't dangerous to the average woman. That's the whole point. Saying that most women will be fine at 36 isn't misinformation, it's the truth. If an individual woman has questions about her fertility then she should go to her obgyn and get tested instead of relying on averages.

Using the "under 1%" statistic is a debate point like anything else being discussed here and my point still stands. This means that over 99% of pregnancies won't result in stillbirth/ds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you want kids but don't want to settle, freezing your eggs like today should be a priority.

If you are over 35 now then by the time you'll find your attractive guy, date and lock him for marriage and babies, you'll be 37-38. That is difficult even with IVF, kids may not happen at all.

Isn't egg freezing expensive and often doesn't result in a viable pregnancy. Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Not necessarily not attracted, just anyone who isn’t quite up to their standard in any way. In a fact they should do it at 30 as conceiving takes time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is it better to be childless than partner up with someone you don't want?

By "settling" I don't mean "dating someone imperfect or bad on paper", I'm talking about getting with someone you're not that attracted to.

Depends how badly you want kids. I'm childless because I didn't find a partner until later and I just can't imagine myself being with someone I don't genuinely want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just go the sperm bank and do it yourself.

Not everyone wants or can be a single mother. This is a very privileged take.

Rich, white DC women talking about privilege. That’s funny!

Ha! 😩

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who married for love and has the family I wanted, I would never tell someone else to settle. I will say that my friends who met their person late in life—too late for kids—have very happy marriages. But of those who are not partnered, my divorced friends with children seem much happier than the childless friends who have never married. I know statistically this last group is supposed to be incredibly happy but I just don’t see it.

💤

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone should just settle for someone where there is no physical/sexual attraction.
Life is much too short plus people usually lose their looks as they age so this will never bode well.

I think a woman can opt to adopt a baby, then raise it on her own if she really really wants children.
Or she can freeze her eggs if she has the funds for it.

[Anonymous]

Yes.