Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

Blech.

That's my considered response to seeking societal change to support motherhood earlier in life.

I neither wanted, nor was ready for, motherhood in my 20's. Had I become a mother then I would have done a much worse job of it and almost certainly would have put my kid(s) through a divorce.

Blech.

You weren't ready for kids at 25 so everybody should be financially and socially bullied into 40 year old motherhood?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

And also, not all IVF pregnancies are higher risk. Mine wasn't considered risky at all, nor were the pregnancies of most of the women in my infertility support group (twins were the exception, as was the one lady who was a cancer survivor). In lots of cases, it depends on the reason for IVF in the first place.

IVF pregnancies are absolutely higher risk. They want the baby out by the due date because the placenta breaks down earlier. They have a 50/50 chance of ending in C-section. Higher risk for pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, ectopic, subchorionic hemorrhage and that's just what comes off the top of my head.

I had a natural conception/vagina birth, followed by IVF for male factor, failed induction (because of the recommendation to deliver by due date), C-sec that left a very bad C sec isthmocele, second C-sec that left endometrtis and 100% dehisced scar. IVF is not a magical get out of jail free card.

I wish somebody had warned me, I would have seriously looked at the sperm donor route.

It sounds like you had a lot of birth trauma. I'm sorry to hear that. I have several friends who also experienced traumatic deliveries that were also medically mismanaged and left them scarred. Two of those pregnancies were natural conceptions, and one was from IVF.
I never said IVF was a "get out of jail free" card, no idea where you got that. I actually did end up with an ectopic pregnancy on my 2nd FET (caught very early and managed by my RE with methotrexate), so I do know that there is a SLIGHT increased risk of ectopics with embryo transfers. Slight. I was one of the unlucky ones there. But the perception that all IVF pregnancies are inherently high risk is misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

And also, not all IVF pregnancies are higher risk. Mine wasn't considered risky at all, nor were the pregnancies of most of the women in my infertility support group (twins were the exception, as was the one lady who was a cancer survivor). In lots of cases, it depends on the reason for IVF in the first place.

IVF pregnancies are absolutely higher risk. They want the baby out by the due date because the placenta breaks down earlier. They have a 50/50 chance of ending in C-section. Higher risk for pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, ectopic, subchorionic hemorrhage and that's just what comes off the top of my head.

I had a natural conception/vagina birth, followed by IVF for male factor, failed induction (because of the recommendation to deliver by due date), C-sec that left a very bad C sec isthmocele, second C-sec that left endometrtis and 100% dehisced scar. IVF is not a magical get out of jail free card.

I wish somebody had warned me, I would have seriously looked at the sperm donor route.

It sounds like you had a lot of birth trauma. I'm sorry to hear that. I have several friends who also experienced traumatic deliveries that were also medically mismanaged and left them scarred. Two of those pregnancies were natural conceptions, and one was from IVF.
I never said IVF was a "get out of jail free" card, no idea where you got that. I actually did end up with an ectopic pregnancy on my 2nd FET (caught very early and managed by my RE with methotrexate), so I do know that there is a SLIGHT increased risk of ectopics with embryo transfers. Slight. I was one of the unlucky ones there. But the perception that all IVF pregnancies are inherently high risk is misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

And also, not all IVF pregnancies are higher risk. Mine wasn't considered risky at all, nor were the pregnancies of most of the women in my infertility support group (twins were the exception, as was the one lady who was a cancer survivor). In lots of cases, it depends on the reason for IVF in the first place.

IVF pregnancies are absolutely higher risk. They want the baby out by the due date because the placenta breaks down earlier. They have a 50/50 chance of ending in C-section. Higher risk for pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, ectopic, subchorionic hemorrhage and that's just what comes off the top of my head.

I had a natural conception/vagina birth, followed by IVF for male factor, failed induction (because of the recommendation to deliver by due date), C-sec that left a very bad C sec isthmocele, second C-sec that left endometrtis and 100% dehisced scar. IVF is not a magical get out of jail free card.

I wish somebody had warned me, I would have seriously looked at the sperm donor route.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

And also, not all IVF pregnancies are higher risk. Mine wasn't considered risky at all, nor were the pregnancies of most of the women in my infertility support group (twins were the exception, as was the one lady who was a cancer survivor). In lots of cases, it depends on the reason for IVF in the first place.

IVF pregnancies are absolutely higher risk. They want the baby out by the due date because the placenta breaks down earlier. They have a 50/50 chance of ending in C-section. Higher risk for pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, ectopic, subchorionic hemorrhage and that's just what comes off the top of my head.

I had a natural conception/vagina birth, followed by IVF for male factor, failed induction (because of the recommendation to deliver by due date), C-sec that left a very bad C sec isthmocele, second C-sec that left endometrtis and 100% dehisced scar. IVF is not a magical get out of jail free card.

I wish somebody had warned me, I would have seriously looked at the sperm donor route.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

Blech.

That's my considered response to seeking societal change to support motherhood earlier in life.

I neither wanted, nor was ready for, motherhood in my 20's. Had I become a mother then I would have done a much worse job of it and almost certainly would have put my kid(s) through a divorce.

Blech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

Blech.

That's my considered response to seeking societal change to support motherhood earlier in life.

I neither wanted, nor was ready for, motherhood in my 20's. Had I become a mother then I would have done a much worse job of it and almost certainly would have put my kid(s) through a divorce.

Blech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

And also, not all IVF pregnancies are higher risk. Mine wasn't considered risky at all, nor were the pregnancies of most of the women in my infertility support group (twins were the exception, as was the one lady who was a cancer survivor). In lots of cases, it depends on the reason for IVF in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

NP. I was infertile in my 20s, too. It isn't always related to age, you know.

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me about this is IVF pregnancies are higher risk, and a prima AMA pregnancy is high risk. Why can't society calibrate itself to not be so dependent on labor of women for those 15 critical years (age 20 to 35)? Are the interests of society being best represented when women push their first pregnancy off until age 40? If everybody starts doing this grandparents will effectively become a thing of the past. Everyone will get the "sandwich" generation effect of having young kids and elderly ill parents at the same time. In terms of demographics, having kids at later age acts like lower fertility with the average age going up. Inevitably people will have fewer children if their first child happens at age 35+.