Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:24     Subject: Re:Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Age 35 isn't some light switch that makes fertility go from good to bad ... but, all things being equal, a woman is better off trying to have a baby earlier rather than later, no? Of course the realities of life -- when you find a partner, feel like you're in a stable position to support a child, feel ready, etc -- all play a huge role ... but if you're ready and able to have a kid at 34 or at 37, better to opt for 34, no?


Exactly!


I did both!
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:22     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
I think this would be good for women to know: "One of the largest studies found that 78 percent of women aged 35 to 40 will conceive within a year, compared with 84 percent of women aged 20 to 34."

The difference between the groups isn't the part that stands out as much as the 16% of women 20-34 who WON'T conceive in a year and the 22% ages 35-40. I honestly didn't know the number was that high.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:16     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
statistics
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:16     Subject: Re:Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Anonymous wrote:Age 35 isn't some light switch that makes fertility go from good to bad ... but, all things being equal, a woman is better off trying to have a baby earlier rather than later, no? Of course the realities of life -- when you find a partner, feel like you're in a stable position to support a child, feel ready, etc -- all play a huge role ... but if you're ready and able to have a kid at 34 or at 37, better to opt for 34, no?


Exactly!
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:12     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Anonymous wrote:Op, there's plenty of data that there is a fertility cliff at 35. Why would you say otherwise? Women's fertility has a very clear timing and peak.

There will always be exceptions. My own mother gave birth at 38,40,42,45. But all of her friends needed fertility help and weren't able to have more than 2.


The linked article (which is the title of the thread) is about why the data about 35 being a fertility cliff is misguided.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:09     Subject: Re:Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Age 35 isn't some light switch that makes fertility go from good to bad ... but, all things being equal, a woman is better off trying to have a baby earlier rather than later, no? Of course the realities of life -- when you find a partner, feel like you're in a stable position to support a child, feel ready, etc -- all play a huge role ... but if you're ready and able to have a kid at 34 or at 37, better to opt for 34, no?
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:08     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Op, there's plenty of data that there is a fertility cliff at 35. Why would you say otherwise? Women's fertility has a very clear timing and peak.

There will always be exceptions. My own mother gave birth at 38,40,42,45. But all of her friends needed fertility help and weren't able to have more than 2.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:08     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
I think there’s a ton we still don’t understand about fertility, genetics, and childbearing in humans. A lot of it is still guesswork.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:06     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?

Biologist here. There is a steep decline in fertility during one's 30s. That is a well-established FACT. Technologies to help couples have children are expensive, invasive and not always successful. Humans' best chances of conception have always been in the teens and 20s. That physiological truth has not evolved to keep pace with the societal mores that tend to push conception later in life.

Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:03     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Anonymous wrote:Aging, to a certain extent, is a choice. There are many unhealthy people in their 20s who think their age keeps them safe. But we can all see their obesity and alcoholism.


Whoa. What did some poor fat drunk lady to do you??
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:03     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
No. I consider over 40 as the fertility cliff.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:01     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
I suspect insurers play a role in this complicated determination too. They want to establish a cutoff as close as possible to where it actuarially makes sense to pay for tests like cell free DNA or extra ultrasound/visits to high risk practices for large numbers of women versus the cost of the expected complications avoided for mother and child.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 15:01     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Aging, to a certain extent, is a choice. There are many unhealthy people in their 20s who think their age keeps them safe. But we can all see their obesity and alcoholism.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 14:59     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Because being pregnant at 35+ is by medical/obstetrical definition deemed “advanced maternal age.”

Mom of 3DC and AMA at 36.
Anonymous
Post 08/17/2020 14:54     Subject: Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
Anyone read this article in Slate? Completely agree that 35 isn’t some magical number, but I wonder if articles like this allow for complacency that doesn’t serve women well?

https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/fertility-cliff-advanced-maternal-age-outdated.html