Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:54
Subject: Re:"The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:I think I agree. We’re approaching retirement with DCs in or finishing up college. If they should have kids early (< 25), we’d be in our early-to-mid 60s with time, money, and energy to spend. Don’t want them to rush into marriage or parenthood but we won’t be gloomsdayers if it happens.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The 20 year old Mexican who got pregnant and moved in with the father's family while his mom took care of their child probably had a quasi mother -in -law who was 45 or younger. In the typical UMC family today, the grandparents are 65 plus. It's a lot easier to care for young kids when you are 45. It's a different story in your mid 60s or 70s, especially after the child can walk.
I disagree completely. When my parents retired they had sooooo much more time to spend with my kids. It was like night and day. A 45 year old grandma is still working.
I think it's best to have kids right when your parents retire. Our parents were just as energetic in their 60s as they were at 45. After 80 is when things go south.
I would not base when I had children on when my parents retired. Many parents don’t want to be full time babysitters. They may want to travel or live somewhere warm or they may experience age related illness and may need your support. It sounds like a recipe for resentment from both parties.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:53
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
Declines? Yes.
Quickly? No.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:48
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
You know they had children but you know nothing about the fertility journey. Maybe they have multiple miscarriages and dipped into savings or retirement or borrowed from family so they could go through IVF, which is very taxing and heartbreaking and can also end poorly.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:47
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You know this statistic is from a time before widespread antibiotics?
Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:45
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I feel like everyone is trying a little too hard to avoid the true answer to the infertility issues. Have children when you are younger. Even the issues highlighted in this article, and thank you to the author for highlighting the misogynistic tenor of infertility (it's NOT always the woman's fault!), many of which can be avoided by not waiting until your junk is ancient.
I get it, it's hugely inconvenient, you aren't as rich as you imagine you may be in your 30s/40s, you want to party and travel, etc.
I fully respect the choice to be child-free. But if you think you want kids, find a spouse and get on it. Don't spend another twenty years dancing around the reasons for infertility or fertility challenges, we know the answer. Have kids when you are younger!
Link for those of you with accounts, I don't know how to gift an article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/opinion/freeze-sperm-infertility-chemicals.html
I had a baby at 32. Sorry I didn’t live a dcum perfect life where I met my soul mate in college, got engaged at 25-26 and then had a baby before 30. I had no issues getting pregnant and I have a healthy child.
I don’t think the issue is people having kids in their early 30s. I think it’s more 35+.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 17:27
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Right. clearly a man wrote the comment you responded to. As women, we know this because it’s been told to us literally constantly. But also, the original comment that man responded to was just saying they know tons of women that got pregnant after 35…which is also the case. Actually in this area I know more people who had babies after 35 than I do before 35. I had a baby before and after-both fine and both were conceived easily.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 13:34
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
You'd have to be loving under a rock to not know this fact. Women are beaten over the head with this message.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 13:01
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
You can get pregnant after 35 but the eggs are older and fewer and more prone to genetic abnormalities. Once women get to their mid-thirties fertility quickly starts to decline. Women need to know the facts before they make decisions.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 07:51
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if people need fertility treatments, I just don't want insurance to cover it (or ED drugs, or weight loss drugs, etc.) Insurance is too expensive as it is.
But why? Is this back to your belief that people choose to be infertile or have obesity? I pay the premiums for everyone choosing to unmask and be repeatedly exposed to a virus that has strong data showing related to high morbidity and chronic health conditions.. you do you.
I just don’t believe any of the things I mentioned (and other things too) are health care issues and they are part of why insurance costs are so high, among other things. I think they are voluntary and therefore should not be covered. Insurance doesn’t cover elective plastic surgery for example.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 06:46
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just so sick of people encountering infertility in their late 30s and 40s with SURPRISE. This should not be a surprise to ANYONE. Or then complaining about the cost of fertility treatments.
It just seems the absolute height of hubris. That you, and your body, are somehow immune to basic biological processes, that your fertility should wait on YOU and your timeline.
Wow, you are unhinged. I know too many women who got pregnant easily past 35.
I think they are just projecting their issues into other people
Anonymous
08/14/2025 06:40
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if people need fertility treatments, I just don't want insurance to cover it (or ED drugs, or weight loss drugs, etc.) Insurance is too expensive as it is.
But why? Is this back to your belief that people choose to be infertile or have obesity? I pay the premiums for everyone choosing to unmask and be repeatedly exposed to a virus that has strong data showing related to high morbidity and chronic health conditions.. you do you.
LOL. I had to check what year this comment was published. Read a book, moron
Anonymous
08/14/2025 00:54
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I feel like everyone is trying a little too hard to avoid the true answer to the infertility issues. Have children when you are younger. Even the issues highlighted in this article, and thank you to the author for highlighting the misogynistic tenor of infertility (it's NOT always the woman's fault!), many of which can be avoided by not waiting until your junk is ancient.
I get it, it's hugely inconvenient, you aren't as rich as you imagine you may be in your 30s/40s, you want to party and travel, etc.
I fully respect the choice to be child-free. But if you think you want kids, find a spouse and get on it. Don't spend another twenty years dancing around the reasons for infertility or fertility challenges, we know the answer. Have kids when you are younger!
Link for those of you with accounts, I don't know how to gift an article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/opinion/freeze-sperm-infertility-chemicals.html
Yea I am glad I DH and I had our 5 children while we were on our 20s-early 30s.
Again, OP here, and NO ONE should be having 5 children. Absolutely the worst possible thing you can do for the planet and our species.
That’s some real judgment right there. People have a choice. More couples aren’t having children and a few are having more.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 00:27
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People also need to get married younger. Post college mid 20s, so like the 22-27 age range. Combining households is very financially efficient especially when neither is a high income earner. A 2 bedroom 1.5 bath apartment in the low to medium COL city where I used to live is now renting for about $1400/month. A 1 bedroom 1 bath rents for $1100/month. Get off the apps, get married, get those financial/tax benefits that come with marriage, combine households, and everyone comes out ahead and you end up on better financial footing earlier in life.
It’s incredibly daunting to get married young when the quintessential path involves spending $10k on a ring, a $40k+ wedding, buying a $700k+ home, then popping out some kids (more $$$). I can see why kids in their 20s wait. How can you afford that!
I blame consumerism and social media. People were not doing all that in the 1950s. The “bar for entry” into the idealistic instagrammable life was lower.
Who told you that a $10k ring and a 40k wedding were mandatory? The median age for first time homebuyers is 38 years old! An all time high. Only a third of 30 year olds own a home so there a lot of couples with kids or without kids that don’t own a home until their late 30s or later.
Anonymous
08/14/2025 00:16
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if people need fertility treatments, I just don't want insurance to cover it (or ED drugs, or weight loss drugs, etc.) Insurance is too expensive as it is.
But why? Is this back to your belief that people choose to be infertile or have obesity? I pay the premiums for everyone choosing to unmask and be repeatedly exposed to a virus that has strong data showing related to high morbidity and chronic health conditions.. you do you.
Anonymous
08/13/2025 19:19
Subject: "The trouble is with men's sperm" - NYTimes headline
I don't care if people need fertility treatments, I just don't want insurance to cover it (or ED drugs, or weight loss drugs, etc.) Insurance is too expensive as it is.