Anonymous
Post 03/12/2016 18:54     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
I think most people know the statistics and risks of waiting until you're over 35 to have kids. But I think most people think they will be an exception, and so they think they can push the limit. Somehow infertility is a surprise to everyone when it happens to them. And I don't say that in a critical way. It certainly was a surprise to me when it happened to me at 37, and I certainly knew the risks of waiting until after 35. Maybe any bad medical thing (like cancer) is a surprise when it happens to you, even if rationally you know it's a thing that happens.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2016 18:33     Subject: Re:Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving


I knew it would be hard if I waited. I waited until I was 37, and didn't get pregnant until I was 40.

I accepted the risks -- it was worth it to have all that childfree time.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2016 18:30     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
I don't know if women need educating as much as men do! My friends and I were all well aware of the age/infertility relationship, but my (now) husband was absolutely clueless about this! He honestly that we had plenty of time left when I was 38/39 - I had to really push him that we needed to start trying. In the end, it turns out that we have some male factor issues - not completely awful counts, but combined with my age, it puts us in a really rough spot...just about no chance of conceiving without treatment. It hit him pretty hard....it really never occurred to him that we might have this much trouble.
Anonymous
Post 03/11/2016 21:26     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Articles like that one make me angry. Infertile women over 35 aren't idiots. Most of us knew it would be harder after 35, but our lives weren't in a place where we could try before 35. I wasn't putting my career first, and I wasn't oblivious to my likely declining fertility. (My family has sometimes said, not meanly, but just matter-of-factly, that I didn't try earlier because I was focused on my career. Not true.)

I suspect what most people mean when they say they "didn't know" they would have a hard time getting pregnant after 35 is that they are surprised infertility is happening to them. Somehow, infertility is always surprising, no matter how old you are or the cause.
Anonymous
Post 03/11/2016 20:21     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is touching as a personal story but the facts provided are questionable/incomplete and I would expect more from a doctor who knows the field. For example, it is not true that any pregnant woman over the age of 35 is automatically considered high risk. Also, while she includes IVF stats by age group, why not include non-IVF conception stats as well? Including only IVF provides a skewed sample.

I know that my OB automatically considers AMA pregnancies to be high risk. There is extra monitoring involved. It doesn't mean that all of those pregnancies will see complications. I had a baby at age 39 with no complications but it was still considered high risk simply because of my age.


This is correct. All 35+ are considered high risk.


Not in my practice. I had a baby at 41 and another at 43 and neither was high risk.
Anonymous
Post 03/01/2016 08:17     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
As someone who started TTC at 32, I think that another helpful point is that if you do find you have problems getting pregnant, it's easier to address them while you're a bit younger. I am currently 34 and pregnant from IVF and glad I didn't wait any longer to start trying (even though baby savings went to IF and it will be financially challenging).
Anonymous
Post 02/29/2016 17:33     Subject: Re:Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:I'm 30 and am pregnant after 2 years of struggling and ivf.

Discussing fertility with my 30 something friends, they think they have decades left. And that you're fertile until menopause. I think we need a public health discussion about fertility. My friends are upper middle class with multiple degrees but have no clue about what's going on in their bodies. I know why all my friends are waiting (daycare costs 20k a year and no one has maternity leave) but they risk their fertility.


Agree.
Anonymous
Post 02/29/2016 17:15     Subject: Re:Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
I'm 30 and am pregnant after 2 years of struggling and ivf.

Discussing fertility with my 30 something friends, they think they have decades left. And that you're fertile until menopause. I think we need a public health discussion about fertility. My friends are upper middle class with multiple degrees but have no clue about what's going on in their bodies. I know why all my friends are waiting (daycare costs 20k a year and no one has maternity leave) but they risk their fertility.
Anonymous
Post 02/29/2016 17:01     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is touching as a personal story but the facts provided are questionable/incomplete and I would expect more from a doctor who knows the field. For example, it is not true that any pregnant woman over the age of 35 is automatically considered high risk. Also, while she includes IVF stats by age group, why not include non-IVF conception stats as well? Including only IVF provides a skewed sample.

I know that my OB automatically considers AMA pregnancies to be high risk. There is extra monitoring involved. It doesn't mean that all of those pregnancies will see complications. I had a baby at age 39 with no complications but it was still considered high risk simply because of my age.


This is correct. All 35+ are considered high risk.

Agree
Anonymous
Post 02/29/2016 16:59     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:I think it's hard to balance all the things. My mother got married at 19 and all I heard all my life was get out and get a career and learn how to take care of yourself before you marry and this messaging was from both my parents. But I also got from those same people that marrying and having babies was the most important thing I could do with my life but marry someone who could provide because being a SAHM was optimal. And the final message was that having kids of out wedlock was selfish and shameful. So I spent a lot of time trying to do the first while trying to do the second -- inevitably dating men who were great on paper and earned good money, but who sucked as people -- and avoiding the third at all costs.

I met my husband when I was a few months before I turned 36, and he had MFI (he had been married before so knew this). But THIS was the one -- a provider AND a great person. We went to my ob/gyn once we were engaged to get the baby thing going, got married when I was 37 and went straight to the RE practically from the altar. Despite lots of time and money and losses and tears, no babies. Now I am older and we are looking at other options, but I can't say I should have married one of the assholes and gotten the kid when I love my husband as I do or just popped one out because I was younger and at peak fertility even though I didn't have a partner. It's a calculus that everyone has to play out with their specific circumstances.


So true, this is one of the factors that is never discussed. They always make it sound as if women are making a conscious choice. Some of us have no choice until we are older, other than to marry and have babies with someone who is totally wrong for us. And who wants to bring a child into that situation?
Anonymous
Post 02/29/2016 10:20     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
For many it's also not a career vs baby but simply meeting someone too late in life. I have a regular job, not a high flying career that I devote all my time to, but I had nobody to have babies with and zero interest in having a child without a husband. I came to terms with staying childless, but met someone and married at 39. Now we want a child, but have to go through IVF because I am too old.
Anonymous
Post 02/28/2016 21:01     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is touching as a personal story but the facts provided are questionable/incomplete and I would expect more from a doctor who knows the field. For example, it is not true that any pregnant woman over the age of 35 is automatically considered high risk. Also, while she includes IVF stats by age group, why not include non-IVF conception stats as well? Including only IVF provides a skewed sample.

I know that my OB automatically considers AMA pregnancies to be high risk. There is extra monitoring involved. It doesn't mean that all of those pregnancies will see complications. I had a baby at age 39 with no complications but it was still considered high risk simply because of my age.


This is correct. All 35+ are considered high risk.


I was/am AMA for both my pregnancies but was told explicitly that that in and of itself does not make them high risk. This isn't a universal truth.
Anonymous
Post 02/28/2016 17:57     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:Anyone seen Idiocracy? It's coming true...


Ugh. So true.
Anonymous
Post 02/28/2016 15:02     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is touching as a personal story but the facts provided are questionable/incomplete and I would expect more from a doctor who knows the field. For example, it is not true that any pregnant woman over the age of 35 is automatically considered high risk. Also, while she includes IVF stats by age group, why not include non-IVF conception stats as well? Including only IVF provides a skewed sample.

I know that my OB automatically considers AMA pregnancies to be high risk. There is extra monitoring involved. It doesn't mean that all of those pregnancies will see complications. I had a baby at age 39 with no complications but it was still considered high risk simply because of my age.


This is correct. All 35+ are considered high risk.


In my experience, this wasn't true. I had a baby at 34 and another at 38. Exact same monitoring. Nothing done differently. I was otherwise healthy. Both times with GW. No one ever said the words high-risk to me the second time.

Anonymous
Post 02/28/2016 13:58     Subject: Outlook piece in the Post today: don't delay conceiving
I think it's hard to balance all the things. My mother got married at 19 and all I heard all my life was get out and get a career and learn how to take care of yourself before you marry and this messaging was from both my parents. But I also got from those same people that marrying and having babies was the most important thing I could do with my life but marry someone who could provide because being a SAHM was optimal. And the final message was that having kids of out wedlock was selfish and shameful. So I spent a lot of time trying to do the first while trying to do the second -- inevitably dating men who were great on paper and earned good money, but who sucked as people -- and avoiding the third at all costs.

I met my husband when I was a few months before I turned 36, and he had MFI (he had been married before so knew this). But THIS was the one -- a provider AND a great person. We went to my ob/gyn once we were engaged to get the baby thing going, got married when I was 37 and went straight to the RE practically from the altar. Despite lots of time and money and losses and tears, no babies. Now I am older and we are looking at other options, but I can't say I should have married one of the assholes and gotten the kid when I love my husband as I do or just popped one out because I was younger and at peak fertility even though I didn't have a partner. It's a calculus that everyone has to play out with their specific circumstances.