ACOG says at 40, 1 in 10 women will get pregnant in a given month’s cycle. That’s 10%.

And anyone who makes assertions should back them up with sources.

The study notes the linear progression. I have also made that point previously in this thread. 40 and 45 are very different.

Anonymous wrote:I noted all that. It says exactly what I think it does. Adjusting for all confounding factors, women 40-45 indeed get pregnant, and not as an incredible rarity.

An average 40 year old is also very different than an average 43 year old. By the time you hit 43, your odds of pregnancy each month is 1%. It’s 5% at age 40.

-NP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read menopause threads, it hits at a wide range of ages. I am almost 48 and still have periods like clockwork and no signs of perimenopause. I recently had my hormone levels tested and while that isn't anything definitive, they were still the same as they were fifteen years ago. While I have no idea if a pregnancy would be viable at this point, I have no doubt I am still fertile.

43 is young!

43 is young for many things, but not birthing babies. Come on, now.

+1. Getting pregnant at this age is less than 5% per cycle. It might work for some women but the "oh, it happened to so and so" is just ridiculous. I know that women want to hear that they can have kids whenever they want, but it's just not true. We're doing ourselves a disservice by continuing this lie. The truth should be - If you wait until you are 40+, you will most likely not reproductive assistance. It will be difficult to get pregnant for most women. There is a slight chance that you get pregnant naturally but you shouldn't bank on it.

Is that so hard?

This forum is full of lonely aging women who lie to themselves that they’ll still find mister right and have kids. It’s gross.

That really was a very cruel remark. Why would you say something like that? Why is it gross for ANY person to want to fall in love and have a family? It’s gross that you would make a mean spirited comment directed at women who are most likely facing the terribly sad journey through infertility.

Anonymous wrote:I noted all that. It says exactly what I think it does. Adjusting for all confounding factors, women 40-45 indeed get pregnant, and not as an incredible rarity.

You cannot read studies. A huge chunk of 40 somethings are automatically excluded. The conclusion explicitly states what we’ve known all along. Fertility declines dramatically as we age. That and it’s highly unlikely to carry to term. But keep believing that you 40+ are “fertile”. Anything to avoid the reality that you are aging

I noted all that. It says exactly what I think it does. Adjusting for all confounding factors, women 40-45 indeed get pregnant, and not as an incredible rarity.

Anonymous wrote:Half of women 40-45 who are actively trying to conceive will be pregnant within a year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712257/

This study doesn’t prove what you think it does. They state that they excluded women who had been trying to conceive for 3+ months, women who were infertile or those with fertility issues, which is most women in their 40s!

Conclusion— “we observed an approximately linear decline in fecundability with increasing female age. Women aged 40–45 years were 60% less likely to conceive in any given cycle than women aged 21–24 years. The age-related decline in fecundability was more pronounced among women who had never conceived before. Results were stronger when considering viable pregnancies rather than all pregnancies as the outcome variable, indicating that older women are both less likely to conceive and less likely to carry a pregnancy term if they do conceive. We excluded women with a history of infertility from our analysis and adjusted for selected factors that may be related to both age and fecundability (e.g., intercourse frequency, partner age). “

My mom had an unplanned pregnancy at around age 45. She already had 4 kids and her family doc actually advised her abort because he thought her body was too old to handle it, even though she had no complications before and had normal deliveries. Seems outrageous that her doctor recommended that. I’m still sad, would have liked a younger sister (but no idea what gender was).
Some women are just fertile.

Anonymous wrote:I am still on a regular cycle and I turned 50 in Nov!!! I have skipped a couple months starting last year but still. I have 2 friends who got pregnant naturally at ages 42/43 so it is 100% possible to have an accident - in fact I would think it's possible for me to get pregnant even though I do not want to with 2 kids over 10 now. The story is whether having kids 10 yrs apart is too exhausting. For me, no way would I want it. The sleepless nights would kill me although I will admit it would be comforting to know what to expect. Also if I had 2 sane gender kids I would be more likely to embrace a 3rd. I have friends that ended up that path and couldn't be happier as moms at 40 with newborns.

Have you lost your mind? Just because you haven’t hit menopause doesn’t mean you are fertile. You can have a period with no viable eggs.

Do women in this area honestly believe that they’ll be naturally pregnant at 50? Just wow

It’s a journal article from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Not exactly twisted Google misinformation.

If you have similarly authoritative research to support your “infertile after 35” assertion, please provide it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half of women 40-45 who are actively trying to conceive will be pregnant within a year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712257/

This, God LORD, people. Just because YOU are infertile does not mean its the norm. There are 8 billion people on Earth. Quit navel gazing. The norm, as in, more than half, are perfectly capable of it. Sorry if that chaps your ass.

You’re projecting because you’re in your 30s, probably late 30s and holding out hope. Stay in denial and twist crap from Google to help you cope. But I will call our your disinformation.

I have four kids. The last at 43. So, no, moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half of women 40-45 who are actively trying to conceive will be pregnant within a year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712257/

This, God LORD, people. Just because YOU are infertile does not mean its the norm. There are 8 billion people on Earth. Quit navel gazing. The norm, as in, more than half, are perfectly capable of it. Sorry if that chaps your ass.

You’re projecting because you’re in your 30s, probably late 30s and holding out hope. Stay in denial and twist crap from Google to help you cope. But I will call our your disinformation.

Anonymous wrote:Half of women 40-45 who are actively trying to conceive will be pregnant within a year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712257/

This, God LORD, people. Just because YOU are infertile does not mean its the norm. There are 8 billion people on Earth. Quit navel gazing. The norm, as in, more than half, are perfectly capable of it. Sorry if that chaps your ass.

It's not that crazy to conceive naturally at 43 if you've already had kids. Both of my grandmothers did and a few of my friends.
Personally, I couldn't conceive even with IVF when I started trying in my late 30s, but we're all different. Now, if she was older, like Hillary Swank or Halle Berry, I'd be saying she had to have used frozen embryos or an egg donor, but I have seen enough 43 year olds get pregnant to be cynical about this one.