Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has time to read that nonsense. And thanks for ruining the post with your NEED to “inform”.

Sorry for whatever happened to you to make you feel this strongly about conception.

I actually don't care that much when a woman decides to have a kid. I will however correct wrong information with facts. The articles are related to the subject, if you don't like it skip over it.

Perhaps it would be better for you to skip these posts. You’re the one most effected. You are not correct and have tunnel vision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

You're misreading it. Here's the relevant quote: "The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women"

I’m not going to read the crazy misogynist posting but is this the French study from before widespread use of antibiotics? Which has been thoroughly discredited in the modern context because of nutrition, education, and the fact that antibiotics lower the risk of infections that can cause secondary infertility? Is that the nonsense you brought here???

WTH are you talking about? This is the average maternal age at last birth in populations without birth control use. I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Cupcake. Read the article. The data set of 2226 women born between 1624 and 1715 included the entire French Canadian population living in the Province of Quebec between 1608 and 1765 for births and 1799 for deaths.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there are some confounding factors here? A few small changes in the last 300 years that affect fertility? This study has been widely blown up.

+1 That was a stupid study to link. As has been posted on here, there are sooo many women now a days who have gotten pregnant naturally in their 30s to their early 40s. I wouldn't worry about it.

My niece, who is turning 30, asked me about what I thought about her waiting. She was feeling pressured to get married and have kids. I told her to wait for the right person. Don't rush. Most of the women I know had no issues getting pregnant 30+, myself included.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has time to read that nonsense. And thanks for ruining the post with your NEED to “inform”.

Sorry for whatever happened to you to make you feel this strongly about conception.

I actually don't care that much when a woman decides to have a kid. I will however correct wrong information with facts. The articles are related to the subject, if you don't like it skip over it.

It seems like you care a lot so I’m thinking you’re probably a pos incel or one of those women who had kids in her 20’s, did nothing else with her life, and wants to drag down other women to your same sad level. Stop trying to control other people. I say this as someone who had my first at 25 but thinks every woman should do what works for them.

I’m guessing she’s really struggling to conceive and it’s easier to look externally than grieve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

You're misreading it. Here's the relevant quote: "The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women"

I’m not going to read the crazy misogynist posting but is this the French study from before widespread use of antibiotics? Which has been thoroughly discredited in the modern context because of nutrition, education, and the fact that antibiotics lower the risk of infections that can cause secondary infertility? Is that the nonsense you brought here???

WTH are you talking about? This is the average maternal age at last birth in populations without birth control use. I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Cupcake. Read the article. The data set of 2226 women born between 1624 and 1715 included the entire French Canadian population living in the Province of Quebec between 1608 and 1765 for births and 1799 for deaths.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there are some confounding factors here? A few small changes in the last 300 years that affect fertility? This study has been widely blown up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has time to read that nonsense. And thanks for ruining the post with your NEED to “inform”.

Sorry for whatever happened to you to make you feel this strongly about conception.

I actually don't care that much when a woman decides to have a kid. I will however correct wrong information with facts. The articles are related to the subject, if you don't like it skip over it.

It seems like you care a lot so I’m thinking you’re probably a pos incel or one of those women who had kids in her 20’s, did nothing else with her life, and wants to drag down other women to your same sad level. Stop trying to control other people. I say this as someone who had my first at 25 but thinks every woman should do what works for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

You're misreading it. Here's the relevant quote: "The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women"

I’m not going to read the crazy misogynist posting but is this the French study from before widespread use of antibiotics? Which has been thoroughly discredited in the modern context because of nutrition, education, and the fact that antibiotics lower the risk of infections that can cause secondary infertility? Is that the nonsense you brought here???

WTH are you talking about? This is the average maternal age at last birth in populations without birth control use. I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

You're misreading it. Here's the relevant quote: "The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women"

I’m not going to read the crazy misogynist posting but is this the French study from before widespread use of antibiotics? Which has been thoroughly discredited in the modern context because of nutrition, education, and the fact that antibiotics lower the risk of infections that can cause secondary infertility? Is that the nonsense you brought here???

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has time to read that nonsense. And thanks for ruining the post with your NEED to “inform”.

Sorry for whatever happened to you to make you feel this strongly about conception.

I actually don't care that much when a woman decides to have a kid. I will however correct wrong information with facts. The articles are related to the subject, if you don't like it skip over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

You're misreading it. Here's the relevant quote: "The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women"

I didn’t have my first until 35. Second at 38.

Nobody has time to read that nonsense. And thanks for ruining the post with your NEED to “inform”.

Sorry for whatever happened to you to make you feel this strongly about conception.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years

Typical DCUM only postin bits that support their argument


Abstract
This study uses sets of historical family reconstitutions from all of Quebec and from four villages of the Haut-Jura, France--first marriages of 2226 and 994 women, respectively--to investigate the physiological and social factors affecting age of mother at last birth before and during fertility transition. Age remained high throughout the period covered in Quebec, under 'natural' conditions, but showed a steady decline in the French material which extends to late 19th century generations practising family limitation. Age at marriage had no influence in Quebec; in France, however, women with the most surviving children at age 35 continued childbearing the latest. There was no link between biological ability to achieve a live birth, or in health status or aging rhythm, and age at last birth. Behaviour of mothers and daughters showed no relation. The variability in age at last birth thus appears to be random under natural conditions; with the onset of controls, social differences seem to influence not only the end of childbearing, but all aspects of behaviour governing final family size and child survival.

PIP: The study of the cessation of childbearing in natural fertility populations has yielded mixed results. This study examined the physiological and social factors affecting the maternal age at last birth before and during fertility transition. Data were obtained from linked registries of baptisms, marriages, and burials compiled at the University of Montreal. The data set of 2226 women born between 1624 and 1715 included the entire French Canadian population living in the Province of Quebec between 1608 and 1765 for births and 1799 for deaths. This time period corresponded to a natural fertility regimen, and toward the end of the period the youngest had begun spacing of the last birth interval. Another data set of 994 women born before 1900 pertained to four French villages of Haut-Jura from 1680 through the French fertility transition. The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years. The Canadian women had a mean and median age of marriage of 21 years and a mode of 19 years. Early marriage was prevalent, and 50% of births occurred after 1694. About 50% of women had 8-12 children, with the average being 11 children; the highest number was 20 or more. The French women spanned 2.5 centuries and the mean was the year 1800. The average marriage age was 23.7 years and the average number of children was 6; 14 children was the highest number. The results showed that the French Canadian women bore their last child at an average age of 41.5 years compared to 39.5 years for the French women. The age at last birth declined over time in the French sample to below 38 years after 1840. The French Canadian sample showed 50% of women ending childbearing around the age of 40 years and 70% of women doing so in the 37-44 age span. Marriage age was unrelated to last birth in the Quebec sample, and length of first birth interval was unrelated in either sample. The French sample showed that age at last birth increased with age at marriage, thereby suggesting stopping behavior. Mothers with 4 children at the age of 35 years had their last child a year later than those with 3 children. Age at last birth was not related to daughter's age at last birth. Stopping behavior was more related to age than norms about appropriate numbers of children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This gets shut down each time it's posted but you can't argue with medical facts. Mother nature does not care that more women now are pursuing careers.

The reality is that it's much more difficult to get pregnant at 35 than it is at 25. And it's nearly impossible after 40. Money and procedures can sometimes help, but there really are many women out there that waited too long and missed the boat.

Your body wants to have a baby between the ages of about 17 and 30. After that it's more difficult and riskier.

Are you saying that women should be having babies at 17, 18, 19? They should forgo college and a solid career because biology hasn't caught up with our culture?

Biologically, I might have been able to have a kid at 17, 20, 25, but emotionally, mentally, financially, I was no where near ready. Would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to support 17 yr olds having kids, making sure that they have access to daycare, or are you advocating that 17 yr olds should drop out of school to have babies because nature intended for a 17 yr old to have babies?

How about the daddies? What's their role in all this? Do you think a 17 yr old guy is ready to take on the responsibilities of being a dad just because biologically he is able to produce the sperm necessary to procreate?

FFS.

The melodrama lol. She's saying biologically, we were made to have children in late teens/early 20s. She's not advocating for mass teen pregnancy.

She sounds like she's saying that women should be having children betweent the ages of 17 and 30.

Most men in their 20s are not mature enough to handle having children, either. I shudder to think what the next generation of children would be like if men now a days had children in their 20s.

She's not. She's saying that's your best time to get pregnant and that if you wait too much later than that, your chances of getting pg naturally go down. Which they do. Do I think it's as much of a dropoff as she's implying? No, I think the majority of women in their late 30s and early 40s who want to get pg naturally can. She's not saying every woman should have a baby at 17.

100% false. Women over the age of 40 have less than a 5% chance of conceiving and carrying to term a healthy baby. Google it. After 45, the percentage drops to less than 1%.

I don't get why so many are butt hurt over this. Its just the way humans are made.

Wow, I know so many women then who have beaten the odds since they had their babies when they were 40+. What are the odds of that, I wonder.

SAME and a few were oops, first children

No one is trying to say that women can or should wait. What’s being shared is to not panic. Fertility is something each of us explores and struggles with on our own. Young women can experience infertility as well. And it’s easier to blame it on age than circumstance. I would’ve love to have my child younger, I just didn’t happen to meet her father until I was 38. We got to know each other a little bit. If we were younger I would’ve waited a good 10 years after meeting to start thinking about kids, but we just didn’t have that time. I have my first and only naturally conceived healthy child at 42. Maybe I’m obscene or an anomaly but I don’t mind that, my kid thinks I’m great - except for when it’s bedtime or I serve broccoli- MOM JOKES 😭 🥸

Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?
The data that first suggested this was an important age is no longer relevant, but somehow the idea has stuck.


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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, a bunch of women come in here with hurt feelings that biology wins.

Except there's plenty of misinformation going around. In societies without birth control, the average maternal age at final birth is 41. So basically half of any random population of women would have children after the age of 41 if they did not have access to birth control. It's not as impossible as it may appear, because most women in our society are on birth control in their 40s. Women over the age of 40 make up a large percentage of those who have abortions. It's not like fertility comes to a screeching halt at 35 or even 40. It just might look that way because a large number of women have kids younger and don't want to have anymore.

Flag this comment along with mine. It's harmful to have lies like this floating around. It tricks women into thinking they can put off pregnancy until it's convenient. It can't be.

Your fertility has an expiration date.

My comment is backed up by studies. It’s not a lie.

And where are the studies?

There are several. Here is one.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7983101/

Typical DCUM misstep. Posting a source without reading it.

"The sample included only women with an exact birth date, a first marriage, and the last child born being born around the age of 30 years