FrustratedStandards Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I can understand his concern, because after 30 a woman's fertility drops a lot. It doesn't mean you can't have healthy babies at 35 or 40, but the younger the better. I think you should ask him why the urgency. I don't think it's a good idea to freeze your eggs if you can have a baby naturally. Natural is always better. I understand that you want to be more financially stable as well, but maybe a baby will force you to be more financially stable, whereas now it's not absolutely necessary when you have time. I think once you two understand why he wants it so bad, you will have a clearer understanding of what to do and how to handle things. There might be an underlying issue.
pie2 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 I think celebrities in the media are really throwing us women for a loop. They have all this money to spend on fertility treatments, and make conception at 40 seem so easy. As healthy as us women are these days, our eggs are still aging at the same rate they always have. And it's pretty well documented that fertility is more difficult after 30. Of course it's not impossible to conceive at all. But it's less likely and more risky. It's been proven over and over. It seems like your bf is being somewhat practical...a couple years to "get prepared", a year to make the baby...then a few more years to conceive again...pretty soon you're 40 and have two kids. That's a very possible senario. And not to mention the risks. I work with special needs kids. And women of all ages can have a child with special needs...but even my own unscientific observations can tell me that older mothers have a greater chance. Would you feel as concerned with your bf's comments if he were 35? Do you feel extra sensitive to your bf's comments, as he is younger?
123321 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Whether the highlighted is a cause of concern depends what is the danger of birth defects in the first place. Very true although not so sure about your math, the actual risk is 80 in 100,000 compared to 1000 in 100,000, which is not a small jump in risk in my book. Feel free to check MY math, I just popped that out by normalizing the regular "risk ratios" to incidence per 100K. I think she's of the mindset to wait until she's ready for kids. Makes sense to me. She could at least enjoy 2 years of married life before starting a family. That's fine, as I said I think he's just being realistic. If they start trying to conceive at her 32nd, odds are she will get pregnant around 33-34, and give birth to their 1st at 34-35. If they wait a few years she will be 36-37 when they start again, and again odds are they will be pregnant again when she is 36-38, and she will bear a 2nd child at 37-39. Now you can see, she's getting close to 40, and so as i said, the window of opportunity is open, but it's fixing to close. If she were married at 25 and thinking about kids at 30 that's one thing, but this is doable, but a lot tighter for time. I think celebrities in the media are really throwing us women for a loop. They have all this money to spend on fertility treatments, and make conception at 40 seem so easy. As healthy as us women are these days, our eggs are still aging at the same rate they always have. And it's pretty well documented that fertility is more difficult after 30. Of course it's not impossible to conceive at all. But it's less likely and more risky. It's been proven over and over. It seems like your bf is being somewhat practical.. He seems to be very thoughtful and practical.
123321 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 But you never hear men talk about their own fertility or what they have the potential to contribute. It's always about the woman and how she is the one that does this or that .... Just because that's what the actual research says. "According to a study done on a sample of 782 healthy European couples ages 19–39, fertility starts declining after age 27 and drops at a somewhat greater rate after age 35. The women were divided into four age groups: 19–26, 27–29, 30–34 and 35–39. Statistical analysis showed that the women in the 27–29 age group had significantly less chance on average of becoming pregnant than did the 19–26-year olds. Pregnancy rates did not change notably between the 27–29 age group and the 30–34 age group, but dropped sharply for women over 35. The age of the male partner had a significant impact on female fertility among the women who had reached their mid-30s, but not among the younger women."
Titania22 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Very true although not so sure about your math, the actual risk is 80 in 100,000 compared to 1000 in 100,000, which is not a small jump in risk in my book. Feel free to check MY math, I just popped that out by normalizing the regular "risk ratios" to incidence per 100K. My bad, I multiplied by 125% instead of 1250%.
123321 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 My bad, I multiplied by 125% instead of 1250%. It happens, like I said I just worked it really fast so don't take those t the bank. I wonder if the female equivalent of a sperm bank would be a viable option? Is this even done?
kaylan Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Chart: The effect of age on fertility | BabyCenter Check out this chart. Basically shows most should be done with kids and stuff by 35 if they want to avoid difficulties. By mid 30s the probability of getting pregnant is 52%, which is essentially 1 in 2 women will have difficulty getting preggers. Which is a bit more concerning since two thirds or more(>or = 66%) at younger ages are likely to get preggers in one year. Also note the light blue line that indicates the likelihood that a woman of a certain age will be infertile(unable to have kids at all). This percentage is only 15% at mid 30s, which is essentially 1 in 6.5 women being unable to have kids. Thats not too, too bad...but by age 40, the chart shows that 1 in 3 women will be unable to have kids. So as stated above, to avoid difficulties, percentage would push you to want to be done building your family by your mid 30s if you want to have ease in having children. 40 is pushing it, but still very possible to have kids, albeit with a little more work and some more risk. But 40 should definitely be the cutoff. 1
xxoo Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 I wonder if the female equivalent of a sperm bank would be a viable option? Is this even done? Egg donation exists, but there health risks to the donor. They have to undergo the same course of fertility hormones that an IVF patients gets to coax out the eggs. It is a lot more complicated than sperm donation (for the donor).
mesmerized Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Just because that's what the actual research says. "According to a study done on a sample of 782 healthy European couples ages 19–39, fertility starts declining after age 27 and drops at a somewhat greater rate after age 35. The women were divided into four age groups: 19–26, 27–29, 30–34 and 35–39. Statistical analysis showed that the women in the 27–29 age group had significantly less chance on average of becoming pregnant than did the 19–26-year olds. Pregnancy rates did not change notably between the 27–29 age group and the 30–34 age group, but dropped sharply for women over 35. The age of the male partner had a significant impact on female fertility among the women who had reached their mid-30s, but not among the younger women." And your source is? I love when people post things without any link. And you do realize that your last sentence means that men's age matters, right? Because another way to read it is that older women were significantly more likely to get pregnant with younger men. Also, what is significant and what is not? To me 25% is also a pretty significant number: "The researchers, from fertility clinics across France, examined rates of successful pregnancies in 1,938 couples from 59 clinics. The study showed that a woman younger than 30 was 25% less likely to conceive if her male partner was 40 or older than if he was of similar age. And if the woman was 35 to 37, she was twice as likely not to conceive as to have a successful pregnancy if her partner was 40 or older" Men should plan on parenthood by 40, new research reveals. Men should plan on parenthood by 40, new research reveals | Science | The Guardian This is obviously another reason for which older women have problem with fertility, they always pair up with older men than themselves. This was also recently shown as a reason for down syndrome happening more to older women. Perhaps women also should only go after younger men as they are clearly better for their fertility. "In fact, researchers suggest that there is only a modest increase in Down syndrome risk for women 35-39 compared with women 30-35 years old, but the dramatic increase in Down syndrome births among women 35 to 39 years old is largely due to the influence of older fathers because older women tend to make babies with older men." Dad's Age Raises Down Syndrome Risk, Too The biological clock, ticking for men too. The Biological Clock, Ticking for Men Too - NYTimes.com In a society where women are (or have been for a long time) blamed for everything, it's no surprise that they have to burden the fertility issues too. Edited February 18, 2012 by mesmerized
Cypress25 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 If they start trying to conceive at her 32nd, odds are she will get pregnant around 33-34, and give birth to their 1st at 34-35. If a woman is still fertile, it probably won't take her 1-2 years to get pregnant. Ask any woman who forgot to take her pill one day and ended up pregnant. Many of those women are in their 30's. Most healthy couples manage to conceive within 6-12 weeks of trying. These days, many people wait until they're at least 30 to start having kids, so obviously it's easily done for the majority of people. If a 32-year-old woman is struggling to conceive, it's not because she's too old. It's because she always had fertility problems and never knew it (or the man has fertility problems).
fortyninethousand322 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 There is no such thing as a biological clock until you're like 90. The guy is an idiot for being worried about a 30 year old.
xxoo Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Most healthy couples manage to conceive within 6-12 weeks of trying. Did you mean 6-12 months?
Cypress25 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Did you mean 6-12 months? Nope, 6-12 weeks. That's why it's so important for women who are trying to prevent pregnancy to take their pill EVERY DAY, because missing just one day greatly increases her chance of getting pregnant. If a woman has no fertility issues (and at 32, she shouldn't), getting pregnant is remarkably easy. Why do you think there are so many "accidents"? If you're not using contraception, getting pregnant doesn't take long at all.
xxoo Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Nope, 6-12 weeks. That's why it's so important for women who are trying to prevent pregnancy to take their pill EVERY DAY, because missing just one day greatly increases her chance of getting pregnant. If a woman has no fertility issues (and at 32, she shouldn't), getting pregnant is remarkably easy. Why do you think there are so many "accidents"? If you're not using contraception, getting pregnant doesn't take long at all. Most don't get pg in 1-3 months in their 30s.... I think the stat is that 80% of all sexually active women will get pg in 12 months, with no contraception. This site breaks down the chance of pregnancy each month for women in their 20s (20-25%), early 30s (15%), and late 30s (10%). You are also wrong about difficulty getting pg in 30s meaning a woman had fertility problems in her 20s. Women can get pg easily at one point, and have fertility problems later. It is called "secondary infertility".
Cypress25 Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 "In general, a fertile couple has a good chance of getting pregnant within a year: • Around 30 will conceive within 1 month. • Around 60 will conceive within 6 months. • Around 85 will conceive within 1 year. • The remainder will take longer and some of these may need help for them to conceive." (Source: How long will it take to get pregnant?) The language can be confusing, but my interpretation is that getting pregnant within a year doesn't mean it took the full 12 months to get pregnant. Getting pregnant within 6 months doesn't mean it took exactly 6 months. And so on. You are also wrong about difficulty getting pg in 30s meaning a woman had fertility problems in her 20s. Women can get pg easily at one point, and have fertility problems later. It is called "secondary infertility". Secondary infertility is usually because of age. And 32 is simply too young to be experiencing age-related infertility. A 38-year-old woman, maybe. I think the reason people think it takes so long to conceive is because the ones who don't have trouble don't talk about it. People generally don't go around talking about how long they've been trying to conceive unless it's taking too long. So it seems like they're in the majority just because they're so vocal about it. As far as the OP is concerned, I think it will be a blessing in disguise if she doesn't have time to pop out 4 kids. After she has 1 or 2, she'll realize that she doesn't really want 4. (In families with 4 kids, the 4th was usually an accident, lol.)
FitChick Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Why doesn't the OPs boyfriend volunteer to be a Big Brother, if that program still exists. He needs to spend more time around kids. I had a friend who wanted kids and could never convince me to change my mind because I never wanted any. "But what if you met the perfect man, perfect in every way, but he wanted children?" "Then he's not the perfect man for me." She became a nursery school teacher and after the first year, had her tubes tied. I'm telling you, reality is the best form of birth control.
xxoo Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 "In general, a fertile couple has a good chance of getting pregnant within a year: • Around 30 will conceive within 1 month. • Around 60 will conceive within 6 months. • Around 85 will conceive within 1 year. • The remainder will take longer and some of these may need help for them to conceive." (Source: How long will it take to get pregnant?) The language can be confusing, but my interpretation is that getting pregnant within a year doesn't mean it took the full 12 months to get pregnant. Getting pregnant within 6 months doesn't mean it took exactly 6 months. And so on. That is close to my 80%, on average. But my link showed the differences between the age groups. 60-75% of women in their 20s will conceive within 3 months. But only 45% of women in early 30s, and 30% of women in late 30s will conceive at the 3 months mark. Secondary infertility is usually because of age. And 32 is simply too young to be experiencing age-related infertility. A 38-year-old woman, maybe. I think the reason people think it takes so long to conceive is because the ones who don't have trouble don't talk about it. People generally don't go around talking about how long they've been trying to conceive unless it's taking too long. So it seems like they're in the majority just because they're so vocal about it. My experiences-- mid 20s: got pg on first month of trying, had a baby in 9 months. early 30s: took 5 months to get pg, had a miscarriage, took 5 more months to recover/get pg, had a baby....total time from first month trying to baby: nearly 2 years. My experience was considered medically normal. As far as the OP is concerned, I think it will be a blessing in disguise if she doesn't have time to pop out 4 kids. After she has 1 or 2, she'll realize that she doesn't really want 4. (In families with 4 kids, the 4th was usually an accident, lol.) You think you know how many babies they want better than them?
SJC2008 Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 @Silvermercy: Since when is the late 20's-early 30's "older men"? Now if there are men 35+ saying this, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. As a 30 year old man myself, I see nothing wrong with wanting to date 24-30 year old women for "clock" reasons. I'm not ready for marriage and children yet but will be in a few years so I have to keep age into consideration.
FitChick Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 I wonder if the OP's boyfriend is insecure and wants to keep her barefoot and pregnant so she is less likely to run off.
123321 Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 And your source is? Older fathers over 40 had twice the rate of Down syndrome births compared with men 24 years old and younger when they had children with women over 35. "Paternal age has an effect on Down syndrome but only in mothers 35 years old and older," write researcher Harry Fisch, MD, of the department of urology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, and colleagues. "In younger women, in whom age was not a risk factor for Down syndrome, there was no paternal effect."
mesmerized Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) Older fathers over 40 had twice the rate of Down syndrome births compared with men 24 years old and younger when they had children with women over 35. "Paternal age has an effect on Down syndrome but only in mothers 35 years old and older," write researcher Harry Fisch, MD, of the department of urology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, and colleagues. "In younger women, in whom age was not a risk factor for Down syndrome, there was no paternal effect." Yes, again, that doesn't mean age of father doesn't matter. An old egg and old sperm together aren't good news. An old egg with a young sperm also has a much better chance of having a healthy baby. And I love how you only read and bold parts that benefit you. Did you read other studies at all? like the pretty significant affect of men's age on autism, schizophrenia and even women's fertility? Does 25% really sound insignificant to you? It doesn't seem like you really care about science says overall, but the only the small parts that justify your thoughts. You don't really like to be educated, but just confirmed even though you don't really seem to know how to read and comprehend studies. Edited February 19, 2012 by mesmerized
fortyninethousand322 Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 The boyfriend needs to stop being such a worry wart. There's no "biological clock" controlling anyone's destiny. Have kids, don't have kids. Don't let a stopwatch dictate to you.
mesmerized Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 Im gonna BOLD some parts from the same links I posted for you too since you seem to be interested in that. Cells in the body deteriorate as they get older. Sperm cells constantly regenerate themselves, as opposed to eggs. But the constant turnover of sperm cells lends itself to genetic mutation. The older you are, the more sperm cells have divided and the more divisions, the more chance for a disorder to occur. For men over 40, there’s almost a six-fold increase in autism disorders in their children compared with men under 25. That’s significant. With schizophrenia, for men in their 50s, there’s a three-fold increase compared with men under 20. And there’s a direct increase associated with age. The older the man, the higher the risk of schizophrenia in his offspring.
123321 Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 [An old egg with a young sperm also has a much better chance of having a healthy baby. Well let's examine the odds for that a moment, four possible permutations: Young man, young woman, low odds. Old man, young woman, low odds. Young man, old woman, medium odds (50% male contribution removed). Old man, old woman, high odds of defective kids. So yeah, if I stick with young women, it's all good. That really is all I needed to know. Don't take biology so personally.
Recommended Posts