Women delaying motherhood is worrying

The responsibility lies with us to analyse the statistics and not be so trusting.

Quite, but when you do that and come to a conclusion that other people don't like (like delightfully hypocritical Professor Dame Sally Davies), then this is deemed unacceptable and wrong!!!

Reporting isn't a bad thing Pigsmummy but focus on women only and the careerist stereotype is unhelpful. It's taking valid information but using it to demonise a particular demographic (middle class women).

Reporting it isn't a bad thing, talking about it and having media attention is a good thing isn't it? it's becoming widely known that fertility reduces the older your get, (not a marketing gimmick as suggested up post).

I knew that and most of my friends seem to with the exception of one who at 49 is livid that she hasn't been able to conceive, is angry that no one told her at 32 that her fertility would decline and is livid that IVF has cost her a fortune and failed. She wants to start a campaign and get shouts. I gently pointed her towards Google to read what is already out there.

I suspect that the average age to have first will creep down as the next generation are more aware of older parents and ageing fertility.

I get what you mean with the method of analysis. I'll have to disagree regarding a language as such. Even if you use stats to make a point there is always the flip side of that probability. This will either show up in analysis or leave a void which is not analysed. They don't try to be definitive or conclusive.
I agree that there should be a responsibility not sensationalise or trivialise. Fundamentally, the responsibility lies with us to analyse the statistics and not be so trusting.

I had my dc at 29,31,32.

Which was just as well as my ovaries were actually shrivelling up, not down to "patriarchal society" but down to a family tendency (that I didn't know about) to prem menopause.

We were right up there as typical parents to wait - I was a promoted teacher, dh a GP. We'd been married since 24 and so were ready to go ahead, which was a great idea as my periods became irregular at 35 and I was officially "through" the menopause at 39!

There are some huge assumptions out there about extending female fertility. I know that in my case I was lucky to meet my future-dh at age 18, marry at 24, have our dc young. If I hadn't met him until 34, then it's unlikely, even with I've, that we would have had any dc, let alone the 3 we have.

Please don't take fertility for granted!

Its not just the sensational press who are guilty of manipulation of stats in healthcare though. Its rampant everywhere. Even in 'trusted' sources. See Margaret McCartney or Ben Goldacre for further details on that.

tethers - call off your breathing strike! It's not going to help :o

Some people say that MN is a stronghold of educated, middle-class women. Isn't it possible that medical professionals may feel the need to get this out to as wide an audience as possible? (acknowledging that the Torygraph might not be the best conduit, but there is no indication that the professor spoke exclusively to them).

So while a group of women on MN retort 'But we know all this!', perhaps MN was not the only intended audience?

Pure statistical facts

I haven't said it's not a language. Of course the stats need to be interpreted. But you wouldn't go to sensationalist press for your information. However, you misguide someone the stats don't change. The stats are there to be looked at. Your example only presents one part of the statistics. Not them as an entirety.

Looking at countries like Iceland, I wonder whether people would have children at a younger age if doing so did not prevent them from finishing university, getting a good job and progressing in their career?

Subsidised childcare, equally shared maternity and paternity leave, and affordable family housing would solve this 'problem' overnight.

Discussing right now on LBC radio

I agree with her. I waited until 34 an I am now 37 and want more.... I wish I had focused less on career and more on family!

When I put effective, I meant efficient. In terms of cheapest and time consuming.....sorry

Buffy, but the stats allow for many possibilities and outcomes. They allow for differing view points. I think people are wise to this or should be

I see Buffy, that's down to people's understanding of the stats. They are just a biproduct of the most effective form of analysis. People need to look at them as odds.

I think its perfectly legitimate to say, I don't want to risk my body or potentially risk my life in order to conform with societies expectations.

I don't think this should be derided as selfish - just a ver personal decision. Yet I don't think I have ever really heard this in the media, certainly without a very critical editorial line. Why?

However you could argue its more selfish to have children, especially if you aren't really bothered about having them, and to put a burden on society if you do have complications. (And of course this is being thrown at women over 35).

There is so little room for honesty in the debate.

Tbh, I think you really can't win and its impossible to avoid getting a label somewhere along the line. Women are simply judged on their childbearing decisions first and everything else in life is simply secondary.

Yes and that's before they have the children. The think the cultural expectation on mother's in this country has gotten out of control, with no equivalent expectation of fathers.

There is so much judgement about the choices that women make as parents. From the outside looking in it looks like a hell of a lot of pressure on and sacrifice expected of mothers, but not so much fathers. I wonder if this puts people off having children early / at all too. (If so, I think shared parental leave would go some way to address this.)

Yes. Thank you, Buffy. Those are the assumptions I find unacceptable - plus the assumption that all women 'should' want children. Hence why I can't get worked up about the declining fertility argument; it's based on an unproven theory.