Amanda Holden's interview in DM - not specifically about her but time to get real about our fertility.

[Luckytohavemybaby]

She goes on about wanting another baby, but that it would kill her. It may be me but are 40something women being fed a line to about our fertility.
I've seen yet another friend (trying for a DC2) have her third miscarriage - her DS1 is only 18 months. She's 43. Another friend age 42 has had a m/c trying for no2, her DD is only 12 months. And I've got several other friends who have miscarriages in their early 40s after - as they say 'leaving it too late' to have a baby. Celebs seem to be popping them up to the age of 50. I'm wondering - as someone who has one very loved DC (and who knew she was very lucky to have one age 37 as I have a health condition type 1 diabetes which has given me lots of problems) whether it's time to get 'real' as they say. Is it doctors, is it the media. Yes sure we are the new 30s but our bodies aren't are they? The workplace needs to change that's for sure.

Was just about to post what Giddy said.
Info: nymag.com/thecut/2013/06/your-biological-clock-is-running-a-little-fast.html

If I'd had babies in my 20s I very very much doubt I'd be with their father now. My boyfriends at that time were ok but I don't think even children could have kept us together.

So:
Single mum
Or
Older mum

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I have a good friend who had her first at 39, then had about 7 mcs trying for her 2nd who was born in February, when she was 43. She had assumed that she had left it too late when she finally met a man who she could have children with. The docs have told her that both her babies were miracles, and she shouldn't really have been able to have them, but she got lucky twice.

I personally think we generally need to talk more about fertility, about things like miscarriages, which are really common, but most people don't realise that...

I think that men need to take more responsibility for the rising age of first time motherhood, why should we get all the blame? The thing that stops most women becoming mothers in their 20's is a lack of men willing to become fathers in their 20's. Women don't usually want to become single mothers, so they wait until they have found a partner who wants to have children too....and they wait......and wait......and wait.....

the data around fertility falling off a cliff after 35 is based on birth records and research from at least 200 years ago and is not actually accurate. It looked at the age of women having kids and how many they had - most women had kids a lot earlier so by the time they hit their 30's had had all the kids they wanted and weren't trying for any more, which is why the birth rate for this age group declines.

Instead of a blanket statement of you're over the hill at 35, people should be looking at their egg reserve and their AMH levels. These can vary at any age from person to person and are the best indicator of likelihood of being able to get pregnant unaided (unless there's an underlying medical issue)

"The thing that stops most women becoming mothers in their 20's is a lack of men willing to become fathers in their 20's."

But do you think that most women (given willing fathers) actually want to become mothers in their 20s? I know I didn't, and I don't think I'm massively unusual.

I mean, I think the main thing stopping me becoming a mother by the time I hit my mid-20s and had met DP, along with financial concerns, was "having a high old time touring with a band and going out a lot and having a really good social life". Clearly I am frivolous.

I think that it isn't just women who are told it's OK to wait.

Why don't we try telling men that they need to grow up, settle down etc, and that if they want a family life they can't spend their 20s and their 30s being foot loose and fancy free?

Why don't we make it easier for men and women to make a financial decision about starting a family (e.g. give a 2 year hiatus to repaying financial loans when they become a parent, giving them a tax break etc.)

Women are part of the entire society, and our society is increasingly geared towards the assumption that people will spend their 20s being single and having fun, find someone and settle down in their 30s, and then have a couple of kids. That actually doesn't leave much of a window of opportunity for people who don't even think about settling down until they are mid 30s.

I think the full interview is in Good Housekeeping.

I remember reading an article in another mag a while ago about how the numbers of women over 35 having terminations has risen because women have bought into the media rhetoric and scare stories of fertility falling off a cliff after 35.

I think the data is outdated. I have 5 DC, the first of which I had when I was 34years. I have had 3DC in my 40s and am expecting DC6. We are definitely healthier now than we were years ago and this must have an impact on fertility - every person is individual but I personally think the media focuses on telling women they become infertile after 35years when this is not always the case.

Have to agree with posters saying it is often not a woman's decision to leave it so late, just no partner/wrong partners/financial position. If you are with the right person and financially able to have babies late 20s/early 30s great, but life doesn't always fall that way. It certainly seems as though men are avoiding commitment until later in life these days; not sure if manywomen would leave it so late if they had the choice.

I don't know a single one of my friends who has consciously delayed motherhood until her late 30s/40s because she blithely believes her fertility would be unaffected. The message that your fertility falls off a cliff at 35 has been the only story in the Daily Mail for the last decade, along with the story that really you needn't worry as you cease to be sexually attractive at 28 anyway.

I do, however, have several friends who have given up on having children because they either didn't meet the right man at the right time, or had to commit big chunks of their 20s and 30s to demanding jobs, or didn't want to go down the single parenthood route unsupported by nearby family. There are lots of reasons women only find themselves in a financial/career position to consider children relatively late in the day - ime, it's rarely down to ignorance of their biological clock.

Quick look up on Amanda Holden's background.

She married her first DH (Les Dawson) when 24, split at 28, got back together, spilt for good at 30, divorced at 32, possibly aware it wasn't working for a few years before that, so at her 'prime motherhood' years, in a failing relationship and going through a divorce.

She had her first DC at 35 with her now DH, then a number of MCs, including a very late one, before having DC2 at 40, is lamenting wanting more DCs but accepting she's lucky to have the 2 she's got given her health problems. There's nothing to suggest if she'd started having DCs 5-10 years earlier she'd not have the same problems.

This sort of history is very common for the 'later mothers' I know, few were married in their early 20s but just left it while they built careers to start a family, most didn't meet their DHs until mid-late 30s. It's not like they were putting off motherhood, more not having DCs with unsuitable men.

Life is complicated, some people are lucky and meet 'the one' early on, for those who don't, or there's nothing wrong with still trying for DCs a little later.

There should also be more awareness that ART (assisted reproductive technology like IVF and IUI) is less successful after 30, and then 35, which is not something you hear much about.

As someone who spent 18+ months trying to conceive, IVF etc is often touted as the wonder cure, but the actual success rates (and I measure that by actual successful births) within 1-2 cycles are not that great the older you get

These are the HFEA figures for ART according to maternal age.

If you are unlucky enough to be someone who does have problems conceiving naturally then the sooner you realise and start fertility treatment, the better your chances of success and the fewer cycles you may need.

I would have loved to have had a baby at any time from the age of 18 and was extremely broody in my early 20s. I had very serious boyfriend at from 18-22. 50 years ago I would have probably married him. 100 years ago I would have married him and had children as soon as we conceived. But due to the availability of reliable contraception and the fact that most women now have sex before marriage, it would have been unheard of for me to have married and had children at that age amongst my social group as the freedom of choice we have now also means that we are expected to prioritise career and a variety of relationships. It would have been shocking and seen as throwing my life away. There was never any expectation on either side that we would marry and we were only sad that we'd met too young (so probably wouldn't end up together). That said, if he'd asked, I would have.

I'm perfectly happy with how things turned out - good career, DC1&2 at 34 and DC3 at 38, and I'm glad that I'm with the partner I'm with now. But in another time I also think that first relationship might have worked and we could have had a happy life together and be looking forward to being grandparents. If society were different, women would have babies earlier and men would have the expectation that they should marry women they sleep with (by and large).

Obviously contraception and sexual freedom bring untold benefits. But an offshoot of that is that there is no, dare I say it "incentive" for men to marry young.

When I read that Amanda H article I came to the line about how having another child would kill her and I quickly scanned the text to see how old she was. 44. My first (and only because I find her an insufferable egomaniac) thought was: why on earth would you be considering having a baby at 44 when you are not a first-timer? She's been married a long time, has two children and has had serious difficulties along the way. Nobody would expect her to conceive so why say it? Clearly she has zero thoughts or intentions re having another baby but it gives her a few column inches I suppose.

Like Kate Garraway, another one who will be giving interviews about her inability to have a third child till she's 60...

Hufty - how cruel. Perhaps she thinks about becoming pregnant because she wanted more living children than she has. Have a bit of bloody empathy even if you don't like her.

Would point out it was Les DENNIS, not Dawson. That would be weird.

I was mid- late twenties, in great shape (back then!) and was lucky enough to conceive straight away both times.

10 years on, I now know several women at work and socially who are really struggling. Some didn't meet partners until later, some just didn't feel the time was right until now, and assumed it would be easy. Their pain and anxiety is really hard to see. Their lives revolve around cycles and special diets.

I'd never take fertility for granted. I'd advise anyone who knows they want children and is in a position to cope to just go for it.

It's also important to remember the difference between "fertility starting to decline" age 35, and "becoming unfertile".

The two phrases mean pretty much the same thing, but the first one makes if more obvious that women are (on average) fully fertile until 35, and only AFTER that does their fertility decline (fairly slowly at first).

the second phrase sounds like you have to have babies NOW or it will be too late.

I had IVF and became a mum at 34. Before IVF I was terrified that I would be too late (not through lack of trying) and my NHS GP kept implying that it was probably too late. I went to the fertility clinic and they just smiled warmly, and said "Oh great. You're still in your young, fertile years. Fertility starts to drop off around 35, but doesn't really dip until somewhere in your 40s. Don't worry."

That was such a different message - somehow we've mixed 'starts to decline' and 'drops off a cliff' as if women HAVE to have babies by the age of 35 or else.

The rhetoric about 'getting real' is pretty unpleasant - it implies that if you don't manage to have a baby, or if you're (still?) trying after about 35, you're to blame for failing to face 'reality'.

I know people may not intend this, but that's how it can come across.

The rhetoric about 'getting real' is pretty unpleasant - it implies that if you don't manage to have a baby, or if you're (still?) trying after about 35, you're to blame for failing to face 'reality'.

I know people may not intend this, but that's how it can come across.