To wonder about people's awareness of fertility decline

[Orangeblossom78]

decline I mean, in late 30s/40s. I know someone who on trying to get pregnant for the first time in their early 40s is shocked and devastated to be told of their fertility being low at this stage. AIBU but is is not usually apparent that our fertility declines after mid 30s and you can't just expect to have an easy time getting pregnant in early 40s.

you probably don’t run in the same circles as I do.

What an obnoxious statement 🙄

Dandelion1993 thinking of my own family and friends, the ones I know with disabled dcs (from chromosomal abnormalities to autism) had their babies in their 20s. Do you think maybe they were too young?
Or do you think we just can't know and should avoid making stupid guesses about it?

I think people are aware but want to be in ignorant bliss and hope for the best.

So yes we know that fertility drops off a cliff after 35 and 40.

What I don't thing people know are the following:

Miscarriage risk is so much higher after 35. One in four.

Egg quality reduces and thus risks increases for conditions such as downs are much higher.

I had my first pregnancy at 37 which gave me a wonderful healthy little boy. I had my first miscarriage at 39 so acutely aware of all the stats.

It really doesn't 'drop off a cliff' at 35.

Apples78

Are you always prone to jumping on people without bothering to read the thread first? I explained in a previous post how my health issues meant the longer I left it the less likely I was to be able to conceive at all (progressing endometriosis), which my ex was well aware of. Added to that, the higher chance of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage that comes with advanced endometriosis. For me the risks of waiting longer WERE pretty severe, thanks.

The anti-natalists are big on the dehumanising term 'breeders'. It's like a involuntary linguistic reflex to signal their inflated sense of superiority.

Not in my experience. Some members of the childfree-by-choice population use it as a term of insult (I don't myself, because, well, it's insulting), but it's generally used in reference to a particular type of parent who act as though there is nothing else in life except having children.

Welshlady, the stats posted by a pp gave mc risk at 35 as 22%, but at 30 it was still 18% - risk increases but it's not like it goes from zero, there is always a risk of miscarriage.

Are you always prone to jumping on people without bothering to read the thread first?

Oh for goodness sakes, stop being so self important. The thread is eight pages long so no, I don’t always have time to read the whole thing. Good for you that you do.

People know but they tend to hope, when life has made this the age they are ready to have kids, that they are still OK.

Oh for goodness sakes, stop being so self important. The thread is eight pages long so no, I don’t always have time to read the whole thing. Good for you that you do.

But you had time to read my post and act like a bit of a clever dick about it grow up.

I think that the numbers of women desperately trying to find a male partner mid thirties onwards are proof that majority of women are very very acutely aware of the fertility drop.

Most men are not and don’t seem to have the urgency at all. And yet older sperm is not great either.

But you had time to read my post and act like a bit of a clever dick about it hmm grow up.

You’re the one who needs to grow up. “Clever dick”? Very mature...

Totally agree with NumberblockNo1, it depends entirely on socioeconomic factors. I live in a very working class area, I’m mid 20s and all my friends from school have children, most more than one. My friends from uni do not. I live in the same area I grew up in and worry about my fertility despite only being in my 20s, and having comments about “hurry up” etc. In my experience, the more educated/middle class an individual, the later they’ll choose to have children.

the only people i know who are exercised about womens fertility 'falling off a cliff' at 35, are women with three kids by the time they're 22. everyone else seems to understand statistics and risk factors.

@Longlongsummer good point about older sperm. For over five years I worked with hundreds of parents and children with SEN and/or physical disabilities. The vast majority of children had been born to mothers in their 20s or early thirties...in my time working there I never came across a child with Down's Syndrome whose mother was, what I thought was the stereotype, late thirties or forties when the child was born. I was surprised to learn that one child with DS was born to an 18 year old mother.

However, there was a marked trend of older fathers (40s and 50s at birth) having children with SEN. Many of the children had parents with large age gaps so a mother of 30 and a father of 50. It was a very noticeable "trend" at the particular schools I worked at. It did make me wonder if there was more of a risk with older fathers than was publicised.

My experience is totally anecdotal of course but I wasnt the only person to notice the link. It was so rare to see a younger father.

@NameChange84 yes I read a recent article for example that says autism is linked to older fathers, rather than older mothers.

However, there was a marked trend of older fathers (40s and 50s at birth) having children with SEN. Many of the children had parents with large age gaps so a mother of 30 and a father of 50. It was a very noticeable "trend" at the particular schools I worked at. It did make me wonder if there was more of a risk with older fathers than was publicised.

It has been publicised - older fathers (45+) are associated with higher incidence of autism and schizophrenia. Also birth risks such as premature birth, low birth weight and time in intensive care.

Older fathers are responsible for nearly all of a child’s random genetic mutations - a father’s age at conception may account for 97% of the new mutations.

Whereas older mothers are associated with chromosomal disorders.

Thanks @TatianaLarina, that's very interesting and I didn't realise this information was widely known.

Most women are aware of it but I have had my dc and plan no more so I don't care how quickly it goes from here on.

I really think men play an equal part in all of this. Almost every guy in his 30s that I know keeps saying no kids yet. Society tells them not to settle down, party, enjoy, kids are shit, you can wait however long you want. How can a woman force her DP to have kids? Should women start actively looking to date older men? Despite research showing that sperm quality also plays a part? I think part of the response to your query is that we need to educate men better too, not just women.

We also need better protection for maternity rights
I work in the City. Every single woman that gets pregnant, gets pushed out quickly in my field. So if I have kids now, all my work and long hours is for nothing because I will get fired and have little to show for it. I need to wait a few years, get more experience and savings and then look for another job before having kids. My cousin doesn't even work in the city in a high pressured job - just an office admin job. She got made redunant at 8 months pregnant. How's that fucking fair?

The system is crap and stacked against women. We get enough blame. I think we as women should stop adding to the bullshit that we are blamed for.

Older fathers do increase the risk. But the difference is that the type of men who keep putting off having children tend to not be particularly bothered about having them at all. If it turns out they've left it too late, meh, they don't really care.

@embarassednewname in my experience men play a massive part. Most women I know who want kids, are ready and able in their 30s. By that time, career is established and life is stable, and they’ve had adventures.

But can they find a man ready and willing too? Like finding a needle in a haystack! It’s so depressing. I have a friend who has frozen her eggs aged 35. She has been on every dating app going, is pretty and lovely, her own flat and job. But can she find a man? She’s nearly 40 now.

I also had similar. Had a child age 30. Split up from partner same year, had to wait 12 years to have another child. Tried to find another man willing to have more kids, really wanted more. Found it incredibly hard and honestly I went all out and was told I was attractive and eligible. Took me until age 40 to find a decent enough man, and then had a child aged 42, with special needs.

The message is to start trying early if you want to minimise the risk that it won't happen. If you're happy with some risk, that's absolutely fine, but obviously doctors are right to give us the information. Attitude to risk is a personal decision - no-one else can tell you whether you should be comfortable with eg a 10% chance that it won't end up happening, or 20%, or whatever. It's up to you.

There was a report out a few years ago that suggested ages to start trying if you want a certain number of children. I think it suggested 28 for two children. Obviously that is by no means saying that you can't have 2 children after that - but age always increases the risk that something could go wrong, and if something does go wrong and you need IVF, you ideally would want to start to have IVF before 35 if you want to maximise your chances that it will happen for you. I don't think there's a way of checking which eggs are viable before they implant them (could be mistaken there!) so You don't really want to do ivf if only a relatively small proportion are viable.

The point they were making in the report is that theres some (non negligible) risk that it won't happen if you start trying after 28 for 2 children. I definitely think this point is missed, because it's always countered with anecdotes about women who can. Nobody is denying that you probably can still have children later. It's about whether your comfortable taking some risk.

The information is obviously aimed at women who feel they do have a choice about when to start trying, it's legitimate to tell them when would be the ideal time - knowledge is power. For women who don't have a choice, all they can do is start trying when they're ready. They probably will still have 2 children (if that's what they want) if they start trying on their 30s, but they're will be some risk that they won't.

I don't think there's a way of checking which eggs are viable before they implant them (could be mistaken there!)

IVF is a procedure where they take your eggs out, check them, fertilise them, and look at how they develop. Then the embryos are transferred back, usually on day 3 or day 5 of development.

You know by that stage that the egg was fertile, but it still doesn't guarantee that the embryo will implant and form a successful pregnancy, or that that pregnancy will continue.