do you think that it's possible to have a sensible conversation about awareness re falling fertility in the light of the other thread....

[Heathcliffscathy]

sorry about the humungous thread title...

but do you think we could talk about the question of putting off career to have babies/being aware of falling fertility as you age without resort to handbags at dawn?

i know it is a terribly emotional thing for all of us (me included massively). but is there room for discussing whether there should be a cultural seachange back to having your children younger...to avoid the pain and heartache of waiting til you're in your forties to start and struggling?

I suspect this may have already been said but I tend to view this from a feminist perspective. To me it seems that society/media etc. wholly disapproves of young (teens, v early twenties} mothers yet also shake their head and say you left it too late if you hit your thirties and then struggle to concieve.

The fact is in that window of your twenties when it seems to be acceptable to have a baby the majority of men available for the daddy job really aren't up for that sort of responsibility. They are "still a kid" themselves. How many times have I heard that?

But nobody says its their fault. Silly, selfish women.

Yes, wasabi, there is always something slightly misogynistic about saying to a woman that she'd better have children when she is young.

As in, you know what, whatever you might have achieved along the way, at the end of the day you are still a prisoner of your biology so KNOW YOUR PLACE.

My father, a doctor, used to tell me about declining fertility and he is of his generation. It never sounded good coming from him.

But if a knowing woman mentor were to tell me, I would take the message better.

wasabi, I think society and the media (or certain parts of them) disapprove of whatever women do regardless
We (women) just can't win.

I cannot see the problem of having scientific fact pointed out to me, personally!

The truth may be unpalatable but I do prefer to be informed rather than ignorant.

Totally agree, BonsoirAnna. Who cares about being offended or messages being anti-feminist. The whole discussion here is that many women are misinformed or completely uniformed.

Just give women the facts. And however unfair it is, you just can't fight nature.

I've an idea - how about they hand a leaflet out when 30+ women go for a smear test? Just a table of fertility charts, no emotive messages with images of heart-broken career women. Ok, some people might well be miffed, but many others would certainly appreciate the wake-up call. I know I would have.

fircone I thought that was a good idea too. at a pap smear, no emotional wrangling or manipulation.
Just facts.

Er, actually I don't think I turned up for any smear tests for about ten years though happy to report it's a lot less uncomfortable these days with nice soft brush (sorry if tmi).

30 is way too late. We need to inform young people about the fertility facts during sex education at school.

I don't object to women being given the facts. Far from it.

I do object to the facts being dressed up in a load of "well this is what happens if you will insist on having a career" Daily Mail type bollocks.

There is a big difference.

I think denial is about as anti-feminist as it gets! Denial about fertility facts, career facts, childcare facts - anything that prevents women from making more informed choices about their lives is deeply anti-feminist in my book.

I absolutely agree, we desperately need more information. I had no idea that fertility dips at 37, nor that you have a better chance of getting pregnatn in the first year after having a baby. I wish I had known and wasn't trying ttc dc2 at 37, 2 1/2 years after my first child was born. I just had NO idea, I thought because I had had ds at 35 I would be fine until 40/41 ish

I'm not sure at school is the best time for the information to have any real value but I can't think of a better alternative. Will keep thinking.

School is society's way of educating people, though, isn't it? It may not be perfect, but it is basically our main vehicle.

Obviously you can reinforce the message through eg the NHS and the media, such that adults continue to hear it.

Here's an idea that hasn't been put forward -a warning on birth control packs akin to those on cigarettes - it could work

The options seem to be

• as part of sex ed at school
• from GPs during regular health checks
• at 30+ cervical smear test
• a campaign of some sort

re: 2ndary infertility

Would it work if the information was provided by midwives/healthvisitors?

The 6 week check with the GP? (still too soon
probably)

During the early stage of first pregnancy could be a good time (when we are voraciously reading all we can get ours hands on)

They actually do the opposite at 6 week checks right now. My 6 week check with DD1 was a factory production line where a disinterested (female) GP went through the PND checklist, thrust a contraception leaflet in my hands, gave me a strict warning that I could still be fertile before my periods came back, and then tried to push me out of the door. I was not impressed.

I've just realised on reading back my post that it could come across as a bit crass

Apologies if this is the case. I too am genuinely concerned about the issues that this thread addresses - perhaps thinking out loud is not the best way to post on MN.

I still think the men need educating just as much as the women though!

Even if women know all this about declining fertility at 35 etc, trying to convey this to men, in a way that doesn't come across as desperate instead of just presenting the facts, is hard.

If men were aware as much as women then maybe they would get a move on earlier if they want a family with the woman they love.

There's no use only educating half of the population group required for reproduction.

MrsTittleMouse - that has been my experience too.

True Lissya but how?

Lissya - Of the ideas in my post (most of which have come from this thread) just the cervical smear one excludes men.

I have no idea how we educate men, except for perhaps when they're children. Teenage and young adult men tend (and I realise that I'm generalising here) to have to keep up a macho front of not being "under the thumb". This seems to involve avoiding having children early in life, as it cuts down on your freedom, drinking and puts an end to sex (at least for a while).

Perhaps the onus is on women, that if a man does the "yes, but not yet" thing that so many seem to do, that he then gets the swift elbow. I hate that though, to put the burden on the woman, yet again. Being constantly dumped might be enough to reverse the culture of "not yet" though. And so many really lovely men do it! If it was all complete arses who didn't give a damn, it would be so much easier!

Who does not know that fertility declines in your 30s and 35 is a watershed? That fact has been knocking around for ages and ages. You'd have to be pretty isolated and close-minded to not know. Perhaps I am naive.

I am not for suppressing scientific facts to avoid hurting feelings because I believe decisions should be taken on an informed basis. But to bang on about declining fertility as an abstract fact is not helpful because in itself, it is just one out of so many competing variables which determine when women settle down to have a family.

So a daily mirror style approach or a misogynistic tone to the message would alienate and be counterproductive.

If however, the message came from a sympathetic person (I mentioned an older woman mentor) who has been there before and can discuss the pros and cons of choosing having babies young or later in life or even not having babies in a holistic way, with real life examples and strategies, that is far more powerful.

One consequence of women having children earlier is that they are likely to have more children over their lifetime than if they started later.

The NHS would save money (arguably) from fewer people wanting IVF (maybe because there will always be young people with infertility problems anyway) or complicated pregnancies and deliveries.

But where Britain's birthrate is already above the replacement rate of 2, is having a higher birth rate necessarily all good or would it negatively impact on public resources in other ways? In other words, saving money for the NHS would strain the budget in other ways.

So perhaps the public service value of encouraging women to reproduce earlier is somewhat mixed.

actually the birth rate has been running below 2 for quite a while. It's now 1.95 and was last 2.0 in 1973.

more births = more workers = more taxes to fund pensions of the ageing population.