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?

Sorry BS, im trying not to take ofence to you references about 'educated women' knowing about the decline in fertility and it being common knowledge. Im sure you dont mean to offend, but it reads in a slightly patronising way. To me.

I think that part of the problem is that the 'common knowledge' that women are directly exposed to is largely anecdotal and the assumed 'common knowledge' is actually limited. The actual knowledge is mor likely to be sought when women are already in in the process of trying to conceive and not before, wich is where the knowledge would be most effective.

The biological clock ticking thing is referred to a lot but I think it's used as a euphemism for just getting older i.e I better hurry up and have kids before I'm too old to enjoy them.

There is a little bit of hope on the horizon for women with PCOS:

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126973.700-youthful-infertility-balanced-by-lateblooming-ovaries.ht ml

There is a possibility that fertility increases with age for this particular group of women.

I don't know, blueshoes. I ovulate around day 18-19, and the only times I have got pregnant (2 DCs, 2 miscarriages) have been times when circumstances have meant we've only managed to have sex once in the fertile window after a good week or more without. All the months where we very happily went for it every couple of days were complete washouts (this does make me wonder whether we have slight male factor issues that are compensated for by my supereggs ). So for me, "having sex regularly in a 10 day window around the midpoint of my cycle" just doesn't seem to work. I didn't deliberately use the fertility awareness stuff to plan our successful one-shot cycles (I give the credit for that to DH's employers for sending him out of town three times, and to a stomach bug that I had in the cycle where I conceived DD) but it does give me a possible credible explanation of what's going on and, should we decide to try for a third child, I might do it deliberately next time (what with my advancing age and all).

Some women have EWCM just before a period is about to start, yes -- I do, for example (well, not just before, but a few days before). And if you know about typical hormone cycles you can understand why that happens (there's a second, smaller, surge in oestrogen during the luteal phase, and it tends to be oestrogen that leads to EWCM). I didn't know about that until we started trying to conceive and I read TCOYF, by which time I'd been menstruating for the best part of twenty years.

I don't actually agree with the euphemism, dolly. Biological clock as in tick-tock-tick-tock is a biological imperative to reproduce before time runs out ie dire consequences to wait. We don't tend to use biological clock in relation to men, only women Bridget Jones-style, for this reason.

portandlemon, I respect your experience and if it works for you, go for it. May cause unnecessary stress in others and make the ttc-ing process more mechanical and forced (there are silly movies about this) and then there is the two-week-wait and all.

FWIW, my experience is that the months I was convinced I would not get pregnant because I did not do it within the time frame where the signs said I was most fertile, were the months I fell pregnant.

I just think conception is actually more random than we think. In fact, knowing how complicated the process is, it is probably a miracle I fell pregnant at all, old eggs and all.

That's what I mean blueshoes. Many women speak about their biological clock without realising the biological imperative (as evidenced by this thread).

For me, I found that the knowledge (common or not) that fertility drops off in one's thirties caused me more stress when I ttc-ed at 33, than if I did not know.

I was doing the equivalent of watching mucous, temperatures with a few months of not conceiving, talking to my GP etc. Convinced that there was a high chance of a problem.

I can imagine that if I did not conceive at 5 months (which to me was like an eternity) that I did, I would have investigated IVF within the next few months. If I did not conceive or miscarried, I would have blamed it on my leaving it too late. But LOTS of women in their twenties take more than a year to conceive or have fertility issues (not necessarily related to age of eggs) or miscarry. They don't beat themselves up for leaving it too late.

It is possible that women who have trouble conceiving in their 30s, 40s, might also have trouble conceiving in their 20 anyway. But the finger is immediately pointed at their age.

I am not for a moment saying not to inform women. But being overzealous in the message is not without downsides as well.

Oh yes. I think (and sorry if I implied otherwise) that for most people just stopping contraception and having regular sex is the way to go. As I said, I don't think all the cycle-understanding stuff is necessarily useful, in the majority of cases, for fertility purposes. But I do think it's something young women should know about, whether or not they are ever going to have any interest in having children. It's a shameful state of affairs (IMO) when young women are worried that they have an infection (and I've seen that several times on here and on other boards) because whoever was teaching them about human reproduction was too embarassed to say the word "mucus".

iggypiggy, sorry about your loss. It is a particularly cruel blow to lose the first child you conceive. I personally feel that in your early 30s, you have lots of time, but I appreciate that when you are in it, it is hard not to doubt yourself.

I am a panicker.

I wish you and your dh all the best and that it happens for you again sooner than you think or hope.

Still such a great thread! Re the comments about mens' role in all of this. I shall share a tale.

I dated a guy when I was 28 - we were really serious and I thought he was the one. Anyways we derailed a year into the relationship over what was a non negotiable for me. He asked me to convert to his religion (when he had known and agreed from very early on that I wouldnt change my religion). I was heartbroken and decided to end it.

In his last 'trying to save our relationship chat' with me...he (pretty much verbatim said)'you know, guys my age (mid 30's) arent interested in women our age. We want someone in their 20's so that they can have our children. Everyone knows that women in their 30's are less likely to be able to have children. So you had better reconsider your stance on converting,because at nearly 30, you may not find someone else' and many other emotions there are no symbols for.

I still ended it, despite his convincing argument. But was livid when I realised that there was this portion of men who had their fun and date people in a similar age bracket, but when it came to them being ready to settle down....would deliberately look for women a good 5-10 years younger than them!

So the answer to some extent,is look for the older guy - because they are going to be more likely to be ready to start a family a few years in. Some may say cynical and calculated....but in my experience it has proven to be true.

Do many people really plan meticulously?

I thought that women of my mothers generation sort of went with the flow - got married reasonably young, because it was the only way many could leave home, have a baby reasonably young, because there was less reliable contraception and anyway, you possibly hadn't been educated for a a career, and do it went on.

Fast forward, and I went with a differnt flow: very excited about my job, lots of economic independence early on, and a whole culture of being out there enjoying myself. I was having a ball in my 30s, out every night, drinking, off to international events, etc.

I was wondering about children, but not with suitable men. But of course, had I worked to an action plan, I wouldn't have been with such unsuitable father-material.

Then having come to the conclusion that I was atually happy to be without children, I started a new relationship, it all fell into place, and I was lucky that I was one of the (not so rare, really) women who conceive in their early 40s.

There are so many temptations and sources of fulfillment for women in their 30s now, it's hardly surprising that motherhood gets a bit sidelined.

If I had a dd I think I would be encouraging her to aim for a career and economic independence (as Sixspot says), and then to use that to buy the support system to have children early on.

But I must say I'm enjoying being an (older )mother. I'm hardly a freak of nature, and so what, if I'm the oldest mother in the playground, I'm simply a mother, and women of a wide variety of ages have children.

My heart goes out to anyone of any age who yearns for a pg that is not happening. It's an emotional pull, whatever the facts and wherefores.

Is it true that you're more fertile in the year after having a baby? EVen if you bf?

God dal21, that is appalling. I bet he found someone too.

iggypiggy - sorry for your loss. Your fertility does decline once you reach 35, there's no getting away from it, but you don't become infertile overnight. And you've conceived so your body knows how to do it which is brilliant. I had a MMC at 40 and then got pregnant again when I was 42 (it was my choice to wait) and it was all fine.

I'm sorry I haven't waded through the whole thread yet. Here's my tuppence worth.

I married at 23 after finishing university. I was one of the first of my peers to marry and I think everyone thought it a little odd. We started thinking about children when I had a scary false alarm at 22. That switched something on for me. We started seriously trying for a baby when I was 26. When my mum became aware of this, her attitude was "but you're really in no position to have a child are you?". Meaning married, yes - own house, yes - rich, no. She now has the same attitude about us having a second child.

I only achieved motherhood at the age of 30. And therein lies the problem. Women assume that they will get pregnant just like that. I assumed I would, and it just doesn't work that way. I thank God we started trying when we did. I desperately want another child, but on past performance I fear that the biological clock may beat me to it.

What I'm saying, basically, is that having a baby should not be seen as the icing on the cake when you have everything else. It is a fundamental part of life, not a luxury extra. But I think the previous generation is as culpable as this one for instilling that mentality into young women. I am now 32 and only a handful of my school/university colleagues are even settled down with a partner, let alone parents. A big wake up call is needed IMO.

My mum always said to me "you can plan when not to have children but you can't plan when to have them"

I have been with my husband now since 19 (now 33) met at Uni. Life plan was always to have family, preferably 4. But i never really thought about infertility at all until i was diagnosed with polycystic ovaries after some major pain. That set us into a spin, we got engaged at 26 and started trying. DS by IVF at age of 30. DD naturally at 32!

Honestly i wasnt ready before and am in hindsight glad of push otherwise could still be bobbing along with life.

Definately should be more information about fertility and planning to have or not to have family armed with all the facts.

Isnt that what we should be doing for all sisterhood? Not judging just arming with facts!!

This is a very interesting thread. I had my children at 37, 39 and 41. All conceived in first month of trying. I think I was aware of my biological clock but thought if I wasn't able to have children it would be ok (don't think that now). Now I would have liked to havehad children at around 30.

On the otherside of the coin, my niece fell pregnant in her last year at uni. (she was 21)and had a little boy and stayed with her partner. But their lifeis hard. They bought a small house so have a morgage to pay and they both have to work full time so see their son very little. I was able to be at home with the children with few money worried when they were young. when my niece started her first jobafter uni Iknow she missed out on a lot of the social side of your first job. Suddenly having decent money for once and going child free holidays, out for drinks after work etc. It's not the end of the world for her , but I am so glad Ihad that child free time in my 20s. And Iam a completely different mother to how I would havebeen in my 20s.

I am sorry, nikos, but you are exactly the example which largely does women a disservice!

There you are, three children starting at 37 and, as you say, all conceived with no trouble. But you are not the norm, and that is the problem. So many women think they'll do exactly as you did, and as this thread has amply demonstrated, have no idea that it's by no means a certainty and in fact becomes increasingly less likely that you can roll them out to order.

But fircone - that's her experience! It doesn't make it wrong and it is true that for some of us, conception is really easy. I got pregnant first time at 40 and 42. I was really lucky and I would never tell other women that they should leave it as long as I did but it's still valid.

Actually I was just reading the comments on the Guardian article (linked from News in MN) and some of them were interesting. There was the "this is an attack on modern Western women" angle, women who knew full well about declining fertility but didn't want any busybody NHS personnel informing them of the fact, and also one comment which said quite a lot: one woman said that forty isn't what it used to be and women look and act younger so they'll be able to bear children later than their forebears. Er.....

Oh dear - that's a bit tragic

the (many) fertility consultants I saw would always mention how women look and act younger these days but it makes no difference to the age of their eggs. not that anyone should think it would, but clearly it's one of those things people delude themselves about.

I wonder if it's an element of "I feel so youthful, it must be because I have the hormones of a 30-year-old, and that must mean that I'll have the fertility of a 30-year-old as well"

I have always known that having a youthful appearance and healthy body makes not one jolt of difference to the quality of my eggs. But then I have already ascertained that I am preternaturally ahead of the game as far as knowledge in this area is concerned.