Dangers of Delaying Motherhood Article

posted 3 years ago in TTC
Post # 5
Member
6884 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: March 2014 - A castle!

Well seeing as how I won’t start TTC until probably 32 this makes me depressed :/ 

Post # 6
Member
1670 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

I didn’t meet my FI until I was 31, we are starting right after the wedding when I will be 34. I didn’t intentionally delay having children, this is just when it happened for me. Articles like this are fear-mongering and shaming. I have discussed the situation and the potential risks with my doctor (as all women should do) and she does not think I will have any problems. Her advice – healthy weight, diet, and exercise.  My mother had her children later in life as well. Women should talk with their doctors about their individual situation. 

Post # 7
Member
1670 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

@FutureDrAtkins:  My mother had her first (me) at 32 and her second at 35. All of my friends are having their first pregnancies now (at 33ish) and so far, no problems with any of them. Please talk to your doctor and don’t take a daily mail article to heart.

Post # 8
Member
6884 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: March 2014 - A castle!

@CaroBee:  I’m in the US so I’m not sure why no one likes Daily Mail, can you explain? I’m guessing it’s maybe the equivalent of Fox News over here? My mom had me at 27 and my brother at 34, so I know it is possible. Sometimes I just worry. 

Post # 9
Member
863 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: October 2014

@lazybee123:  Why does no one ever talk about the dangers of delaying fatherhood? That’s what I want to know. Because older fathers are in the same boat as older mothers in terms of possible birth defects. 

@DarlingClementine:  Exactly. I don’t think I’ve ever read an intelligent, well researched article from the Daily Mail. They’re basically the British Fox News. 

Post # 10
Member
1750 posts
Buzzing bee

Yup, sounds about right.

It’s not a death sentence or a guarantee that problems will occur, but it makes sense that the risks for certain issues would rise in the thirties, especially when you take into account lifestyles and things like health, diet, and drug use. That’s a part of aging. 

Not everyone will experience problems if they delay motherhood, of course, but it’s certainly something to consider. Fertility doesn’t last forever, and egg and sperm quality doesn’t stay the same. 

This article didn’t strike me as “shaming” or anything like that, just informative. I am aware of The Dailymail and it’s reputation, and even when I take that into account this article does not seem bad to me. Saying older women have increased risks for certain issues is simply stating a fact. It did not say all women would have these issues, just some. Nothing in this article is outrageous to me. 

There are plenty of articles about male fertility and sperm quality decreasing as age increases. I have seen segments on this very issue on talk shows, health shows, and news programs. Female fertility is discussed far more, that is true, but male fertility is talked about and written about as well. 

Post # 11
Member
2576 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: November 2013

@Ruby-Redshoes:  Why does no one ever talk about the dangers of delaying fatherhood? That’s what I want to know. Because older fathers are in the same boat as older mothers in terms of possible birth defects. 

This. You don’t see any articles about this, which only helps prove PP’s point that these articles are doing nothing but shaming women. Think about it. What happens when most mothers procreate in their 20s? Their careers either die or get severely handicapped. They then don’t make a lot of money or have to depend entirely on their husbands for financial support. Yes, there are a few that continue working and climbing the ladder, but there are quite frankly not that many that can either afford to do so or choose to do so. Articles like this have an ulterior motive and feed on women’s insecurities to effectively relay their message. 

Post # 12
Member
8593 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2013

Your fertility doesn’t do a nose dive at 30, all it does is slowly (slowly!) decline over time.  After age 35 fertility declines more rapidly (like 3% per year) but it’s not anything to live in fear over.  These articles are definitely fear-mongering.  I don’t think you have any cause for (real) concern until you’re over 35/nearing 40.

There are so many women who have absolutely no problems having kids from 30-40.   If you are going to have major problems conceiving, you are probably going to have them anyway (whether you are 25 or 35), you just don’t have as much time to waste when you’re 35.

Also agree with PP on fatherhood, where are the danger articles for that?  Older fathers also face declining fertility/quality.

Good thing I got pregnant this year (at 29) and not next, probably wouldn’t have happened after 30!  Whew!

Post # 15
cherrypieBee
1059 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2008 - A tiny town just outside of Glacier National Park

Oh hi, I’m a Daily Mail article with scare tactics and sensationalism, just like every other Daily Mail article! (It’s a tabloid paper that now has an unfortunate following due to poor source-checking among FB users and linkbaiting for social media.)

Post # 16
Member
7664 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

@FutureDrAtkins:  It’s a right wing rag which has an agenda and doesn’t give you all the facts. Not as bad as Fox news, but pretty awful all the same.

30 is the average age of first birth in the UK. I fail to see how that is “defying nature”. This is another attempt by the Daily Hate to shame working mothers. Also, a 20% increase is minute… we are talking something like a 1 in 10,000 chance becoming a 1.2 in 10,000 chance, if not even less!

See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Another bee linked me to it!

Leave a comment


Sent weekly. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Find Amazing Vendors