Today's topic on Oprah.

New research shows that a woman's fertility starts to decline around 27, as opposed to her late 30s, as previously thought.

Were you aware of this? How are you taking charge of your own fertility?

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2002

Answers

There was also news about men's declining fertility. That is, it rapidly declines starting in the mid-to-late 30's.

The good news is that these reports are about the chances of conceiving given an individual menstrual cycle, and not that actual chances of being able to have a child. That is, while your chances of conceiving in a given month decline, your overall chances of successfully conceiving a child are ... well, I don't believe they were reported. They should be much less affected, however.

As far as what I'm doing, it's the same thing I do everyday, Pinky...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2002

I read that damned new book, and spent several choice days crying into a towel in the bathroom over it. Then I called my doctor, who told me only about 40% of her patients over 30 get pregnant without fertility assistance, and much fewer after 35 and that those celebrity babies over 40 are nearly always with either IVF or more commonly, donated eggs.

I kind of feel like I was lyed to my whole life about this - being told 40 was the cutoff age for having kids, and finding out I should have started in my late 20s.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

My question is: how is this information going to change the way people plan their families? Recent studies say children do best with two parents who are married. Now they're telling us we have to get married, have kids before we're 27, AND make it last forever. Are we going to see a lot of young 20-somethings marrying the first person who comes along (a recipe for divorce) and having kids with them immediately? Even worse -- will they do it before they have established careers and can afford them?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

I'm only a little anxious. I know I'm not going to be ready for a baby in two years, but I also know that in four years, I might. 29 isn't too far away from 27.

And The Jeff and I have already talked about our timeframes for these things, and have both agreed on a tentative schedule. What's weird is that I'm the one pushing things back, saying let's wait a little longer for this step and that step. I think the fact that I'm absolutely sure we'll get there makes me in much less of a hurry, if that makes sense.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Salon.com has a good article today on the same topic:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/04/23/hewlett_book/index.html

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

I'd like to reinforce what Fred said. The numbers quoted were for women trying to conceive in the FIRST MONTH. The article I originally read on Netscape's home page said it may take a several months longer for older women.

My gynecologist told me if I was going to have another baby I should do at 39, as fertility falls off after 40.

I became pregnant at 33 in one month. See? It depends on the woman. (I also know a woman who had problems staying pregnant at 35. Her eggs were no longer viable.)

I recently got the brilliant idea of trying to become pregnant (I'm 40). I give it 6 months with no help from drugs and if nothing happens, c'est la vie. There's always adoption! I'll let you know what happens!

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

. . . about 40% of her patients over 30 get pregnant without fertility assistance . . .

That actually sounds higher than I'd expected. I think I've been told that even at peak fertility, your shot of conceiving during any cycle, without help, is only about 70-75%. So a perfectly healthy young couple could go months without getting pregnant and an older couple could luck out on the first try.

And, hell, I'm 23 and there are times when I've wondered if I'm fertile at all. I don't have any sort of time frame for when I want to have a child -- The Nonsmoker wants kids by the time he's 36, but considering that he's 31 now and has at least a year of school ahead of him, sticking to that timetable is not exactly high on our list of priorities.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

I've expressed this elsewhere, but I think this is just a terror article, designed to get women who are tired of reading about how to lose 10 pounds in 10 days to buy the magazine. These articles have been everywhere lately, and it's just one more thing for women to feel pressure over, one more thing to fear.

More and more women are having plenty of trouble conceiving much younger than their late 30s and their 40s. I think it's always been known that the later you wait, the harder it may be, and it's just being brought up to strike fear in women.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Bjork is pregnant, for what it's worth, and her son is 15.

Rosie O'Donnell's 34-year-old partner is pregnant, and the article I read specified that it was a routine artificial insemination -- i.e. no fertility drugs.

My mother, from what I understand, had no trouble getting pregnant with my little brother, and she was 31 when he was born.

Et cetera, et cetera. I suspect that while fertility may decline in general, individual fertility is much less easily classified.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Okay, I think the point of this book is not you're-going-have-trouble- at-32, I think the point is, if your career is your focus, you can't simply wait until you feel like it to try and have kids, because by then your body might not feel like it anymore.

Women may have a lot more things at their grasp in 2001 than they did in 1971, but maintaining healthy eggs into your 40s is not one of them. If becoming a mother is in your life plan, then you just might have to shift your career road. Maybe it's "unfair" but it's also biology.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Are you are a victim of statistics? What does your heart tell you? What is the point of your questions? When people ask questions like this my impression is that family planning becomes something akin to investing; you want to start a family at the perfect time in your life--kind of like the optimum buy low and sell high idea. Listen to your heart. When YOUR children come into your life everything around you take a whole new meaning. It's something I don't have the words to describe. If you're intelligent, thoughtful, and loving there is no wrong time or best time to have babies. Just let them happen. Your best choice will be made when you decide to STOP making babies. But don't agonize over that either...listen to your heart.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

I seem to be in the minority here. I do find it a little panic- worthy. I mean, I'm still very young, but I wonder if I'll ever find anyone. I don't even date. The added pressure of knowing I better hurry-the-f* up is pretty unpleasant. I really want kids. There's no guarantee that will happen, of course. On the other hand, for some of us, it's not a "what happens, happens" kind of thing. I really want children and the idea of not being being able to is really unpleasant. Especially considering (TMI, I know), my mom went through menopause at 37.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Okay, I think the point of this book is not you're-going-have- trouble- at-32, I think the point is, if your career is your focus, you can't simply wait until you feel like it to try and have kids, because by then your body might not feel like it anymore

Actually, from the interview of the authors I heard on NPR, I believe that this is exactly not what they wanted to convey. They said that a woman's body at 45 years old is just as capable of bearing a child as that of a 20 year old, but it will be harder to conceieve.

My fear about family planning is much more basic than this. If I have my first child at 30 (which is starting to seem like an optimistic hope), I'll be 48 when s/he starts college. I don't need a fertility study to tell me that I'd like to have my children earlier.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

"They said that a woman's body at 45 years old is just as capable of bearing a child as that of a 20 year old, but it will be harder to conceieve."

I don't think this is exactly true - because starting at about 34, the miscarriage rate for pregnancy starts to sharply increase, and by the age of about 40, something like a quarter of all naturally conceived pregnancies will end in miscarriage (the rate for under 30 women is about 6%, for comparison). The rates for miscarriage get even higher for women over 35 using IVF methods, which is how many older women get pregnant in the first place, and also with conditions that tend to become more pronounced the longer you have them - the miscarriage rate for women over 35 with a history of fibroids is more than 40%.

I think there is this weird assumption almost all women have (I know I had it) that fertility is just fine until the magical age of about 40, so it would be fine to wait until the late 30's to have a baby. And we see older celebrity pregnancies and it reinforces the notion - I am glad to see more people stepping up and saying that just isn't true - I don't think anyone should rush into parenthood just because they are the exact optimum age, but at the same time we should all have the facts in front of us, instead of just assuming we can easily have kids until we are at least 40.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

I think I've been told that even at peak fertility, your shot of conceiving during any cycle, without help, is only about 70-75%.

It's even lower than that, WG--you have about a 25% chance of conception every month, and that's if you're at the age of the highest chance of conceiving. As you get older, it declines.

I can't remember who said it, but it was something like "I'm positively sure it'll happen." Let me tell you something, sister. Don't be so sure. Poor Mad Mad has been without a little baby Chao for nearly three years now, and it ain't for lack of trying. I certainly thought the same--I mean, it's clear I can conceive, right? I remember the days when Master V and I were so sure of ourselves. Unfortunately, those days are over.

I'm not trying to rain on anybody's fertility parade (well, I might be a little bitter, so maybe I am), I'm just saying: Sometimes it's not as easy as you thought it would be.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Yeah, but where's the choice? I'm 29 and I have no children, but I'd like to in a few years. Right now, however, is not a good time. It's a better time than, say, two years ago, but I can't currently afford it and I don't feel physically ready.

If it happened by accident that I got pregnant, it would not be the worst thing in the world - as a matter of fact, I think the MOC and I would be pretty excited (and also worried) - but for now I am taking that little pill every single day at exactly the same time, and happy to do it.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Aww, AB, here's hoping the crane comes to ChaoHaus soon.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Folks, being a mere male, I am certainly less of an expert than you women are. That said, I'm under the impression that he big problem for you is not so much whether you can get pregnant or not, but rather that children born to "older" women are a lot more likely to have problems, e.g. birth defects, etc. I believe that the odds of having a child with Downs Syndrome, for instance increase substantially as you approach forty, and get worse after that.

Not that I'm dissing Downs kids; I know several of them, and they are as lovable and deserving as anybody else. It's just sad; they have so many more problems than other kids, and have such a short life expectancy.

I personally recommend adoption. I had one home-made baby, then adopted two more. I can vouch for the fact that blood is NOT thicker than water! I love my two younger kids beyond belief. They are super, and we actually have a bit closer relationship than I have in my home grown kid, in many ways.

I'm sure you all realize that we need to keep the population in check, too. Let's all do our parts!

Best wishes.

One who's been there.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2002

This freaks me out. I did NOT want to be a parent in my 20's, thankyouverymuch. I really don't think I'll be emotionally and financially ready by that time. I'm pretty wiggy on the idea of kids in general (mainly because I prefer adopting teenagers to babies and giving birth is scary), but the boy wants MY biological kids. And well, before I hit 30 (though that's mainly for his own time limit than mine). Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I don't need this kind of extra pressure on top of the rest of it.

Yes, I think this is going to cause a big rush of 22-year-olds marrying the first person they can so they can start breeding early. Which I honestly don't think is the best thing for anybody. Especially since when you do have kids in your 20's, you can't financially catch up that loss of money and career time later either. You're screwed either way.

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2002

"You're screwed either way. "

Well, yes. That's the point. It's what you DO with the screwing that's important to this discussion, eh?

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

(warning: rant)

Sometimes I get impatient when issues like this are raised, because the news media never asks the important questions....like, what other reasons might women put off child-bearing? Could it be, oh, I don't know, ECONOMIC? A working woman faces severe economic penalties to raise kids, whether she wants them or not...healthcare, child care, lost work time, no *paid* maternity leave. It isn't about losing the corner office, it's about going on welfare (if you're lucky), moving in with your parents, or working three jobs while your kid's in shitty daycare.

It seems like all the women mentioned were rich, successful (white) executives who just blew off having kids. Not women like myself, in my early 30's, who would have a kid in a second if it wouldn't mean declaring bankruptcy. Who is alternately hopeful/terrified that nature will step in and decide for her despite birth control.

I get so angry that something as important as the choice of when you reproduce is becoming more and more a rich woman's luxury. How many struggling women in their early 20's can realistically *afford* a child, married or not? In their 30's, anymore?

I chose a profession that means years of struggle for not a lot of cash. I had to choose it, to be fulfilled as a person. I also married a man I love whose profession puts him in a similar situation. In our society, this means I may have also "chosen" to be childless, no matter how much I would love to be a mom. And I think a lot of women are in the same boat, and I have no use for people who insinuate that I did this for frivolous reasons, or just "didn't notice" that time was passing. Believe me, I noticed.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2002