The stigma against single, childless people (therapy, men, mom, husband)

[RamenAddict]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

I think you're making it sound all too easy to get pregnant late in life. It's not, even with invitro. The live birth rate for women getting in vitro at 40 years old is only 20%. It is also extremely expensive, and tough on a marriage (my niece went through it in her late 20's, it took them several tries) At 40, chances of conceiving naturally are only 5%.


https://www.yourfertility.org.au/everyone/age


More importantly, the rate of Down Syndrome for a 33 year old woman is 1 in 420. The rate for a 43 year old woman is 1 in 35.

I'm not saying no one can get pregnant after 40, everyone knows or has people in their family who have. But a woman who wants kids should not fool herself into thinking she has to age 45. It is different for every woman, some will be done by 38, others 40, and a few into their 40's. And just continuing to menstruate is not a sign you can still have a baby, which too many women mistakenly believe.

The chance of conceiving naturally is given on a monthly basis, not overall. A 40-year-old woman will have a 5% chance of conceiving naturally each month, not a 5% chance of conceiving overall. My mom had me when she was 30 after trying one month and my sister at 36 after trying one year... It typically takes a bit longer when you are older. When you are older, the egg quality goes way down and the risk of miscarriage also goes way up. That is the real issue for older women. By age 45, if you can get pregnant, only about half of pregnancies will make it to term.

However, many women now are freezing their eggs when they are younger if they know they are not in a position to have kids right away. I have one coworker who was in the military and I think she was single, so having kids was out of the question. She froze her eggs and when she transitioned into a civilian career, had two children successfully in her 40s with the frozen eggs.

I doubt most women are trying to get pregnant after 40. I am in my 40s now and would never get pregnant at my age. I worked for a social service agency that served people with severe developmental disabilities and so many mothers were 40+. It just wasn’t worth it for me.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by RamenAddict

The chance of conceiving naturally is given on a monthly basis, not overall. A 40-year-old woman will have a 5% chance of conceiving naturally each month, not a 5% chance of conceiving overall. My mom had me when she was 30 after trying one month and my sister at 36 after trying one year... It typically takes a bit longer when you are older. When you are older, the egg quality goes way down and the risk of miscarriage also goes way up. That is the real issue for older women. By age 45, if you can get pregnant, only about half of pregnancies will make it to term.

However, many women now are freezing their eggs when they are younger if they know they are not in a position to have kids right away. I have one coworker who was in the military and I think she was single, so having kids was out of the question. She froze her eggs and when she transitioned into a civilian career, had two children successfully in her 40s with the frozen eggs.

I doubt most women are trying to get pregnant after 40. I am in my 40s now and would never get pregnant at my age. I worked for a social service agency that served people with severe developmental disabilities and so many mothers were 40+. It just wasn’t worth it for me.

I have 2 friends who actually got pregnant accidentally around age 40. With one, she and her partner now have 2 kids. The first was born very premature and was only a couple of pounds when born, the second baby was fine. The other friend's baby unfortunately had Downs.



I know it's not impossible, I just hate that women are being told they have until this or that age, and many of them count on it, only to end up heartbroken. It also ignores the high Downs risk. Freezing eggs is a good option for women who know they want kids one day..

[chiociolliscalves]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

I don't know any woman who didn't have children because "society" taught them not to. Women are well aware of our time limits. I have found the majority of moms I know always knew they'd be moms. Others like me never felt a maternal instinct. I have never wanted to interact with little babies, it doesn't make me warm and fuzzy. I don't feel negativity toward them, I just never felt a pull to be maternal. Due to that I probably would not have been a great mom.

But even had I wanted to, for whatever reasons (losing my dad at early age probably) I never chose men who wanted that life with me. It wasn't because I didn't try to find a partner, I've been seeking male love as long as I can remember. It took me till 50-some to find my life partner, but I spent ages 26-38 living with a man who would not make that official commitment.



I have friends who didn't have messed up childhoods too, that wanted kids desperately, and couldn't find that person. It is harder today. One of them was a sort of "late bloomer" looks-wise, who dated with the hope of finding a partner and having kids, but she wasn't successful until it was too late. Another friend was religious and wouldn't get physical outside of a committed relationship. I know she wanted kids, but apparently it's out of fashion to wait today.

My point is, for a variety of reasons, it is harder today to find a partner. There are a variety of reasons why women don't have kids, very few of them because "society told them they didn't have to". Women who have a strong maternal instinct are going to try to find a partner to have a family with regardless of what society says. Those are the women who should be having kids. It is an instinct, not a societal teaching.

IMO it was much worse in the past when women who did not have a maternal instinct felt like they had to get married and have kids anyway. I wonder how many kids had crappy, neglectful or abusive childhoods because they were borne to moms who never wanted kids but had to have a family to survive both financially and in society.

Yes, I know. Particularly in this country, many people cling to the belief that all their choices and behaviors were done independently of society. Rugged individualists. In fact, most every decision you make and every behavior in which you engage is coated in and determined by society. What you eat, what you wear, your politics, whom you date, the religion you practice/don't practice, et cetera, are all embedded in societal norms/values/beliefs.

The message to females from within the family, school and the media has changed significantly. As someone on the frontlines, I can't even imagine today anyone at school telling girls that staying at home to be a mother is something to which to aspire. It doesn't happen. Instead, we push them towards college, where some of the worst advice and some of the most toxic messages one could ever manufacture, are heaped on them in spades. And the adding insult to injury, they're embedded in a culture of noncommittal sex, which overwhelmingly benefits the males, not the females. This pattern continues after college and then eventually, many of these unfortunate women find themselves at an age where they can no longer attract men who are interested in having families. That's a cultural tragedy and it has ramifications in all sectors of society, not to mention on those health markers I mentioned.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves

Yes, I know. Particularly in this country, many people cling to the belief that all their choices and behaviors were done independently of society. Rugged individualists. In fact, most every decision you make and every behavior in which you engage is coated in and determined by society. What you eat, what you wear, your politics, whom you date, the religion you practice/don't practice, et cetera, are all embedded in societal norms/values/beliefs.

The message to females from within the family, school and the media has changed significantly. As someone on the frontlines, I can't even imagine today anyone at school telling girls that staying at home to be a mother is something to which to aspire. It doesn't happen. Instead, we push them towards college, where some of the worst advice and some of the most toxic messages one could ever manufacture, are heaped on them in spades. And the adding insult to injury, they're embedded in a culture of noncommittal sex, which overwhelmingly benefits the males, not the females. This pattern continues after college and then eventually, many of these unfortunate women find themselves at an age where they can no longer attract men who are interested in having families. That's a cultural tragedy and it has ramifications in all sectors of society, not to mention on those health markers I mentioned.

I just don’t agree with you that this is the reason women are not having children. And I still think it was much worse when women who did not have a maternal instinct had children anyway because of societal pressure. That is the difference, pressure. No one is pressuring women not to have children. On the contrary, I think we are now told we could have it all.

I just know a lot of childless women, and none of them are high powered career women. None of them (again in my circles) chose it because they chose to pursue a career instead. Little girls are still being given dolls to dress and to nurse as children. Not as much is changed as you believe.

I also don’t think most teachers are career women to the exclusion of families. The vast majority of teachers Keita 12th grade do have children. And now the kids see them pregnant, because I don’t have to go hide from society when they are pregnant. I just simply do not think that message is being spread that girl should not grow up to have children I just don’t.

[PriscillaVanilla]

I only know one childless woman, who has the high-powered career. The rest have ordinary jobs. Many people I know - both women and men - saw their careers fall apart during the recession years. Now they have lots of gaps on their resume or they had to go back to school to re-train for a new career.

Also, there are many people who are childless by circumstance instead of childless by choice. Those circumstances include: not being finding the right partner, long term illness, disability, financial instability, incarceration. The list goes on. They may have wanted to have children but their life circumstances just didn't allow for it.

[That_One_Girl]

Originally Posted by ComeCloser

Seriously?

Married people tend to hang out with other married people because its safer for the marriage than hanging out with single people.

People with kids tend to hang out with people with kids because other people with kids are empathetic, can offer advice if needed and the kids have other kids to play with while the adults hang out.

Single people tend to be looking for other single people so that they will no longer be alone.

None of this is really true in my experience. It might be somewhat true when it comes to making new friends. It's definitely not true when it comes to long-term friends.

None of my friends are going to be worried about be stealing their husbands. Why would they be my friend at all if that was even the slightest concern?

Seeking out other single people so you won't be alone is dating. That's different than hanging with your friends.

Suggesting that childfree individuals are not empathetic to their parent friends is just rude. I've provided countless hours of listening, given advice, and even helped my friends with their kids in various ways. You think an adult can't give another adult advice about their kids unless they are a parent themselves? That's just silly. Many of my parent friends have come to me for advice because they trust in my intelligence and knowledge of the world. There's a lot of advice you can give a parent that doesn't require being a parent. For example, maybe I know about a certain medical condition their kid has, or maybe a kid in my family went through something their kid is going through, etc.

Think outside the box.

Originally Posted by Crazy-Cat-Lady

And I wish I could start a family, but you need go have a willing partner to do so and that's the problem....

Okay, if this is the case, it's time to stop wallowing. Even the fact that you've called yourself "Crazy cat lady" on this account says a lot. Maybe you mean the title in a funny way (I love cats too), but you have to know that term has a stigma and usually refers to older ladies who never married and had children and who are viewed negatively by society, so WHY label yourself that??

I feel like you need to kind of take inventory of your own attitude and energy. I get that it sucks you haven't found what you wanted yet. Believe me, I tried finding a man to have kids with for a LONG time, and nothing ever worked out. I got lucky that I ended up happier without kids anyway, but if that's not the case for you, I'd do something to lift your spirits and confidence, get out there and begin dating ASAP.

You're still quite young and you have time. Hell, at 36, even I probably have time if I truly wanted to. You never know what life might bring, so don't give up. (And if you currently are dating, keep going and don't give up.)

Originally Posted by stan4

I have never hung out with other married people bc "it's safer." That's ridiculous and also, lots of married people cheat with other married people. That comment is silly on its face.

Right? The way some people think is so strange and limited. I just don't understand. It's definitely common for affairs to occur between married couples who hang out with each other. I'd say it's probably more common if anything since single people are usually out having sex or dating and doing their own thing, whereas unhappy married couples are just stuck. It's easy to become attracted to someone who's a close friend, especially when everyone is married so people assume it's safe to be close and convince themselves that person is "like a sister to me" until one day something happens.

People develop feelings sometimes. It can happen no matter if the person is married or single or whatever. The only way to avoid that would be to become a hermit couple and never talk to anyone else.

Originally Posted by Northside904

we have an ironclad agreement that if our relationship goes too far south to where it can't be fixed, we go our separate ways.

Nice! This is how I think relationships should be, and what I'll be looking for out of relationships in the future. Love should be free. It shouldn't come with chains and locks. I just want fall in love with fun, awesome people and support each other and if we're not happy at some point, we can both move on, because part of supporting someone is helping them follow the path to their greatest happiness. If that's not with me, that's okay.

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

I think dating is difficult for everyone. People with kids who are dating have the same pool we have, and I think dating with small kids is much harder than dating without kids.

It's hard to find someone you truly like, for sure. It's even harder to find someone you truly like who also has a similar lifestyle and goals as you.

I think it's super hard for highly strict childfree people who aren't open to their partner having kids. But as someone who IS open to that, I think it puts me in a good position. I've had a lot of people tell me that a childfree woman in her 30s who doesn't have any baggage or exes or kids to bring to the table is a rare gem.

However, I've also had to dump a few people because I found out they wanted to have MORE kids with me, which was frustrating. I'm willing to accept and love their children but I'm not willing to create more. Hopefully I'll meet someone who's okay with that one day. I've met a handful but unfortunately we didn't click on other levels.

But yeah, it's hard for everyone to find lasting love. I'm becoming more and more open to short-term flings and just having fun the older I get. It doesn't seem worth it to stress out trying to find a life partner when it doesn't work out long-term anyway half the time.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

People in places like New York have kids without bothering to get married (sadly).

LOL.

Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla

I think what is not acknowledged openly is that it's financially more difficult to be single (in many cases). And having roommates doesn't help because a roommate can't put you on their health insurance plan or life insurance, and there's no safety net of a second income if one loses their job. Of course people will argue it into the ground that it's harder financially to be married, but it's not; it is only harder financially to be married if one is married to a financially irresponsible person, for example. But a married couple with two incomes usually has more financial stability, especially if they are DINKs (Double Income, No Kids).

Yep you nailed it. I make and save much more money now that I'm single. I've done better in ALL areas of my life since becoming single. Why?

Because the men I was with were not only financial drains but emotional ones as well. I can't even tell you how many days I had to call in sick to work and miss out on money because my severely unstable ex kept me up all night in a screaming fight. He never kept a job longer than 6 months in all the years we were together, but I might've been able to live with that had he also not been super irritable with a very bad temper and just extremely hard to live with. He drained so much of my life force.

I tricked myself into thinking I needed his partnership to live. Because I could "never make enough money" on my own. The part I was missing is that when someone isn't stressing you the hell out and making you miserable and terrified every single minute you're awake, you amazingly begin to have PLENTY of energy to work hard and make the money you need. My income doubled and then tripled and then quadrupled in the years after I left him. And I am doing the same type of work.

Most of my other relationships aside from him had similar issues. The guys were not all so angry and scary, but they all had serious issues getting and keeping jobs. Many of them also lived beyond their means and were in terrible debt, which hindered by ability to live in nice apartments and kept me in bug-infested ghetto places that were dangerous.

And this problem is twofold because once you're in a few of these relationships in a row, you lose a lot of self-esteem. You feel like you ARE a ghetto person and that's all you deserve. And in turn, you don't have the confidence to meet and pursue the men who are actually emotionally and financially stable and WOULD consider supporting you and a child.

This is one reason I quit dating to work on myself. I needed a long break between the type of men I used to attract and the men I will hopefully attract from now on. Because NOW, I actually have my **** together, have money in the bank, and am doing quite well.

So for me, it's a thousand times easier and more financially beneficial to be single. I've just never come across a romantic situation with a man that didn't make my life much worse. And it's sad, because like I said before, when I was younger, I really did want a family. Maybe if I hadn't made such mistakes in choosing the wrong men for my first few adult relationships, everything would have been different. But it is what it is. I enjoy my life now a lot and I think everything happens for a reason.

I'm only saying all this because I want people to understand that finding a nice, normal, sane man who makes enough money to support a wife and child is NOT easy. I've seen very few people ever have that situations. Most of my friends' romantic lives have been similar to mine, they are just now divorced and have children with men just like the one I was with...

Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves

I've only realized that after getting married and having a child. You simply don't have the responsibilities to manage when you're single and childless and having those things makes you responsible in ways that you cannot understand when you're on your own.

It's totally unsurprising to find the rates of isolation, suicide and depression skyrocketing as we try to remake Western society according to these new principles. I feel worst for women who have been sold this bill of goods and then wake up and find they're forty-years old and few men are interested in having them be the mothers of their children. The clock ticks in a way for women that it does not for men and a disservice has been done to them in telling them that they will be just as content without a husband and children. Some will, of course, but most will not.

I disagree with much of this.

First of all, if anything is being sold to us by society, it's the idea that we MUST be mothers to be happy. It's literally EVERYWHERE. Every single commercial on TV shows mothers frolicking with kids. How many show happily childfree women? How many HAPPY childfree women have you seen in the movies compared to women who found joy in motherhood?

The pressure to become a mother is constant. It's something I never noticed until I decided I didn't want kids and the frequency of kids being presented as "what a woman does" began to stand out to me.

Also, people don't just "wake up" and suddenly be 40-something and freak out about kids. Those of us who chose not to have them are well aware that the time to have them is either running out or out. That is the point, after all. We aren't having them. So why would we freak out and be depressed?

Who is it that you think is telling women they'll be happier without children? I've never seen this even once aside from niche childfree forums. And even they aren't telling people to not have kids. They're simply discussing their own choice and why they're happy about it. Just like some of us do on these forums.

To the bolded part--what you're saying is the same as saying that you would never develop the strength and dedication it takes to climb Mt. Everest without climbing Mt. Everest. It might be true, but you could develop strength in a million other ways. Like rowing on a lake, or becoming a long-distance runner, or writing a series of books, or learning a new language.

Of COURSE whatever you choose to do, you'll become good at those things. Of course if you become a parent you'll learn stuff about sacrifice and dedication and responsibility for children.

The point is not all of us WANT those things. There are a million other ways to learn, grow, develop yourself, take on responsibility and give something back. Thinking you have to be a parent to better yourself in those ways is very limited.

Originally Posted by maduro lonsdale

Everyone, IMHO, needs contentment and challenges and responsibilities to grow up. Having children is only one way.

Thank you! Exactly.

Originally Posted by Crazy-Cat-Lady

You sound like my former BFF who ditched me she she got pregnant 2 yearrs ago and said that she'd 'grown up' with her new responsibilities and treated me like I was beneath her and called me immature. Problem is she's not nature at all. Her and her husband are in horrible debt because they keep buying gadgets. She had the nerve to ask me for money once (before we really fell out) .

Originally Posted by Crazy-Cat-Lady

She changed when she had a kid but not for the better.

This is the exact type of person that we are referring to when we say "mombie."

Originally Posted by ComeCloser

Optimally, married people will be hanging out with their spouses. If they look to be away from their spouse as a preference, then their primary relationship is not with their spouse. Do you think they might head for divorce court once the kids fly the coop? Doesn't it make sense that if I tell my best girlfriend everything, and my husband nothing - then I should have married my best girlfriend?

Nah, disagree. I need ALL my friends in different ways. If I get married or have a long-term relationship one day, that person will just become another of my best friends. They'll fulfill a different role that's more intimate with sex and what not, of course. But really, every one of my friends is equally important. I have at least 5 close friends I talk to on a regular basis and share close personal information with. I would expect anyone I become intimate with in the future to also have a handful of close friends they talk to.

I think making your spouse the primary person in your life is pretty unhealthy. We all need a community.

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

I don't know any woman who didn't have children because "society" taught them not to.

Yes. This is really not a thing.

Originally Posted by Coral Soleil

My father did not have a problem with her "not bringing anything to the table" financially.
He married her because she was smart.
Not because he was looking for some one to help supplement his income.

I mean, cool. I'm happy for her. But finding a man like this is extremely hard. I've never, ever met a man with the financial means or the desire to support someone else, let alone a wife AND a kid. It's a pretty accepted idea these days that it takes two incomes to get by.

Unless you're lucky enough to meet an extremely well off person who's willing to support you while you raise the kids, or vice versa, you are that person, then it's going to be rough finding a situation like this.

Literally every couple I know who has kids, both parents work and the kids are either in day care or being watched by a grandparent.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

After 9.11, the New York Times had an article with reactions from people all over the country. Most were heartbroken for the victims, but one woman from Indiana said, "New York is nothing but a city full of sin, and I think they had it coming." One of my coworkers who worked in the WTC is from Indiana, so I sent her the article. She said, "Yeah, there are some people like that there."

It was funny, but also eye-opening that people with that perspective really exist.

Judging by the fact that half the people in the politics forum seem to want California to break off into the ocean and for all of us to die, I'd say there are plenty of them, sadly.

Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves

In answer to your question, none of us can "guarantee" a good life for a child. Therein lies so much of the responsibility of which I'm speaking. If you try to live a life of guarantees before you act, you will not live at all.

True, but not being able to guarantee a good life is different than being able to guarantee a BAD life. I can say 100 percent that at no point in my life thus far, would I have had the financial or emotional resources to have a child.

I've seriously had people try to convince me to have a baby when I was TELLING them that I would be a bad parent. My life has generally improved over time, so I'm sure by the time I'm 45-55, if I survive that long, I might have more resources and could perhaps adopt an older kid or something. Or maybe I'll have stepkids one day. Things do change. But I could see that they weren't going to change in time, so it just made more sense to give up on the idea of kids.

And it's not a bad thing. It takes over 200 grand to raise a kid from birth to adulthood. No thanks.

[Coral Soleil]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

I think you're making it sound all too easy to get pregnant late in life. It's not, even with invitro. The live birth rate for women getting in vitro at 40 years old is only 20%. It is also extremely expensive, and tough on a marriage (my niece went through it in her late 20's, it took them several tries) At 40, chances of conceiving naturally are only 5%.


https://www.yourfertility.org.au/everyone/age


More importantly, the rate of Down Syndrome for a 33 year old woman is 1 in 420. The rate for a 43 year old woman is 1 in 35.

I'm not saying no one can get pregnant after 40, everyone knows or has people in their family who have. But a woman who wants kids should not fool herself into thinking she has to age 45. It is different for every woman, some will be done by 38, others 40, and a few into their 40's. And just continuing to menstruate is not a sign you can still have a baby, which too many women mistakenly believe.

Actually continuing to menstruate is a sign that you can still conceive because your body is still producing eggs.
If they are "good eggs" she can still get pregnant.
"Live birth rate"?????
Wouldn't a deceased child be considered a miscarriage?
Women are less likely to have a miscarriage with IVF.
Do you mean chances of conception are 20% per treatment?

Most people I know that did IVF did it in their forties.
It costs about ten grand.
Your niece did it several times so it cost her forty grand.
Many people of all ages have been successful on the first try.
If it's "tough on a marriage" for some it's because those people told themselves they could do it on the first try. They should have been more realistic and known that maybe it will work on the first try and maybe it won't. I don't understand why people would get upset if it didn't work instantly. People don't get mad if they don't get pregnant the first time they have sex. They just have it again if they want a kid. So I don't really get it.
I think most people that complain about it being hard on their marriage are people that convinced themselves that they would only have to pay once and they are unhappy with paying more.
Since your niece was in her twenties she probably thought if a person in their forties could do it on the first try then she could too. But if the universe really wanted her to have a kid she would have been able to conceive naturally in her twenties. So I'm not shocked it took a few times.

Also a women can always have a baby. Even if she is 75. If there are no more eggs or "good eggs" left for IVF she can get an egg donor.
Success rates are extremely high for that.
So it actually is really easy to have a baby later in life.

All the kids I've known that were born to parents in their forties seem much smarter then the others and their self esteem is higher because they don't come from broken homes.
How many women that had kids in their forties do you actually know that have a kid with Down syndrome?
Because I don't know any.
I do know many that had very smart kids and ones that are considered to be geniuses though.
The only people I know that have kids with Down syndrome had them when they were young.
So I really don't care about your stats because I'm just not seeing it.

[stan4]

Aren't all 3 supreme court ladies unmarried with no kids?
As well as Condoleeza Rice?

[JrzDefector]

Originally Posted by RamenAddict

The chance of conceiving naturally is given on a monthly basis, not overall. A 40-year-old woman will have a 5% chance of conceiving naturally each month, not a 5% chance of conceiving overall. My mom had me when she was 30 after trying one month and my sister at 36 after trying one year... It typically takes a bit longer when you are older. When you are older, the egg quality goes way down and the risk of miscarriage also goes way up. That is the real issue for older women. By age 45, if you can get pregnant, only about half of pregnancies will make it to term.

However, many women now are freezing their eggs when they are younger if they know they are not in a position to have kids right away. I have one coworker who was in the military and I think she was single, so having kids was out of the question. She froze her eggs and when she transitioned into a civilian career, had two children successfully in her 40s with the frozen eggs.

I doubt most women are trying to get pregnant after 40. I am in my 40s now and would never get pregnant at my age. I worked for a social service agency that served people with severe developmental disabilities and so many mothers were 40+. It just wasn’t worth it for me.

Having read more and more about pregnancy and all that can go wrong with it, I'm more and more glad I never had kids. Definitely not happening now at 42 - not taking the risk of possibly ending up spatchcocked like a chicken carcass.

[Coral Soleil]

Originally Posted by RamenAddict

The chance of conceiving naturally is given on a monthly basis, not overall. A 40-year-old woman will have a 5% chance of conceiving naturally each month, not a 5% chance of conceiving overall. My mom had me when she was 30 after trying one month and my sister at 36 after trying one year... It typically takes a bit longer when you are older. When you are older, the egg quality goes way down and the risk of miscarriage also goes way up. That is the real issue for older women. By age 45, if you can get pregnant, only about half of pregnancies will make it to term.

However, many women now are freezing their eggs when they are younger if they know they are not in a position to have kids right away. I have one coworker who was in the military and I think she was single, so having kids was out of the question. She froze her eggs and when she transitioned into a civilian career, had two children successfully in her 40s with the frozen eggs.

I doubt most women are trying to get pregnant after 40. I am in my 40s now and would never get pregnant at my age. I worked for a social service agency that served people with severe developmental disabilities and so many mothers were 40+. It just wasn’t worth it for me.

Don't all mothers who become mothers before they were in their 40s become mothers that are 40+ eventually?
I don't understand your statement.
Are you saying everyone where you come from had babies before they were in their 40s except for people with developmental disabilities?
Lol! What kind of redneck hillbilly town are you from?
Because you are certainly not from NYC.

Or are you saying that all the babies where you come from had developmental disabilities because their mothers were 40+
If so, same question. What kind of hillbilly redneck town are you from?


I think freezing eggs and sperm is good.
I've known people that have contracted illnesses that resulted in them being sterile.
And your military friend was happy with the results so that's great.
But people are questioning how necessary that is.
It's a great way for companies to make money charging storage space for years. Profiting off of the fear they sell telling people they will have a child with developmental problems if they don't when the fact is they can have a learning disabled kid at any age.

Again I don't know where you are from, but people have disabled children, autistic children etcetera at all ages.
I personally do not know anyone that had a disabled child when they were in their forties.
But of course it's possible.
It's possible at any age.