Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You continue to miss my point. All you say is true. Except the part that "most don't need any fertility treatment at all". That is untrue. Being responsible is great. But the biology is very inflexible. The price for the one is that the overall fertility rate of the United States is falling. It is far from causing any panic yet, but the trend is clear. And because the economic pressures only increase as time goes on the 30 somethings that are the middle of the bell curve are giving way to people who wait even longer. 40 somethings being first time parents are not at all uncommon. 50 somethings are very rare but not all that fantastic. You have to look to the 60's before you find the examples at the edges of credulity but even they exist. So where do you draw the line? 30's is old. I know you don't think so but it is. Biologically its old. That's why pro athletes are finished in their 30's. You will never be better than your 30's. That's the peak, my friend. For physical, artistic, emotional and psychological attainment. For childbirth and rearing the mid-teens to the mid-twenties is still the peak. It just is. I'm not saying we should promote teen-agers being parents!!! I did NOT say that. But don't tell me it is a great development to have 30 somethings feeling superior about having waited. For too many of them (and you will never know them) it led to a missed opportunity.
People in my grandparents generation were having kids in their 40s, it's not unheard of or "against biology". Lots of people (I think most) become parents in their 30s without treatments. Maybe in their 50s, yeah... Although I once brought that up in another thread about older dads or something and someone brought up some pseudo-scince answer about the world being more "toxic" today (as if the world of lead paint, leaded gas, and no pollution controls was magically "clean")
By the way, a lot of pro-athletes retire in their 30s because their bodies are so abused up until that point and they are rich and can retire. It's the mileage, not the age. 30s isn't "old" at all.
Not saying I think young parents are bad, there are a lot of advantages (and disadvantages as well). But like I said, it's a choice now and people have more options. We aren't in a rush anymore to settle down and have kids... heck, the pressure to have kids is fading. I think that's a good thing.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
You continue to miss my point. All you say is true. Except the part that "most don't need any fertility treatment at all". That is untrue. Being responsible is great. But the biology is very inflexible. The price for the one is that the overall fertility rate of the United States is falling. It is far from causing any panic yet, but the trend is clear. And because the economic pressures only increase as time goes on the 30 somethings that are the middle of the bell curve are giving way to people who wait even longer. 40 somethings being first time parents are not at all uncommon. 50 somethings are very rare but not all that fantastic. You have to look to the 60's before you find the examples at the edges of credulity but even they exist. So where do you draw the line? 30's is old. I know you don't think so but it is. Biologically its old. That's why pro athletes are finished in their 30's. You will never be better than your 30's. That's the peak, my friend. For physical, artistic, emotional and psychological attainment. For childbirth and rearing the mid-teens to the mid-twenties is still the peak. It just is. I'm not saying we should promote teen-agers being parents!!! I did NOT say that. But don't tell me it is a great development to have 30 somethings feeling superior about having waited. For too many of them (and you will never know them) it led to a missed opportunity.
So you're saying >50% (most) of 30 yos trying to conceive need fertility treatments?
Bull freaking sheet. And no, a 30yo, or 33 yo, or even 35 yo is not middle aged. Definitely on the young side.
And yes, it is a great development for society that people are waiting until their 30s. The information completely supports this sentiment. The marriages are stronger, the kids excel more in school, etc. The outcomes are all around better.
Lol.. A lot of people have their kids in their 30's. Your inexperience in life is already showing. Your entire post was utter nonsense. So much so that I am embarrassed for you.
I was in my thirties when I had kids and fortunately had no problems conceiving. However, we were the only couple among our friends who were so fortunate--everyone else we knew was struggling. One friend even had 2 miscarriages.
I was in my thirties when I had kids and fortunately had no problems conceiving. However, we were the only couple among our friends who were so fortunate--everyone else we knew was struggling. One friend even had 2 miscarriages.
This is really a genetic crapshoot.
My SIL began trying to conceive in her late twenties, and has required IVF for every pregnancy she's had. My other SIL had several miscarriages along the route to conceiving, in her late twenties and early thirties. I didn't even elect to discontinue contraception until I was married, at 37, and was pregnant within two months of going off contraception, no difficulties, fertility issues, or complications whatsoever, no costly or invasive medical procedures, etc. I turned 38 two days before I found out I was pregnant. And I have a genetic anomaly that affects my uterus, which could have made both conception AND sustaining a pregnancy difficult at any age. Yet, everything has gone smoothly.
Others obviously have different priorities in their lives and appear to be perfectly happy starting a family when they want to since it is their life, their choice and their priorities that are important to them, not what someone else thinks "should" be impotant to them.
There are people who don't care about what "might" be out there if they have already found what IS there right now for them.
"Might" does not pay the bills, find someone to settle down with or give you children.
Not had your coffee yet?
I never said I thought it was wrong to have kids at an early age. The OP stated what he thought was right for him, and I was saying how I felt and merely "asked" if he not wonder what may be around the next corner.
Never said he shouldn't ( that's his call). It's a discussion after all.
I never said a lot of people in their 30's have kids. I said it was not (and is not) a "best" practice. A lot of people eat excessive amounts of sugar and diabetes and its complications are crippling and killing record numbers of Americans. You're response was a tad bit intense considering it was attacking the truth. What's that about? Even people who were only able to have children after years of trying and tens of thousands of dollars of fertility treatments still recommend delaying romantic involvement and childbearing into middle age. I just don't get that.
Actually.. What you said wasn't the " truth" and that .. Is what I was disagreeing with. While some people may have to use " fertility treatments" they are more the exception than the rule. And furthermore age doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. A 20 something may have the same problems conceiving than a 30 something. People with diseases are also the .....exception rather than the rule. You're using extremes to try and prove your point and trying to convince people that they are the majority or most.
That's what that's about.
Hey, if you love the Jesus, and you can live in a small town, move to small town Midwest, where women are married and pregnant before they turn 20 and divorced before they turn 30.
So you're saying >50% (most) of 30 yos trying to conceive need fertility treatments?
Bull freaking sheet. And no, a 30yo, or 33 yo, or even 35 yo is not middle aged. Definitely on the young side.
And yes, it is a great development for society that people are waiting until their 30s. The information completely supports this sentiment. The marriages are stronger, the kids excel more in school, etc. The outcomes are all around better.
I don't think that was his point. What he is saying is that human beings (both men and women), because of the last 500,000- 200,000 years of our evolutionary biology, are simply more fertile in their late teens to mid twenties because they are younger. That does NOT mean that 30+ year old men and women will have a problem with fertility because most will not. Putting off children until one is truly ready is BEST, it's what responsible people do! It's what I did regarding my own child, as well. But reproductively the younger one is, the more fertile they tend to be and the less degeneration of sperm cells there will be (we have our distant ancestors to thank for this). Most sperm banks, for example, won't except samples from men older than 35 to 40 and most egg donors are in their early twenties. It's just an evolutionary sexual reproductive fact which tends to favor youth and vitality. Again, NOT at all saying 30+ will have problems, because most won't.
Last edited by TenorSax83; 06-15-2015 at 01:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
