Couples delaying pregnancy until it's too late

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4248244.stm

ther was also an interesting interview on the "today" programme on radio 4, (check the link on toytowns banner thingie ma doobie next to "extra".) raises all sorts of questions, do we have a right to have children, is it a health issue? or is such medical practices as fertility treatment no longer a medical health issue but more a medical lifestyle issue such as plastic surgery. thoughts for the day.

I've read that article real quick, so maybe I missed it... What's the proportion of women that suffer "heartbreak" as a result of "leaving it too late". I couldn't really figure out what they were getting at.
Basically, it sounds to me a bit like a bunch of reactionary men mouthing off that women belong in the home. Maybe they're scared of losing their job to a more competent woman, so they're trying to turn back the clock to the good old days?

@Topsy: "it sounds to me a bit like a bunch of reactionary men mouthing off that women belong in the home"

It says nothing of the sort. It's stating biological fact - that a woman's fertility drops dramatically at 40. A baby girl is born with a certain number of eggs in her ovaries, and never generates any more, so by the age of about 40, she starts running out. I don't understand how this can depend on whether a woman goes out to work or not...?

And two of the fertility specialists they quote are in fact women.

I read it quickly as well, and it didn't raise any of those questions for me. It seems to focus on the decline in fertility a woman experiences as she gets older, that aspects of today's society significantly influence even women who very much want children to put it off, and that by giving into those pressures we may end up going without.

well, maybe i should read it again, then...
or maybe i should just get on with my assignment

maybe, though I don't think it says anything new that those of us in the "danger zone" haven't heard already.

and, dear, assignment schmassignment, it's Friday!

well, all stuff that's pretty well known isn't it? The point is...?

...and yes in some ways it is saying get on with producing kids rather than developing a fulfilling career

My sister is over 35 and having ferility treatment. It wasn't due to a lifestyle choice, she just didn't meet her husband until she was over 30 and they have been trying since their marriage.
This isn't trying to go for the heartstrings (before boomtown_rat starts up, like he did last time), it is just how things are.
Infertility can be for many different reasons, not just because of age (although the fact that fertility diminishes with age is undeniable).
Personally I don't know if I will ever become a mother, nor am I sure that I should. But according to that article, I've still got 2 years to figure that one out, eh?

Where else do they belong?

mmm - yep today's the deadline, no extensions, and i'm meant to be going out tonight... gotta get my nose to the grindstone

moi? (yes I vaguely remember a thread about 'right to childeren' or something, can't remember what i said. sorry)

It is a tricky issue, in end effect, nobody actually directly dies from infertility.
But not being able to have a much wanted child can and does cause misery.
So who draws the line?
What counts as "social infertility"?
It is very true that the expectation of success in IVF and other forms of assistance is much higher than what is realistic.
Not every one gets the happy ending.

yes, yes quite right BB! that's why we need younger men with faster, more powerful sperm (as the article implies).

the article's mean message is the optimum period to give birth. its nothing new there are several things that happen to the body as time goes by. Pregancy is just one of the many things, yes the lifestlye of an individual does have a part to play...e.g. postponing pregancy but this could be due to other factors such as not finding the right person or you have other pressing matters to attend to. just because ur over 35 doesn't mean u can't have a health child I know people who have but its is not the optimal time that'S all.

The deadline for the assignment or having kids?

hope it works out. Presumably its impossible to know though if its because of her age or not though

this was one of the issues raised in the interview on the radio, we're all delaying the choice and expecting a normal run of things. (both male and female fertility goes down btw) when in fact the human body is still built as it was for the last couple of million years -faults and all. the bit that made me think was a medical journal using the words "defieng nature" (sadly taken out of the topics title). we defy nature when a brain dead patient is kept on a life machine and we accept the switching off the machine. should the same metality be there for childlessness.

Getting vaccinated as a child is, strictly speaking defying nature as well as is sterilisation and flying.

I'm for the vaccination and the flying though.

It's not defying nature if one becomes pregnant through natural means.

My mother had me at 43, no fertility treatment, no health issues. Although she did have an amniocentesis to screen for Down's Syndrome and the like.

Strange though I'm 26 and my mother celebrates her 70th birthday this week.

Almost all medicine defies nature though gids, if we get sick, we could die earlier than we would have otherwise done.
Infertility is a strange thing, it isn't so clear cut as many other bodily malfunctions, many different reasons.
Can only think that being sent home from hospital having been told that you have "unexplained" infertility can only be bewildering.
We have an expectation that doctors can either fix everything or at least can explain it.
And when they can't?

exactly - really you could say both my parents are "defying nature" by virtue of still being alive, since they've both had cancerous bits and pieces cut out (and my mam has had chemo and radiotherapy and such)

I think adoption is a superior, non-nature defying alternative to fertility treatment, no sense trying to push your body through all that stress when its giving you signals that you maybe shouldnt. Guess there are exceptions though such as when its caused by specific treatable diseases. Nothing really against fertility treatment though, just giving my 2c on an option that is often overlooked. Saves the pain of childbirth too.

Adoption also has age limits - often set at only 35 years old in many areas.
And better contraception access, legalised abortion and greater support for single parents mean that less children are actually available for adoption.
It is another option but there's a lot a hoops to jump through too.

no thats not my angle. if your ill your ill. you dont make a choice to be ill. you make a choice to delay a child - say i couldnt find the right girl, or i felt my career was to important etc. big difference. thats what got me thinking about is it a health problem (its definatly a social one where we are now pressured to have our kids later) or a cosmetic problem? get on the radio and listen to the news its interesting because its people trying to warn us that hey maybe we dont have a right. some of us through our choices are doomed to be childless actions. anyway its womans hour on radio four and they are now going to discuss this...

Would love to hear it gids, it is blocked at my work though
But what about offering assistance to addicts or those that do extreme sports or a drunk driver?
Those could also be seen as self-inflicted, a malfunction by choice.

glad to be doing my part...

Or slower sperm deployed closer to the objective ?

you insure yourself for those factors, otherwise you are faced with heavy bills. i have car insurence, if im drunk i can expect major costs to come to me from my car insurance, for any extreme sports i have insurance for that too. i have prepared myself for the costs. but to get back on topic, a baby has not been born yet. there exists no medical problem to be solved apart from wishing to change the course of nature. isnt that cosmetic like a buying implants or a nose job because i didnt feel wholeand comfortable with what nature gave me? (deliberate devils advocate btw. i dont have an answer to it either nor realy a stand point, i just wondered what anybody else felt about the BMJ basicly telling us we are all being a bit silly)

as to not getting radio 4, move company.

I'm not sure its a 'problem' at all. As the report says, in most cases it is no problem at all.

what's defying nature here is the idea that every parent or couple must raise their children totally on their own. humans have always lived in groups and depended on family or neighbors; it takes a village to raise a child. it would be easier for women to have both children and a career if there were adequate community or state support. as it is, though, the "system" is based on a long sexist history of men going to work and women staying at home. that women are being forced to choose either kids or career is a disappointing symptom of a system that needs to change.

and coupled with more and better education generally in western countries, it's no wonder the average age for marriage is going up. as more and more women go to university, or go for further higher education, it's no wonder they set higher standards for what a partner should be, see more options for themselves than making babies -- or nursing, teaching, or secretarial work, with more education comes more options, for women and men -- and no wonder as well that they see the problems that come along with trying to have both career and kids.

so the BMJ is just wasting paper then? BR get in with a discussion man, using your logic cancer isnt a problem, heart attacks are not a problem and Ms isnt a problem. at what level does it become an issue and what a probelem i beg to ask.

due mean long as in since the industrial revolution? (if you were rich and privillidged if not you were working as a woman too to make ends meet and the guy was probably working 12 hour shifts six days a week something which didnt change in many industries untill the sixties, but thats another debate) or since the last odd million years when our bodies were basicly finaly took there presant shape .

JUST A BIG EDIT I DINT WRITE THE TITLE ON THIS THREAD! I DID NOT CHOSE THE WORD WOMEN AS ITS ALL ABOUT COUPLES INCLUDING GUYS WHO ARE TOO OLD TO HAVE A DECENT SPERM COUNT. (my disclaimer too avoid this getting into a sexism direction, as that wasnt the original intent not question that i posed.)

Radio 4 or not paying income tax? Hmmmmm...

I'm not really sure what we are meant to be discussing to be honest! Its a fact that fertility goes down a bit after 35 and more so after 40. Not much new in that. Have I missed something?

@gideon, you're absolutely right. most women in history have had both a job and kids. maybe now that the same education is available to both women and men, and the same jobs, women see "motherhood" as one of many choices, while society still sees all women on the "mommy track."

consider this. there has only ever been 30 in history where women have had a "choice". that means for the rest of the time women like men had no choice, (oh i do love the bit about education and choice - ask my step father what educational choice he was given. on the fishing fleet with 13 years of age - no choice. mother working as a telephanist with 13 - no choice. you come from a different background eh?) and the way things are we're returning to the no choice scenario. i dont follow your its all you men against us women thang as its outdated and sexist.

and BR yep you've missed something. but thats nothing new is it when i post something.

don't want to give a hint what ?

I'd happily provide input, I just don't know what to discuss gids! are we meant to be discussing ways to make it easier for women to combine career and children before 35 or telling women off for waiting or telling blokes to provide more support or what?! Or is it just a statement of fact like jeremy's fertility one the other day?

my original thoughts were this

ther was also an interesting interview on the "today" programme on radio 4, (check the link on toytowns banner thingie ma doobie next to "extra".) raises all sorts of questions, do we have a right to have children, is it a health issue? or is such medical practices as fertility treatment no longer a medical health issue but more a medical lifestyle issue such as plastic surgery. thoughts for the day.

but sadly it became a wimins issue because of the usual wooly jumper non leg shaving faction who didnt bother to read what i'd said but aparently had just read the title. a title which i did not writ btw, the follies of a moderator and his or her twisting of my intentions. kathrina put in some interesting points but then we got stuck in the wimins choice rubbish about all men haveing oppressed anything with an ovary. never mind

If you'd asked my bloke, he'd say that I'm more oppressor than oppressed.
Anyway, gids, this shows how shite your spelling is.
My name all over the telly, hundreds dead and you still put a "h" in!

Was the show good? Because I think they offer downloads so I might be able to hear it later.

i caught the first 2 mins and then had to rush to a work mater it'll be downloadable as the bbc is just fab.

well of course fertility treatment is in some ways 'a lifestyle issue', as is having kids in general (if you want to phrase it as such although that puts rather a 'negative' spin on it - I'm sure a burns victim would take issue with you calling their plastic surgery a lifestyle issue), but that doesn't make it a bad thing or mean that it should be discontinued or not funded by the state.

sorry meant COSMETIC plastic sugery... you know like "oh my nose is too big".
delaying having children is a lifestyle choice. having kids is normal and natural.

but should you be forced to insure against it? using the extreme sports paralell bought up by katHrina

Don't worry, enough collagen injected into your forehead and noone will notice.

I must say, not that it's entirely relevant to this argument but more on the general topic: I'd always thought that infertility treatment would probably not be for me if I was ever to discover that for some reason I/we couldn't have children. I've often thought like Kza - surely adoption would be a good option, or, without wishing to seem harsh, that people should try (possibly with counselling or whatever) to just accept that some things aren't meant to be. There's this big pressure on couples which seems to suggest that not having children is in some way wrong or means that you are missing out on something. I've always really wanted to have kids at some point, but at the same time have always liked to think that if I didn't, I wouldn't feel like less of a person.
Until 4 days after my wedding, when we discovered that we may not be able to have children. We had to wait for 3 weeks to find out the results, which luckily were positive and we shouldn't have any fertility issues at all. But in those 3 weeks, I discovered that I wouldn't leave any option unexplored and I would do anything to have a child of my own. What is my point? I think it's easy to say what you would or would not do in a situation like this. But you never know unless you're in it...

Kathie makes an excellent point there - it is quite easy to think "well, infertility treatment is all wrong..." but should you ever be in that position, your view may change dramatically.
As gids typed imself, having children is natural and normal.
Finding out that it might not be the case for you can be a huge slap in the face.
Am I unnatural?
Am I not normal?
Why me?
Why not the teenage girl after a drunken fumble instead?
Without wanting to go into tons of detail, I had such tests at 23 (was engaged back then - bless) and have known since then that should I want to have children myself, some assistance might be required.
This knowledge hasn't caused me to rush into anything, but I am aware of it.
Should circumstances mean that I never actually become pregnant (note: I did not write "not become a mother"), then that is something which I'd have to deal with.
Not fate or bad luck or a lack of planning or having something else to do, just how things are.
And don't worry, I don't burst into tears everytime I see a pram

Oh you poor messed up thing

but it is also natural not to be able to have children. i must hasten to add, due to whose ever inability. there are enough men walking around who sperm is rubbish, its just sadly who knows a man who would ever admit to it let alone go to the doctor to check.

i dont know why people bother getting preggers theses days when you can buy one ready-born off the internet.

Oh well makes sense most of mine ends up in the rubbish bin anyway, once I get it off the keyboard anyway, and the couch, and the carpet, and my shoes, and the gerbi...

sorry, how is it not a women's issue (I shave and eat red meat, thank you)? Yes, men suffer lower sperm count as they age, but bottom line is, the more immediate cause for a post 35 couple, or even post 40, is the woman's issue, not the man's. Men can father children until the day they die. Women can only bear children for a limited amount of time.