One of the issues that comes up relatively frequently in many of the blogs I read is female fertility particularly as it pertains to age. I’ve entered the fray on a few occasions, though since I’m getting tired of saying the same things over and over again, so I’m going to dispel some of the less or untrue things that I’ve heard people say here and link to it when the subject comes up.
A few years ago, the problem with misinformation (at least as I heard it) lead to an overconfidence on the part of older couples that they would be able to conceive whenever they wanted. Everybody knew somebody that had children post-35 and fertility treatments were getting better and better so there was no reason to have kids now when you could wait until you were in a better financial position to raise them.
The results were tragic for a lot of people. They simply waited too long and when they were ready they had a lot of difficulty conceiving if it wasn’t outright impossible. As more and more people started trying to conceive for the first time at older ages, everyone started taking a longer look and it became clear that it was a risky proposition.
I found myself getting into regular arguments in college about this. My mother had my brother at 33 and myself at 36 and a miscarriage in between so older parenthood is a subject that I’ve always been interested in. It was impressive the vehemence with which a lot of young women held on to the notion that they could wait as long as they wanted and that my saying otherwise was somehow an indication that I didn’t want it to be true or something like that.
Lately, though, I’ve been butting heads with the opposite contingent. These folks believe not just that it becomes a lot more difficult to conceive the further into one’s thirties a woman goes, but make very bold claims that it’s practically impossible to get pregnant after 35, if you do get pregnant you’ll have a miscarriage, and if you do have the kid it’ll probably be retarded.
If one believes the above, it’s possible to voice these fears in a compassionate and concerned manner. I’d be more patient with these people if that’s how it was being raised. Instead, though, it’s being raised as a bat with which to hit women that have standards. The misinformation is an attempt on the part of some to bully women into lowering their standards or, absent that, as simply a mean thing to say to women that have not sufficiently lowered there standards.
In the general spectrum of things starting at “Settling For Whatever You Can Find” and ending with “Waiting For The One” I have historically falled in the first camp. I think that a lot of people, men and women, are trying too hard to find the perfect person rather than trying to build something good with a good person. That changed somewhat over time as I left a girl that was completely good and found a couple women that were more than just good and found someone that was right. Seeing as how it only takes one, and that I managed to find at least a couple people that could have been a lot better than just good, I’m more open to the idea of waiting for something right.
Men often believe that women are hung up on “alpha males” and won’t date any guy that isn’t a super stud and that’s why so many young men are single. Many women believe that men are hung up on getting some cheerleader-type and are unwilling to accept that the average woman has at least some body fat and some bad days and that this is the ereason that so many young women are single. I think that they’re both right about some people of the opposite gender, but both are wrong to believe that it’s completely and utterly skewed in one direction.
I go into the Settling/Waiting debate because it’s central to what ought to be a biological debate about fertility but often really isn’t. The larger the threat of infertility looms, the stronger the case for settling is. The stronger the case for settling is, the stronger the man’s hand is. We are fertile for longer. If it’s a waiting game until someone becomes desperate to act, then we win.
So when an article comes about like Lori Gottlieb’s a long time ago suggesting that women settle for imperfection so that they can have children, men are generally supportive. Female desperation works to our advantage. The bigger the infertility threat the stronger the desperation the more we win. So a lot of guys are very anxious to believe that women become maritally useless just around the corner and they desperately want women to believe that, too.
It makes me understand why some young women become so hostile when the subject of declining fertility comes up. It’s not so much that they’re in denial (though some are, of course) but that they’re used to men bringing it up in a certain context. A context that implies that a woman’s value is tied tightly to her reproductivity and that she’d better stop being so independent if she wants to “have it all”.
So what are the facts? What are the statistics?
The fact is that a woman’s infertility does indeed begin to decline considerably as she hits her mid-30’s and no amount of wishing that it weren’t true will change that. However, despite what some try to claim, it doesn’t drop like an anvil leaving everyone infertile until much later. It’s all comparative. So while it’s accurate to say that compared to a 25 year old a 35 year old is less fertile, it’s far from accurate to essentially compare a 35 year old to a 45 year old.
Question 1: Do most women become infertile at 35?
Answer: No.
The numbers I’ve seen fit in pretty well with the ones here:
Of women trying natural conception:
* At age 30, 75% will get pregnant within one year.
* At age 35, 66% will get pregnant.
* At age 40, 44% will get pregnant.Within four years after trying to conceive naturally:
* 91% of 30-year-olds will be successful.
* 84% of 35-year-olds will.
* 64% of 40-year-olds will.
Question 2: Do these numbers count when so many women miscarry?
Answer: I don’t know whether the numbers provided count pregnancies or births. The language suggests pregnancies, though the link I followed to it said births.
Let’s assume for a moment, however, that these numbers don’t count miscarriages. The miscarriage rate for women in the 35-39 category is 20%, but raises to 50% for the 40-45 group. So even if assume the worst, that miscarriage rates are 15% at 30, at 20% at 35, and at 50% at 40, the numbers are adjusted to the following:
Of women trying natural conception:
* At age 30, 64% will carry a baby to term within 21-months.
* At age 35, 53% will carry a baby to term.
* At age 40, 22% will carry a baby to term.Within four years after trying to conceive naturally and carry the baby to term:
* 77% of 30-year-olds will be successful.
* 67% of 35-year-olds will.
* 32% of 40-year-olds will.
Those are some disconcerting statistics for a couple that desperately wants children, but it’s a far cry from pure infertility. Most 35 year old women that want to have children will be pregnant within the first year with a baby that they carry to term.
Question 3: Won’t these kids be mentally handicapped?
Answer: Some certainly will. The older the mother, the greater the likelihood. However, we’re still talking about comparatively remote risks when compared to the risk of not being able to conceive or of miscarriage. Further, a lot of the most serious abnormalities can be screened for if that’s what the parents elect to do.
Downs Syndrome is the most common chromosomal defect, and the numbers go as follows:
* At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome.
* At age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance.
* At age 35, a 1-in-400 chance.
* At age 40, a 1-in-100 chance.
* At 45, a 1-in-30 chance.
* At 49, a 1-in-10 chance (1, 4).
These numbers are not actually significant enough to effect the above numbers by a full percentage point at either the 35 or 40 year old milestones.
So in review, the above numbers represent real risk and reason for concern for older would-be parents. They do not, however, represent infertility in any meaningful sense. It is not advisable for a woman to choose to wait until her mid-to-late thirties before having children, but nor should she act with the desperation of someone who believes that it would be impossible.
The problem is that a lot of the statistics are falsified to promote certain political interests, usually by selecting the indivduals who will participate in the study. For example, mean feminists always like to point out that girls used to have a much later menarchy than today, citing a study on a few girls done in some starving arctic scandinavian island. However, anyone reading history knows that during roman times girls married at 13-14 and produced lots of healthy babies. (Cesar’s daughter was married to Pompei when she was 14 or so, but she died after childbirth, so maybe I shouldn’t cite her but it was her third child or so, so it wansn’t due to age). I will comment later on the fertility of women after 35. But I suspect the numbers shown are more negative in reality, becuase doctors usually inspect the female uterus. So only females who have passed this first inspection end up in the statistics. I would guess that around 50% of women are de facto infertile at around 35.
Comment by Gannon — August 29, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Gannon, these medical studies are funded in large part to find out the dangers of late motherhood and late pregnancy. The pendulum has swung the other direction from where it was a decade or two and now it’s all about the dangers. You’ll notice that the articles I’ve linked to are not articles talking about how okay it is to wait until one’s late thirties before having children… they’re articles issuing warnings about the dangers of doing it. That’s the mode the medical community is in right now: finding the dangers. In this frame of mind, they’re a lot less likely to cherry-pick best-case patients.
Besides, I specifically went the route of choosing the least favorable statistics. I assumed that miscarriages were not included in the original numbers. I assumed that those women that had miscarriages did not turn around and successfully have a child within the four years, and so on. If either of these are not the case then the numbers go up even higher. I was as conservative with these numbers as I could be, and the fertility rate is still about 2/3.
But I suspect the numbers shown are more negative in reality, … I would guess that around 50% of women are de facto infertile at around 35.
In truth, 50% could well be the correct number, but I have seen no real indication that it is. The problem is that you have no substantiation and the transparent hope that women are infertile and a general history of changing your arguments (They can’t get pregnant! No? Oh, well then they’ll miscarry! No? Oh, well the kids will be retarded!). Instead, all you can claim is that the study/studies cited might be flawed. And that they might be biased. Yet, fascinatingly enough, your view of what the facts in this case (again, absent any hard data that I have seen and in fact in contradiction to the numbers and medical information I’ve discovered since) are exactly what you would want them to be.
-{This comment was modified multiple times within the half-hour after its posting}-
Comment by trumwill — August 29, 2008 @ 7:43 am
“(They can’t get pregnant! No? Oh, well then they’ll miscarry! No? Oh, well the kids will be retarded!).”
All these problems however add up. A lot of moderate problems can add up to a huge problem.
Comment by Gannon — August 29, 2008 @ 7:56 am
That was a detailed and well-thought-out piece, thanks for taking the time to write and post it.
One point that seems to be utterly lost on legions of keyboard warriors is that even though women may not have unlimited time in which they can have children, in other respects they age much better than men. First and foremost there’s the way so many women keep marching on into their 80’s and 90’s, even while men have this pesky habit of dying at ridiculously young ages. Women also tend to stay physically fit much longer than men do. Almost every day when I ride the train I am dismayed by the endless procession of grossly distended (male) abdomens I see. Women, in contrast, are often fit and trim well into middle age. Most men lose all interest in physical activity, other than cartball of course, after age 30 or 35, not so with women.
Comment by Peter — August 29, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Gannon, I’m not arguing that it’s a good idea to wait until one’s mid-thirties to have children. even at 67% (which lest we forget accounts for pregnancy, miscarriage, and Down Syndrome and does not account for fertility treatment) that’s a lot of broken hearts. The problem is that just as some people minimize the dangers for political reasons, a lot of people vastly overstate the dangers with suggestions of probable or definite infertility on their 35th birthday. As I’ve said before, it comes across as crass bullying and is not supported by the statistics that I’ve seen. 50% is a more reasonable number, though even that is unsupported.
Comment by trumwill — August 29, 2008 @ 8:16 am
It’s great to see actual numbers on this issue, especially since I’ve never bothered to look any up. Thanks for doing so.
One thing I’d like to add, though - many women (and men, for that matter) make having one or more children a major lifetime goal. While the statistics illuminate that fertility declines gradually on average, it is still possible that you/your wife will lose her fertility earlier than most. For those that really want children, this is reason enough to have them as early as possible.
Comment by Linus — August 29, 2008 @ 8:29 am
“Almost every day when I ride the train I am dismayed by the endless procession of grossly distended (male) abdomens I see.”
I have lived in the US, and the fattest people were always black middleaged women (although there were also a few fat white whales). However, on the other side, there were a few thin white women, whereas really most adult males were a little bit fat.
On the topic, probably around 50% of women can have children untul they are 40, a few of them even until they are 43 or so.
However, I have seen lots of older women marry and unable to have children. A friend of mine who is 40 married a 38 year old woman, but she is infertile according to the doctor. My boss who is 37 recently aborted on the fifth month, the baby died. Luckily, she already had two children in her early twenties. On personal experience, for around 50% at 35 the game is over. I understand that women want a career and such, but if for a woman children are important she should have them at most when she is 25-30 years of age.
Comment by Gannon — August 29, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Peter:
Women are actually more likely to be obese than men. The difference is more pronounced in blacks and Mexicans than in whites, but it still exists to some extent, and the difference is greater at more extreme weights.
Men (white men, anyway) are more likely than women to be overweight (BMI > 25), but we’re also much more likely than women to be technically overweight without being fat (as I am, and presumably you, too) because we have more variance in muscle mass
Comment by Brandon Berg — August 29, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
By the way, you guys can falsify all the statistics you want, but you definitively can’t cheat on nature or falsify reality. The vicepresident nomine of McCain had a Child in her early forties, and it consequently suffered from Down Syndrome. Really, women over 35 having children a lot of times only end in tragedy
Comment by Gannon — August 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Gannon,
You need to demonstrate that the statistics are false before before you can credibly call them false statistics. The medical establishment has some pretty strong incentives to know the medical dangers of things like late pregnancy. To the extent that they have financial incentive, it’s to overstate risks rather than understate them. The riskier the world, the more important they are. The more inherently risky the world is believed to be, the less likely they are to get sued.
As for Sarah Palin, she was 44 when she gave birth to her son. The risks at that age are more than 10x greater than women at 35. For comparison sake, the risk of a woman at 35 having a baby with Down Syndrome are 3x greater than those of a woman at 25.
A good friend’s wife is ab0ut to give birth to a child at 40*. My mother had me at 36. Coming from an upper middle class family, a lot of people I know had children past 35. The only reason that I haven’t mentioned it is that it’s all anecdotal and doesn’t really bolster my case any more than your stories bolster yours.
I agree with you that at about forty 50% of women are infertile… because that’s what the numbers say! Actually, the numbers may paint an even bleaker picture than that.
* - Notably, she had a miscarriage about 18 months ago, but it appears that this one took (knock on wood). If so, she would be a case that in the statistics in this post would count as childless because it makes the conservative assumption that a miscarriage means no eventual baby. The assumptions also mean that any woman that has two miscarriages statistically negates the success of a woman that had a live one.
** - My mother also had a miscarriage relatively shortly before becoming pregnant with me and so similarly would count as childless. You may be thinking “She should have had a baby sooner because they she could have avoided a miscarriage.” The thing is that she tried from her twenties onward to get pregnant and was unable to do so until she approached her supposed infertile years.
-{This comment was modified within half-hour of its posting}-
Comment by trumwill — August 29, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Linus,
I completely agree. Assuming the numbers are accurate, 1 in 3 women will be unable to conceive at 35 without the help of IVF or some other fertility booster. That’s a pretty scary statistic even without Gannon’s gross exaggerations. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t sound nasty enough, I guess.
Comment by trumwill — August 29, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Women are actually more likely to be obese than men. The difference is more pronounced in blacks and Mexicans than in whites, but it still exists to some extent, and the difference is greater at more extreme weights.
Men (white men, anyway) are more likely than women to be overweight (BMI > 25), but we’re also much more likely than women to be technically overweight without being fat (as I am, and presumably you, too) because we have more variance in muscle mass.
Social class may account for what I see. Most of my observations of overweight men and trim women come from my daily train riding. Given the cost and time of commuting by train (a monthly ticket for my route is $278), almost all regular riders are middle-class or above, quite frequently far above. At these relatively exalted socio-economic levels it certainly appears that the normal rule of gender and overweight is reversed. Most of the women, including those over 50 and minorities, keep themselves fit and trim, or at most slightly chubby.
As the women maintain their trimness, many of the men let themselves metaphorically go to seed. I can only conclude that being overweight is a sign of lower class among women, but not among men. In other words, there’s no social stigma attached to the proverbial “middle aged spread” - if you’re a man, that is. I should also point out that most of the overweight men I see on the train are not hugely obese, indeed many of them may not have particularly high BMI’s. What they are, instead, is soft. They have hardly any muscular development and are carrying extra weight in the bellies. More muscular men could weigh the same or even more, while looking far better. But for the typical 40+ male commuter, who engages in virtually no regular physical activity (cartball doesn’t count), even a few extra pounds look really, really bad.
Comment by Peter — August 30, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Peter:
Interesting. Maybe it’s because high-status men can afford (in terms of sexual market value) to acquire a gut, whereas women can’t because their SMV is more strongly determined by looks. And since they have high-status husbands, they face greater competition and stand to lose more than prole women if their looks go.
Comment by Brandon Berg — August 31, 2008 @ 4:03 am
Interesting. Maybe it’s because high-status men can afford (in terms of sexual market value) to acquire a gut, whereas women can’t because their SMV is more strongly determined by looks. And since they have high-status husbands, they face greater competition and stand to lose more than prole women if their looks go.
That sounds about right. The fact that most of the train riders are married doesn’t really change matters, as even married people usually like to maintain their appeal to the opposite gender. In part that may be a way of ensuring their own spouses’ loyalty, but I’d have to say that people by and large want to think they’re desirable even when it’s strictly theoretical. Something buried in human nature. Hence, the greater emphasis on looks on the part of women, given their looks-based SMV.
Another factor is that women by and large are more health-conscious than men. This leads them to maintain themselves in good physical condition, as a means of staying healthy.
Comment by Peter — August 31, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Gannon, I’m more than a little sick of your attitude and your misinformation. I’m a family physician, with a year of additional fellowship training in high-risk obstetrics, and I daresay I’m coming from a position of considerably more knowledge than you have. Much of what you say or suggest is patently untrue. The FACT of the matter is, the VAST majority of women who have children after 35 have normal, healthy babies. Period. This is despite the fact that the incidence of Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities increases with age. Moreover, the majority of Down syndrome babies are born to women under 35. Stop posting false information based strictly on your personal experiences.
Comment by Clancy — August 31, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
“Moreover, the majority of Down syndrome babies are born to women under 35.”
But the risk for Down is much higher for older women. However, if in fact there are more babies with down born this means that women under 35 have MUCH more children. And why do they have more children? Not only because they are more numerous, but also because they are MUCH more fertile. You can read in any medical manual that 35plus preganancies are high risk. That’s standard medical opinion. Instead of playing at the borders society should make it possible for women to have their children in their teens and twenties, like nature dictates.
Comment by Gannon — September 1, 2008 @ 5:36 am
Gannon, I don’t disagree that for an given single pregnancy, a women of 35+ years is more likely to have a baby with Down syndrome than a younger one. However, your suggestion that, “Really, women over 35 having children a lot of times only end[s] in tragedy,” is just incorrect. Talk about using data toward political ends. You also fail to note that teen pregnancies are statistically more high-risk — albeit in different ways from the 35+ crowd — than those of women in their 20s. On top of that, letting “nature dictate” is NOT always the medically safest course for many, many things. If you want to take things to that extreme, “nature dictated” that women die in childbirth for thousands of years.
Comment by Clancy — September 1, 2008 @ 1:41 pm