More kids with second marriage?

[Caladan 19]

We'll take what we get, but six probably isn't happening if we start when I'm 28.

[sophyie 0]

Both of my children were birth control babies.... it's the only way I can conceive... and I'm not old

Now that scares me!

50 is the new 30!

I can add a little bit of a view from the "other" side: Of all my friends back in highschool I always had the "oldest" mum. She had me when she was 35 and where I grew up- that was considered quite old.

I LOVE IT! I never had one day in my life wishing I had a younger mum. She's an artist, she's a little "crazy" in a good kind of way and she most certainly lives up to the "50 is the new 30"!

Now she's 60 and is planning to work in the Australian outback for 6 months and then come to see me in the States- fortunately her health allows all that.

[Veiled Princess 1]

We'll take what we get, but six probably isn't happening if we start when I'm 28.

I've already got two so I'm only four shy of that goal.

There's always the possibility of twins and triplets too

[Caladan 19]

O goodness. Triplets are SO NOT HAPPENING. Six little feet kicking my bladder? I think not!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have 5. Best wishes to you all!

[honeyblonde 0]

None of this matters unless you want to become pregnant and can't or don't want to become pregnant and do.

In the west, birth control is a skew factor for fertility rates, no doubt. While there are women in their 40s and 50s who can become pregnant, few, in the total eligible population group want to. The same goes for younger women; that pool is shrinking too as more of them delay marriage childbearing untill after higher education and career advancement.

And that's what I think is probably feeding the statistics. If women don't even try to get pregnant, how can they know if they are fertile? Maybe the reality isn't that women are less fertile, but rather that having children is not as popular a choice as it was in the past.

I've also seen research that shows that the mothers age at the birth of her first child can impact her fertility level - the older she is the less chance of pregnancy, and also research that shows that having a child later in life is easier when a woman has had previous pregnancies. It reminds me of the fact that if you leave a vehicle sitting and don't drive it for a while, all of the rubber on it dry-rots.

I know that I was a freaking rabbit before getting my tubes tied. I don't know if we'll decide to find out how fertile I will be in my late 40s or not, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Abdel is hoping for twins if we do decide to get pregnant and are successful because I told him one more pregnancy is all I would even consider.

Edited October 29, 2006 by honeyblonde

[Bosco 1]

None of this matters unless you want to become pregnant and can't or don't want to become pregnant and do.

In the west, birth control is a skew factor for fertility rates, no doubt. While there are women in their 40s and 50s who can become pregnant, few, in the total eligible population group want to. The same goes for younger women; that pool is shrinking too as more of them delay marriage childbearing untill after higher education and career advancement.

And that's what I think is probably feeding the statistics. If women don't even try to get pregnant, how can they know if they are fertile? Maybe the reality isn't that women are less fertile, but rather that having children is not as popular a choice as it was in the past.

There have been studied that tracked only women trying to get pregnant. Women after 35 have less pregnancies than the younger age groups. It isn't a matter of trying. Fertility declines naturally with age.

It is also true with fertility treatment. In vitro is more successful in younger patients.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But what makes me wonder about that is that it only makes sense that there are fewer women trying to get pregnant after 35 than there are younger than 35. How can stats determined by women trying to get pregnant, whose situations and health factors vary among themselves, truly give us facts about the overall fertility rates and conceptions of most women at any age?

It once was that women did not have the social and economic power that many now have to even entertain the idea of wanting to conceive at older ages. A woman who had her first child at 35 was considered to be an elderly prima gravita; now the stats skew older, but the trend lines are not established. Besides, even now, women's reproductive health and sexuality is a mystery to most scientists. It wasn't too long ago that they were arguing about that kind of orgasms women had, if any.

Edited October 29, 2006 by szsz

[Bosco 1]

But what makes me wonder about that is that it only makes sense that there are fewer women trying to get pregnant after 35 than there are younger than 35. How can stats determined by women trying to get pregnant, whose situations and health factors vary among themselves, truly give us facts about the overall fertility rates and conceptions of most women at any age?

It once was that women did not have the social and economic power that many now have to even entertain the idea of wanting to conceive at older ages. A woman who had her first child at 35 was considered to be an elderly prima gravita; now the stats skew older, but the trend lines are not established. Besides, even now, women's reproductive health and sexuality is a mystery to most scientists. It wasn't too long ago that they were arguing about that kind of orgasms women had, if any.

All these factors are taken into consideration. The entire field of biostatistics revolves around analyzing data properly to reach valid conclusions.

There are natural things that happen to the body with age. The lining of the uterus can experience changes making implantation more difficulty, the quality and quantity of healthy eggs can go down, ovulation decreases, etc.

[Jenn! 918]

All these factors are taken into consideration. The entire field of biostatistics revolves around analyzing data properly to reach valid conclusions.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

All these factors are taken into consideration. The entire field of biostatistics revolves around analyzing data properly to reach valid conclusions.

I'm not so sure about that because I've seen too many erroneous conclusions drawn about women's health over the years. Even now, most conclusions about how the body works is derived from research on men, even in the reproductive area.

[honeyblonde 0]

But what makes me wonder about that is that it only makes sense that there are fewer women trying to get pregnant after 35 than there are younger than 35. How can stats determined by women trying to get pregnant, whose situations and health factors vary among themselves, truly give us facts about the overall fertility rates and conceptions of most women at any age?

It once was that women did not have the social and economic power that many now have to even entertain the idea of wanting to conceive at older ages. A woman who had her first child at 35 was considered to be an elderly prima gravita; now the stats skew older, but the trend lines are not established. Besides, even now, women's reproductive health and sexuality is a mystery to most scientists. It wasn't too long ago that they were arguing about that kind of orgasms women had, if any.

One thing we learn in economics, and I'm sure you're aware of as a sociologist, is to look for things to explain the results of any research. I think you've touched on some of the reasons for the differences.

Also, women in their 30's who decide to have their first child often have stressful careers, and own homes, which can be very stressful in itself. Stress is a proven factor in any health related issue. Oh yeah, not to mention mothers wishing for grandkids!

I think another factor is that many kids conceived in a woman's 20s weren't planned, they just "happened", while women getting pregnant in their 30s and later are less likely to be the result of accidents (although I'm sure we all know people who were) and more the result of serious attempts to have a child. Just the stress of trying to get pregnant can reduce its' likelihood.

[Caladan 19]

There are reasons to think that they're not just stupidly looking at declining birth rates and concluding that women's fertility drops. (The fact they're charting hormone levels, measuring uterine linings, postulating why oocytes fail to mature is one.) The research is out there. Is it perfect and enduring for all time? No. Is it a safe bet that women's fertility declines after a certain age, but before menopause? Pretty much.

These are all completely separate questions from the availability of birth control, the decline of the birth rate in Western nations, or women's growing economic status. Does it mean we all have to get married at 22? Hell no. But that doesn't mean that there aren't hormone changes before perimenopause that can affect fertility.

One reason we do know what we do is due to success and failure in fertility treatments. It's a big, expensive process, and there's a lot of incentive to figure out what works best for the patients, and that's driven a lot of the research, to figure out why what works in a 30 year old doesn't work in a 45 year old.

[Bosco 1]

All these factors are taken into consideration. The entire field of biostatistics revolves around analyzing data properly to reach valid conclusions.

I'm not so sure about that because I've seen too many erroneous conclusions drawn about women's health over the years. Even now, most conclusions about how the body works is derived from research on men, even in the reproductive area.

I think this really underestimating the level of medical research that exists today. They are able to account for factors far beyond anything anyone here could drum up. It also discounts what a profitable field fertility is and why the motivation for better understanding exists.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Bosco

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There are reasons to think that they're not just stupidly looking at declining birth rates and concluding that women's fertility drops. (The fact they're charting hormone levels, measuring uterine linings, postulating why oocytes fail to mature is one.) The research is out there. Is it perfect and enduring for all time? No. Is it a safe bet that women's fertility declines after a certain age, but before menopause? Pretty much.

These are all completely separate questions from the availability of birth control, the decline of the birth rate in Western nations, or women's growing economic status. Does it mean we all have to get married at 22? Hell no. But that doesn't mean that there aren't hormone changes before perimenopause that can affect fertility.

One reason we do know what we do is due to success and failure in fertility treatments. It's a big, expensive process, and there's a lot of incentive to figure out what works best for the patients, and that's driven a lot of the research, to figure out why what works in a 30 year old doesn't work in a 45 year old.

I don't believe it's separate from the availability of birth control nor can it be ignored that only a certain segment of the population can afford fertility treatments. What we can conclude is that researchers have access to a minor segment of a given population that serves to support their conclusions. Whether that is sufficient to draw conclusions is highly questionable, as the limit on sources produces a limit on empircal evidence.

The bottom line is, nature surprises researchers more often than they care to admit. Conventional wisdom is relied upon heavily in the realm of women's health, so it is more than likely that as the population of women who care to attempt reproduction at later ages will lead to the overturning of some elements of convention. Recently, I read a study about how some ethnic groups in Lebanon and North Africa have developed genes that allow women to retain fertility into much older ages than before believed. More about that may add to the understanding of how reproduction works in women.

The field of gender-specific health research is less than a decade old and new possiblities are being examined because there is so much taken for granted and more unknown about how women's bodies work, and what environmental and cultural factors are involved. Check back in 10 years and see how what was "known" in medicine now will be debunked by then. I've lived long enough to see that happen many times over.

Edited October 29, 2006 by szsz