More kids with second marriage?

[Bosco 1]

As far as women conceiving in their 60's, it happens. My husband said he knows of many women there in Morocco that have, and also I have seen it on the news. Of course it isn't common, but it happens more than most people know about. When I say all over, maybe you thought I meant that it is happening often, that is not the intention. All over, as in all over the world.....

I don't know what part of Morocco your husband is from, but my husband nearly fell out of his seat laughing when I asked him this. He asked if they were coming from outerspace and kept muttering "crazy"

He was speaking of the berber region. Maybe your husband doesn't know of anyone personal, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. To assume he is aware of everyone's situation in Morocco, now that is what is crazy.

Where did I say he knew everyone's situation? I asked if he knew of many women getting pregnant after 60 in Morocco. He found it laughable.

[Caladan 19]

No one said nature isn't full of surprises, but it's a mistake to go from 'here's an outlier' to 'therefore the whole trend is proved wrong!' And of course, priorities and reality don't all line up.

[Veiled Princess 1]

To assume he is aware of everyone's situation in Morocco, now that is what is crazy.

Are you saying all Moroccans don't know each other???

[Caladan 19]

I thought they were like Canadians, and all Canadians know each other. Right? ('Do you know Bob? From Canada?')

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Speaking of Canada, I can't find an open link to this study, published in JSTOR, but here is an abstract:

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that populations may experience an increase in their natural fertility during the early stages of modernization as a result of the relaxation of various fertility-inhibiting practices and customs prevalent in traditional societies. This article offers evidence of such an increase in natural fertility among Canadian Indians. The main underlying cause is found to be in the massive, almost abrupt, shift from prolonged breastfeeding to bottlefeeding which took place prior to the onset of large-scale birth control practices among Canadian Indians.

The study goes on the discuss all of the ASSUMPTIONS that were debunked by this study, including that modernity decreased fertility. My point is that assumptions still prevail in studies regarding fertility, and the less than representative numbers do nothing to support current contentions. I predict, based on the history of fertility research even in the last 3 years, that what is held out as the norm now will be debunked at a soon to be later date.

[Caladan 19]

Got the full link? (I can get JSTOR.)

Even so, a study about demographics and fertility rates isn't the same as a study which tracks hormonal changes and egg quality with age. (NOT A BIRTH RATE.)

(Some non-technical information about the body (NOT A BIRTH RATE) changes: http://www.infertilityspecialist.com/infertility.html. http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1155.asp.)

You seem to be arguing here that because the science isn't 100% conclusive.... that what follows from it? That we can't say anything about declining individual fertility (NOT A BIRTH RATE)? That we're going to discover that all women can have babies into their 70s, it's just that male sperm starts to suck and all the 70 year olds are married to other seventy-year-olds? That really, fertility increases and it's all just the patriarchy? I'm not sure what you're arguing here, which is partially why I've gotten a bit snarky, especially since no one is saying that assumptions won't change.

You seem to have no other reason not to trust the current research other than the fact that science is an evolving discipline. Now you may just be anti-science, and that's all well and good. But that's not a reason to reject the research as unsound, just as permanent. But again, no one's saying that the science is permanent.

(NOT A BIRTH RATE.)

It isn't enough to say 'science changes therefore you must be a permanent skeptic and believe the outliers are more likely'. But I'm not sure what you're arguing for. What do you think is the live hypothesis we're not considering here?

(WE ARE STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT BIRTH RATES.)

[Veiled Princess 1]

I have a question... now I don't know much about fertility other than you have to ovulate each month and that comes with your menses and since that doesn't happen for me without the BC pill it would be really hard for me to conceive with no assistance.... if I take BC pills for a while and then go off suddenly, I get pregnant.. or at least that's what's happended twice in the past.

I have always thought (I thought I learned it in school but I could be wrong) that when a baby girl is born she comes equipped with all the eggs she'll ever have in her life... so she doesn't produce more eggs later on like chickens.

When she ovulates each month her body pushes an unfertilized egg out so she loses one if it doesn't become fertilized that month... that happens every month? (normally)

So when she's older that means she doesn't have as many eggs left so is that why she would be less fertile?

Do I have this close at all or do I seriously need to go back to grade school???

If this is right does that mean I'll stay fertile longer since I don't ovulate each month????

Edited October 30, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yes, I can get JSTOR. I am trying to have this discussion even tho you are trying to put words in my mouth and adding in issues I have yet to deal with. The bottom line is, studies be damned, the fertility of one woman has not a thing to do with the fertility of another. The fact that doctors and scientists have to make this disclaimer, and that they are constantly revising their "facts" and "conventional wisdom" makes it clear that the science is frankly, suited for little more than academics and conjecture, much like what we have been conducting here. Why should I trust an evolving discipline? Why do you keep bringing in numbers that no one else is talking about? Are you trying to out absurd the absurd?

I have a question... now I don't know much about fertility other than you have to ovulate each month and that comes with your menses and since that doesn't happen for me without the BC pill it would be really hard for me to conceive with no assistance.... if I take BC pills for a while and then go off suddenly, I get pregnant.. or at least that's what's happended twice in the past.

I have always thought (I thought I learned it in school but I could be wrong) that when a baby girl is born she comes equipped with all the eggs she'll ever have in her life... so she doesn't produce more eggs later on like chickens.

When she ovulates each month her body pushes an unfertilized egg out so she loses one if it doesn't become fertilized that month... that happens every month? (normally)

So when she's older that means she doesn't have as many eggs left so is that why she would be less fertile?

Do I have this close at all or do I seriously need to go back to grade school???

If this is right does that mean I'll stay fertile longer since I don't ovulate each month????

I added a link earlier on that raises doubts about the "conventional wisdom" of females being born with all the eggs they will ever have. Like I said, the true discipline of women's reproductive health is in its infancy.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I added a link earlier on that raises doubts about the "conventional wisdom" of females being born with all the eggs they will ever have. Like I said, the true discipline of women's reproductive health is in its infancy.

Oh I missed that.... can you paste it again?

Is it a lot of DR speak or will I actually understand it?

What does JSTOR mean?

Honestly I don't trust science a whole lot... I mean didn't they just figure out that they've been wrong about Pluto all this time recently? (Are they gonna change the science text books in school now?)

And if I hear that I used to be a monkey once more I'll puke.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I added a link earlier on that raises doubts about the "conventional wisdom" of females being born with all the eggs they will ever have. Like I said, the true discipline of women's reproductive health is in its infancy.

Oh I missed that.... can you paste it again?

Is it a lot of DR speak or will I actually understand it?

What does JSTOR mean?

Honestly I don't trust science a whole lot... I mean didn't they just figure out that they've been wrong about Pluto all this time recently? (Are they gonna change the science text books in school now?)

And if I hear that I used to be a monkey once more I'll puke.

Thanks for the laugh about Pluto lol! Just like the rest of us, scientists are having a hard time keeping up with technology.

JSTOR is a journal archive.

I don't remember which link I used. Here's a new one:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/0...1-moreeggs.html

[Veiled Princess 1]

Thanks for the laugh about Pluto lol! Just like the rest of us, scientists are having a hard time keeping up with technology.

JSTOR is a journal archive.

I don't remember which link I used. Here's a new one:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/0...1-moreeggs.html

This is absolutely fascinating!!!! Can you imagine the possibilities???

You know I remember reading somewhere that God has not sent any disease/ailment down that He hasn't also provided the cure. If this plays out like they think this could lead to the cure to infertility in women!

I was especially moved from the mention of the wonders this could bring for chemo patients

Thanks for the link

Oh BTW... I just see pluto as the latest blunder.. scientists have been amusing us for centuries with their "know-it-all" attitudes.... it wasn't very long ago in man's history that the Earth was flat as well

Edited October 30, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Caladan 19]

szsz, no one's bringing in numbers as anything but rough guidelines or terms of rhetoric. (I expect you know this.) You seem to want to cling to the idea that each woman's fertility is wholly individual and there are no trends or correlations at all. I'm not sure why you think this is plausible. That just doesn't seem to fit the data, nor what we would expect given anecdotal life experience.

I have a question... now I don't know much about fertility other than you have to ovulate each month and that comes with your menses and since that doesn't happen for me without the BC pill it would be really hard for me to conceive with no assistance.... if I take BC pills for a while and then go off suddenly, I get pregnant.. or at least that's what's happended twice in the past.

I have always thought (I thought I learned it in school but I could be wrong) that when a baby girl is born she comes equipped with all the eggs she'll ever have in her life... so she doesn't produce more eggs later on like chickens.

When she ovulates each month her body pushes an unfertilized egg out so she loses one if it doesn't become fertilized that month... that happens every month? (normally)

So when she's older that means she doesn't have as many eggs left so is that why she would be less fertile?

Do I have this close at all or do I seriously need to go back to grade school???

If this is right does that mean I'll stay fertile longer since I don't ovulate each month????

The rough picture is like this, and it's evolving as we learn more (this is not the same as saying it's absurd): A baby girl is born with lots of unfertilized pre-eggs. Lots. Once she hits puberty and starts menstruating, every month an egg ripens, and is released, blah blah, if there's a sperm, a baby, if not, a period.

Okay, so there's zillions of them lil' pre-eggs in there. Most of them die before they get a chance to be released. So infertility (as opposed to menopause) isn't caused by running out of eggs, exactly. This is where it's not as well understood, but basically, as the woman ages, everything ages, including the eggs, and the processes start to slow down. Some of the eggs are damaged genetically. This is one reason it's harder to get pregnant, they hypothesize, as most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are thought to be because the embyro isn't genetically viable. (Basically, the body gets rid of it if it's not working right in some cases.) Sometimes the egg doesn't release like it should. Sometimes it releases, but the uterine lining is changing and it doesn't implant. And some of these problems are linked to age.

A friend of mine who went through fertility treatment had no problem getting pregnant, but staying pregnant was a different story. Her body had a hard time producing the hormones necessary to hold onto the pregnancy. So the next time she tested positive, they gave her hormone shots for the first trimester. Worked like a charm.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

szsz, no one's bringing in numbers as anything but rough guidelines or terms of rhetoric. (I expect you know this.) You seem to want to cling to the idea that each woman's fertility is wholly individual and there are no trends or correlations at all. I'm not sure why you think this is plausible. That just doesn't seem to fit the data, nor what we would expect given anecdotal life experience.

But you keep posting statements that prove my point that the science depends a lot on trial, error, individual circumstance, and revision of supposedly settled ideas.

[morocco4ever 63]

As far as women conceiving in their 60's, it happens. My husband said he knows of many women there in Morocco that have, and also I have seen it on the news. Of course it isn't common, but it happens more than most people know about. When I say all over, maybe you thought I meant that it is happening often, that is not the intention. All over, as in all over the world.....

I don't know what part of Morocco your husband is from, but my husband nearly fell out of his seat laughing when I asked him this. He asked if they were coming from outerspace and kept muttering "crazy"

He was speaking of the berber region. Maybe your husband doesn't know of anyone personal, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. To assume he is aware of everyone's situation in Morocco, now that is what is crazy.

Where did I say he knew everyone's situation? I asked if he knew of many women getting pregnant after 60 in Morocco. He found it laughable.

I seem to recall the words "outer space" and "crazy". Maybe I am wrong, but the way I read it is that he is saying that it has never happened. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I thought they were like Canadians, and all Canadians know each other. Right? ('Do you know Bob? From Canada?')

Well I live south of Canada, and I have heard of him.

[Bosco 1]

As far as women conceiving in their 60's, it happens. My husband said he knows of many women there in Morocco that have, and also I have seen it on the news. Of course it isn't common, but it happens more than most people know about. When I say all over, maybe you thought I meant that it is happening often, that is not the intention. All over, as in all over the world.....

I don't know what part of Morocco your husband is from, but my husband nearly fell out of his seat laughing when I asked him this. He asked if they were coming from outerspace and kept muttering "crazy"

He was speaking of the berber region. Maybe your husband doesn't know of anyone personal, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. To assume he is aware of everyone's situation in Morocco, now that is what is crazy.

Where did I say he knew everyone's situation? I asked if he knew of many women getting pregnant after 60 in Morocco. He found it laughable.

I seem to recall the words "outer space" and "crazy". Maybe I am wrong, but the way I read it is that he is saying that it has never happened. Please correct me if I am wrong.

He thinks it is crazy to say that a large number (large number = many) of Moroccan women are having children over the age of 60, especially given the life expectancy there and the quality of medical care.