Most women are “functionally sterile” - as defined by medical science - by their early 40s, and will not be able to conceive a child and carry it to term without medical assistance. Hell, pregnancies after 35 are called “geriatric pregnancies” for that very reason - they occur at the very tail end of a woman’s fertility window, and so carry with it a constellation of higher than normal risks to both mother and baby.
Remember: women’s fertility begins declining significantly in their early 30s and drops off a cliff by their late 30s. This is Science fact. Sure, some women still be able to have a naturally-conceived child into their late 40s, but these are the very rare exceptions. Very few in their 40s are successfully bearing naturally-conceived children without modern technology doing most to all of the heavy lifting.
I personally know several women who have or had toddlers at 43. It’s not as uncommon as you think. Most women don’t start going through menopause until much later.
You probably shouldn’t have contrasted women with men - while biologically correct, your argument comes over as off-putting and self-serving.
That being said, and I’m sorry to add some more rain on this parade: From my own experience, trying to have a baby with a woman at 35 or beyond is a long road, paved with painful realizations. Do people have any idea how fucking expensive IVF is? Not to mention the horrifying mental toll this whole process takes, for both parents-to-be.
It’s even worse than that: More than 1/3 of women past 30 suffer from diseases, often quite painful, of their reproductive systems, so pleasurable sex - and often, any type of sex - is increasingly slipping out of range. Yes, this does impact family planning.
Yes, I, too, personally know several uplifting anecdotes of women having children in their 40s, but unfortunately, and in line with statistics, I know many more not-so-nice anecdotes of women around that age losing their babies, sometimes very late in their pregnancies. And that’s just not something most people, including the father, easily recover from. 😑
modern technology doing most to all of the heavy lifting.
Ah yes the well known Science fact that people who’s conception involves health care exist trans dimensionally, weighing only as much as a feather, until age 6.
By 43 some fathers are raising toddlers.
A man can sire children until he dies of old age.
Most women are “functionally sterile” - as defined by medical science - by their early 40s, and will not be able to conceive a child and carry it to term without medical assistance. Hell, pregnancies after 35 are called “geriatric pregnancies” for that very reason - they occur at the very tail end of a woman’s fertility window, and so carry with it a constellation of higher than normal risks to both mother and baby.
Remember: women’s fertility begins declining significantly in their early 30s and drops off a cliff by their late 30s. This is Science fact. Sure, some women still be able to have a naturally-conceived child into their late 40s, but these are the very rare exceptions. Very few in their 40s are successfully bearing naturally-conceived children without modern technology doing most to all of the heavy lifting.
what kind of “correction” is this? plenty of people in their 40s of any gender are parents to toddlers. holy frig
It’s very manosphere coded
extremely
I personally know several women who have or had toddlers at 43. It’s not as uncommon as you think. Most women don’t start going through menopause until much later.
This hurts to read. You don’t have to be like this, expand your sphere of influence cause this one is really bad for you and those around you.
Me and my wife made our twins when i was 38 and she was 40.
Completly by accident, technology involved.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but the way statistics work outliners are the norm.
Group project dynamics vibes /jk
Thanks for the reminder. Early 40s here and been trying for kids for 10 years.
Anyway, I still look 25, so I’ve got that going for me.
You probably shouldn’t have contrasted women with men - while biologically correct, your argument comes over as off-putting and self-serving.
That being said, and I’m sorry to add some more rain on this parade: From my own experience, trying to have a baby with a woman at 35 or beyond is a long road, paved with painful realizations. Do people have any idea how fucking expensive IVF is? Not to mention the horrifying mental toll this whole process takes, for both parents-to-be.
It’s even worse than that: More than 1/3 of women past 30 suffer from diseases, often quite painful, of their reproductive systems, so pleasurable sex - and often, any type of sex - is increasingly slipping out of range. Yes, this does impact family planning.
Yes, I, too, personally know several uplifting anecdotes of women having children in their 40s, but unfortunately, and in line with statistics, I know many more not-so-nice anecdotes of women around that age losing their babies, sometimes very late in their pregnancies. And that’s just not something most people, including the father, easily recover from. 😑
So? Like genuinely, so what? Were not allowed to use science? GTFO
Ah yes the well known Science fact that people who’s conception involves health care exist trans dimensionally, weighing only as much as a feather, until age 6.