Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xeoncross | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I had no idea "advanced maternal age" was only 35

It's the type of thing only a doctor can say.

I mentioned it off-hand to an ex-girlfriend and was called a sexist (not in an angry/confrontational way, but pretty much dismissed equally off-hand).

> It's the type of thing only a doctor can say.

This information is the first result when you Google "fertility by age" [0].

This should be mentioned more often, not to be sexist, but so everyone has the complete information, it's way more cruel to allow people to be deluded until their forties just for them to realize one day they can't have children.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

From the Wikipedia article itself:

> While many sources suggest a more dramatic drop at around 35, this is unclear since few studies have been conducted since the nineteenth century. One 2004 study of European women found fertility of the 27–34 and the 35–39 groups had only a four-percent difference.

I don't think it's just fertility that people are talking about. In most cases that I hear this talked about, it's generally around the fact that pregnancies are riskier after 35.

From the article:

> Women who become pregnant after age 35 are at increased risk for complications that affect the parent and fetus.

Someone who refutes conventional medical knowledge, which was presumably crafted in part by women and is likely regularly scrutinized by a large body of female medical researchers, as sexist without any counter argument, does not sound like someone to take seriously, let alone are they a good partner choice.

My wife wanted to do a home birth. The fact she was over 35 made that not an option. So things happen at 35.

Geriatric primigravida used to label first pregnancies at 28 or older. I assume that is no longer the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com