Is It Normal for a Woman to Crave Having a Baby?

How Long Can You Look to Have a Infant?

Deep anxiety most the ability to have children later on in life plagues many women. Merely the decline in fertility over the course of a adult female's 30s has been oversold. Hither'due south what the statistics really tell the states—and what they don't.

Geof Kern

Editor'due south Note: Read more stories in our series about women and political power.

In the tentative, post-nine/11 spring of 2002, I was, at 30, in the midst of extricating myself from my showtime spousal relationship. My husband and I had met in graduate school but couldn't find two academic jobs in the same place, so nosotros spent the iii years of our marriage living in unlike states. After I accustomed a tenure-runway position in California and he turned downward a postdoctoral research position nearby—the chore wasn't good plenty, he said—it seemed clear that our living situation was non going to change.

I put off telling my parents about the carve up for weeks, hesitant to disappoint them. When I finally bankrupt the news, they were, to my relief, supportive and understanding. And then my female parent said, "Have you read Time mag this week? I know you desire to accept kids."

Time'due south cover that calendar week had a infant on information technology. "Heed to a successful woman discuss her failure to conduct a child, and the grief comes in layers of bitterness and regret," the story inside began. A generation of women who had waited to get-go a family was start to grapple with that decision, and ane media outlet after another was wringing its easily near the steep decline in women'southward fertility with historic period: "When It's Too Late to Have a Infant," lamented the U.K.'s Observer; "Baby Panic," New York mag announced on its cover.

The panic stemmed from the Apr 2002 publication of Sylvia Ann Hewlett's headline-grabbing book, Creating a Life, which counseled that women should take their children while they're immature or gamble having none at all. Inside corporate America, 42 percentage of the professional women interviewed past Hewlett had no children at historic period 40, and about said they deeply regretted it. Just as you plan for a corner office, Hewlett advised her readers, you should program for grandchildren.

The previous fall, an advertizement campaign sponsored past the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) had warned, "Advancing historic period decreases your ability to accept children." One ad was illustrated with a baby canteen shaped like an hourglass that was—just to make the point glaringly obvious—running out of milk. Female fertility, the grouping appear, begins to decline at 27. "Should you have your baby at present?" asked Newsweek in response.

For me, that was no longer a feasible pick.

I had e'er wanted children. Even when I was decorated with my postdoctoral research, I volunteered to babysit a friend's preschooler. I oftentimes passed the time in airports by chatting up frazzled mothers and babbling toddlers—a two-year-old, quite to my surprise, one time crawled into my lap. At a wedding I attended in my belatedly 20s, I played with the groom'due south preschool-age nephews, often on the floor, during the entire rehearsal and most of the reception. ("Practise you fart?" one of them asked me in an overly loud voice during the rehearsal. "Anybody does," I replied solemnly, equally his grandpa laughed quietly in the next pew.)

But, suddenly unmarried at 30, I seemed destined to remain childless until at least my mid-30s, and possibly ever. Flying to a friend'southward hymeneals in May 2002, I finally forced myself to read the Fourth dimension article. Information technology upset me so much that I began doubting my divorce for the first time. "And God, what if I want to have two?," I wrote in my periodical as the common cold plane sped over the Rockies. "Showtime at 35, and if yous wait until the kid is ii to attempt, more than than likely you have the second at 38 or 39. If at all." To reassure myself about the divorce, I wrote, "Aught I did would accept changed the situation." I underlined that.

I was lucky: within a few years, I married again, and this time the match was much better. Just my new married man and I seemed to face frightening odds against having children. Most books and Spider web sites I read said that 1 in three women ages 35 to 39 would not become significant inside a year of starting to try. The commencement page of the ASRM's 2003 guide for patients noted that women in their late 30s had a xxx percentage take a chance of remaining childless altogether. The guide also included statistics that I'd seen repeated in many other places: a adult female's chance of pregnancy was 20 percent each calendar month at age 30, dwindling to 5 percent by age 40.

Every time I read these statistics, my tum dropped like a stone, heavy and foreboding. Had I already missed my take chances to be a mother?

As a psychology researcher who'd published articles in scientific journals, some covered in the popular press, I knew that many scientific findings differ significantly from what the public hears about them. Soon afterward my second wedding ceremony, I decided to go to the source: I scoured medical-research databases, and rapidly learned that the statistics on women'due south age and fertility—used by many to make decisions about relationships, careers, and when to have children—were one of the more spectacular examples of the mainstream media's failure to correctly written report on and interpret scientific research.

The widely cited statistic that one in three women ages 35 to 39 will not exist meaning later a twelvemonth of trying, for instance, is based on an article published in 2004 in the periodical Man Reproduction. Rarely mentioned is the source of the data: French birth records from 1670 to 1830. The chance of remaining childless—xxx percent—was besides calculated based on historical populations.

In other words, millions of women are being told when to become pregnant based on statistics from a time before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment. Virtually people assume these numbers are based on large, well-conducted studies of modern women, but they are non. When I mention this to friends and associates, by far the well-nigh mutual reaction is: "No … No manner. Really?"

Surprisingly few well-designed studies of female age and natural fertility include women built-in in the 20th century—simply those that do tend to paint a more optimistic flick. One written report, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2004 and headed by David Dunson (now of Duke University), examined the chances of pregnancy amongst 770 European women. It found that with sex at least twice a week, 82 percent of 35-to-39-year-quondam women excogitate within a yr, compared with 86 percent of 27-to-34-year-olds. (The fertility of women in their late 20s and early 30s was virtually identical—news in and of itself.) Some other study, released this March in Fertility and Sterility and led past Kenneth Rothman of Boston University, followed two,820 Danish women every bit they tried to become pregnant. Among women having sex during their fertile times, 78 per centum of 35-to-40-yr-olds got pregnant inside a year, compared with 84 percent of xx-to-34-year-olds. A study headed past Anne Steiner, an acquaintance professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the results of which were presented in June, found that among 38- and 39-year-olds who had been significant before, 80 percentage of white women of normal weight got pregnant naturally within six months (although that per centum was lower amidst other races and among the overweight). "In our information, we're not seeing huge drops until age 40," she told me.

Even some studies based on historical birth records are more optimistic than what the press normally reports: I found that, in the days before birth control, 89 per centum of 38-year-old women were nevertheless fertile. Some other ended that the typical woman was able to get pregnant until somewhere between ages forty and 45. Yet these more encouraging numbers are rarely mentioned—none of these figures appear in the American Lodge for Reproductive Medicine'due south 2008 commission opinion on female age and fertility, which instead relies on the virtually-ominous historical data.

In short, the "baby panic"—which has past no ways abated since information technology hit me personally—is based largely on questionable information. We've rearranged our lives, worried endlessly, and forgone countless career opportunities based on a few statistics near women who resided in thatched-roof huts and never saw a lightbulb. In Dunson's written report of mod women, the difference in pregnancy rates at age 28 versus 37 is only nearly four percent points. Fertility does subtract with historic period, but the decline is not steep plenty to go along the vast bulk of women in their late 30s from having a child. And that, after all, is the whole signal.

I am now the mother of 3 children, all born after I turned 35. My oldest started kindergarten on my 40th birthday; my youngest was born five months afterward. All were conceived naturally within a few months. The toddler in my lap at the airport is now mine.

Instead of worrying about my fertility, I now worry near paying for child care and getting three children to bed on fourth dimension. These are skilful problems to take.

Still the memory of my apple-polishing terror most age-related infertility nonetheless lingers. Every time I tried to become meaning, I was consumed by anxiety that my age meant doom. I was not alone. Women on Internet message boards write of scaling back their careers or having fewer children than they'd similar to, because they can't comport the thought of trying to get pregnant later 35. Those who take already passed the dreaded birthday ask for tips on how to stay calm when trying to get significant, constantly worrying—just as I did—that they will never have a child. "I'm scared because I am 35 and anybody keeps reminding me that my 'clock is ticking.' My grandmother even reminded me of this at my wedding reception," one newly married adult female wrote to me subsequently reading my 2012 advice book, The Impatient Woman'due south Guide to Getting Significant, based in part on my own experience. It's not only grandmothers sounding this notation. "What scientific discipline tells the states most the aging parental torso should alert us more than than it does," wrote the journalist Judith Shulevitz in a New Democracy encompass story late last year that focused, light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation-similar, on the downsides of delayed parenthood.

How did the infant panic happen in the first identify? And why hasn't in that location been more public pushback from fertility experts?

Ane possibility is the "availability heuristic": when making judgments, people rely on what'southward right in front of them. Fertility doctors see the effects of historic period on the success rate of fertility treatment every day. That's particularly true for in vitro fertilization, which relies on the extraction of a large number of eggs from the ovaries, because some eggs are lost at every stage of the difficult process. Younger women's ovaries reply better to the drugs used to excerpt the eggs, and younger women's eggs are more likely to exist chromosomally normal. As a consequence, younger women'southward IVF success rates are indeed much higher—about 42 percent of those younger than 35 volition requite nascency to a live baby after one IVF bike, versus 27 percent for those ages 35 to 40, and just 12 percent for those ages 41 to 42. Many studies have examined how IVF success declines with age, and these statistics are cited in many inquiry manufactures and online forums.

Yet only nigh 1 per centum of babies born each year in the U.Due south. are a result of IVF, and near of their mothers used the technique not because of their age, but to overcome blocked fallopian tubes, male person infertility, or other issues: about 80 percent of IVF patients are 40 or younger. And the IVF statistics tell us very petty about natural conception, which requires merely one egg rather than a dozen or more, among other differences.

Studies of natural conception are surprisingly difficult to comport—that's ane reason both IVF statistics and historical records play an outsize role in fertility reporting. Modern birth records are uninformative, because most women have their children in their 20s and so use birth command or sterilization surgery to prevent pregnancy during their 30s and 40s. Studies request couples how long it took them to excogitate or how long they have been trying to get pregnant are as unreliable as human retentiveness. And finding and studying women who are trying to go significant is challenging, as there's such a narrow window between when they start trying and when some volition succeed.

Millions of women are beingness told when to get significant based on statistics from a time before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment.

Another problem looms even larger: women who are actively trying to become pregnant at age 35 or later might be less fertile than the boilerplate over-35 adult female. Some highly fertile women volition become pregnant accidentally when they are younger, and others will go pregnant quickly whenever they try, completing their families at a younger historic period. Those who are left are, unduly, the less fertile. Thus, "the observed lower fertility rates amidst older women presumably overestimate the effect of biological aging," says Dr. Allen Wilcox, who leads the Reproductive Epidemiology Grouping at the National Institute of Ecology Health Sciences. "If we're overestimating the biological decline of fertility with age, this volition only be adept news to women who have been most fastidious in their birth-control use, and may exist more fertile at older ages, on boilerplate, than our data would pb them to expect."

These modern-twenty-four hour period enquiry problems help explain why historical data from an age before birth control are so tempting. However, the downsides of a historical approach are numerous. Advanced medical care, antibiotics, and even a reliable food supply were unavailable hundreds of years ago. And the decline in fertility in the historical data may also stem from older couples' having sex less ofttimes than younger ones. Less-frequent sex might have been particularly likely if couples had been married for a long time, or had many children, or both. (Having more than children of course makes it more difficult to fit in sexual activity, and some couples surely realized—eureka!—that they could avoid having another mouth to feed by scaling dorsum their nocturnal activities.) Some historical studies try to command for these bug in various ways—such as looking just at just-married couples—just many of the aforementioned issues remain.

The best manner to assess fertility might exist to mensurate "cycle viability," or the take a chance of getting meaning if a couple has sex on the about fertile day of the woman's bike. Studies based on cycle viability use a prospective rather than retrospective design—monitoring couples equally they try to go pregnant instead of asking couples to recall how long it took them to get pregnant or how long they tried. Bicycle-viability studies also eliminate the demand to business relationship for older couples' less active sex lives. David Dunson's analysis revealed that intercourse ii days before ovulation resulted in pregnancy 29 per centum of the time for 35-to-39-year-quondam women, compared with nigh 42 per centum for 27-to-29-yr-olds. So, by this measure, fertility falls by about a third from a woman's belatedly 20s to her late 30s. Even so, a 35-to-39-year-sometime's fertility ii days before ovulation was the same as a nineteen-to-26-twelvemonth-quondam'south fertility 3 days before ovulation: according to Dunson's data, older couples who time sex just one day better than younger ones will finer eliminate the age divergence.

Don't these numbers contradict the statistics you sometimes run across in the pop press that only 20 pct of 30-year-onetime women and 5 percentage of forty-twelvemonth-onetime women become meaning per cycle? They do, but no periodical article I could locate contained these numbers, and none of the experts I contacted could tell me what data set they were based on. The American Club for Reproductive Medicine'southward guide provides no citation for these statistics; when I contacted the association'south press role asking where they came from, a representative said they were simplified for a popular audience, and did not provide a specific citation.

Dunson, a biostatistics professor, thought the lower numbers might be averages across many cycles rather than the chances of getting pregnant during the offset wheel of trying. More women volition get pregnant during the first cycle than in each subsequent one because the most fertile will conceive quickly, and those left will have lower fertility on boilerplate.

Most fertility bug are not the result of female person age. Blocked tubes and endometriosis (a condition in which the cells lining the uterus also grow exterior information technology) strike both younger and older women. Almost one-half of infertility problems trace back to the man, and these seem to exist more common amongst older men, although research suggests that men'southward fertility declines but gradually with age.

Fertility issues unrelated to female age may also explicate why, in many studies, fertility at older ages is considerably college amidst women who have been pregnant before. Among couples who haven't had an accidental pregnancy—who, equally Dr. Steiner put it, "take never had an 'oops' "—sperm bug and blocked tubes may exist more likely. Thus, the data from women who already have a kid may give a more than accurate picture of the fertility pass up due to "ovarian aging." In Kenneth Rothman's study of the Danish women, among those who'd given birth at least once previously, the take chances of getting significant at age 40 was similar to that at historic period xx.

Older women'due south fears, of grade, extend beyond the ability to become pregnant. The rates of miscarriages and birth defects rise with historic period, and worries over both have been well ventilated in the popular press. But how much practice these risks actually rise? Many miscarriage statistics come from—you guessed it—women who undergo IVF or other fertility handling, who may have a higher miscarriage risk regardless of historic period. All the same, the National Vital Statistics Reports, which draw data from the general population, find that xv percent of women ages 20 to 34, 27 percent of women 35 to 39, and 26 per centum of women 40 to 44 report having had a miscarriage. These increases are hardly insignificant, and the true charge per unit of miscarriages is higher, since many miscarriages occur extremely early on in a pregnancy—before a missed period or pregnancy test. Yet it should exist noted that even for older women, the likelihood of a pregnancy's standing is nearly three times that of having a known miscarriage.

What about nascence defects? The run a risk of chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome does ascent with a woman's age—such abnormalities are the source of many of those very early on, undetected miscarriages. However, the probability of having a kid with a chromosomal aberration remains extremely depression. Even at early fetal testing (known every bit chorionic villus sampling), 99 pct of fetuses are chromosomally normal among 35-yr-onetime pregnant women, and 97 percentage amidst 40-year-olds. At 45, when most women tin no longer become meaning, 87 percent of fetuses are still normal. (Many of those that are not will afterward be miscarried.) In the near future, fetal genetic testing volition exist done with a simple blood exam, making it even easier than it is today for women to get early information well-nigh possible genetic problems.

What does all this mean for a adult female trying to decide when to take children? More than specifically, how long can she safely await?

This question tin can't be answered with admittedly certainty, for two big reasons. Offset, while the information on natural fertility among modern women are proliferating, they are still sparse. Collectively, the 3 modern studies by Dunson, Rothman, and Steiner included just about 400 women 35 or older, and they might not exist representative of all such women trying to conceive.

2d, statistics, of course, can tell us only about probabilities and averages—they offer no guarantees to any item person. "Even if we had good estimates for the boilerplate biological reject in fertility with age, that is nonetheless of relatively limited utilise to individuals, given the large range of fertility institute in healthy women," says Allen Wilcox of the NIH.

And then what is a woman—and her partner—to do?

The data, imperfect as they are, suggest two conclusions. No. 1: fertility declines with age. No. two, and much more than relevant: the vast majority of women in their late 30s volition exist able to get significant on their own. The lesser line for women, in my view, is: programme to take your terminal child by the time you plow 40. Across that, y'all're rolling the dice, though they may all the same come up in your favor. "Fertility is relatively stable until the late 30s, with the inflection point somewhere effectually 38 or 39," Steiner told me. "Women in their early 30s tin think nigh years, just in their belatedly 30s, they need to be thinking near months." That'south as well why many experts advise that women older than 35 should run across a fertility specialist if they haven't conceived after half-dozen months—particularly if information technology's been six months of sex during fertile times.

There is no single best time to have a kid. Some women and couples will observe that starting—and finishing—their families in their 20s is what's best for them, all things considered. They just shouldn't permit alarmist rhetoric button them to become parents before they're ready. Having children at a young age slightly lowers the risks of infertility and chromosomal abnormalities, and moderately lowers the risk of miscarriage. But it as well carries costs for relationships and careers. Literally: an analysis by one economist found that, on boilerplate, every year a woman postpones having children leads to a ten per centum increment in career earnings.

For women who aren't gear up for children in their early 30s but are still worried about waiting, new technologies—albeit imperfect ones—offer a third selection. Some women choose to freeze their eggs, having a fertility md excerpt eggs when they are yet young (say, early on 30s) and cryogenically preserve them. And then, if they oasis't had children by their cocky-imposed deadline, they can thaw the eggs, fertilize them, and implant the embryos using IVF. Because the eggs will exist younger, success rates are theoretically college. The downsides are the expense—perchance $10,000 for the egg freezing and an average of more than $12,000 per wheel for IVF—and having to use IVF to become pregnant. Women who already have a partner can, alternatively, freeze embryos, a more common procedure that also uses IVF technology.

At domicile, couples should recognize that having sex at the near fertile fourth dimension of the cycle matters enormously, potentially making the deviation between an easy formulation in the bedroom and expensive fertility treatment in a dispensary. Rothman'due south study found that timing sex around ovulation narrowed the fertility gap between younger and older women. Women older than 35 who desire to get significant should consider recapturing the glory of their 20‑something sex lives, or learning to predict ovulation by charting their cycles or using a fertility monitor.

I wish I had known all this back in the spring of 2002, when the media coverage of historic period and infertility was deafening. I did, though, find some relief from the smart women of Saturday Night Live.

"According to author Sylvia Hewlett, career women shouldn't await to have babies, because our fertility takes a steep drop-off subsequently age 27," Tina Fey said during a "Weekend Update" sketch. "And Sylvia's right; I definitely should have had a baby when I was 27, living in Chicago over a biker bar, pulling down a cool $12,000 a yr. That would have worked out great." Rachel Dratch said, "Yeah. Sylvia, um, thanks for reminding me that I take to hurry up and take a infant. Uh, me and my four cats will get right on that."

"My neighbor has this adorable, cute little Chinese babe that speaks Italian," noted Amy Poehler. "Then, yous know, I'll only buy 1 of those." Maya Rudolph rounded out the rant: "Yeah, Sylvia, maybe your next book should tell men our age to terminate playing Grand Theft Car Three and holding out for the chick from Alias." ("You're not gonna go the chick from Alias," Fey advised.)

Xi years later, these four women have 8 children among them, all simply one born when they were older than 35. Information technology's good to exist right.

Is It Normal for a Woman to Crave Having a Baby?

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Share this post