BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids msnbc article

Have you guys seen this article today? I found it really irritated me primarily because nowhere in the article does it even state that NOT having kids is even an option. Its like they assume that EVERY woman regardless of her age or individual circumstances will want kids someday. WTH???!!! It was mostly about fertility and that women who get older might not have all the time they think they do. Maybe I'm just being hypersensitive today. I do like at the end that they quoted a woman who is not ready to have kids and she said she would adopt if it was "too late" to have her own. But the overall tone of it irked me!

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I didn't read that into it, but it's definitely eye opening. The quotes about how many women know nothing about their fertility, and how so many of them just "assume" that they can still have kids at 40+ - are pretty startling...

I think it is about time that they made women (who want children) aware of the staggering costs of infertility treatment. So many women are unaware of the costs and the fact that most insurance companies will not pay for treatment.

Example: Take endometriosis. If you have surgery for this condition and it is for the purpose of restoring fertility, insurance will more than likely not cover it. If the surgery is because the condition causes you pain and has nothing to do with fertility then the insurance company will cover it. I had this surgery because of pain but my doctor had to be sure the claim was coded that way so the insurance company didn't think it had anything to do with restoring fertility.

Yes- I think the cost is staggering. I don't know about you guys but at $12,500 a shot I can think of a lot better ways to spend the money. Of course, I have no desire for children either.

I think the media also perpetuates this myth by having so much coverage about older moms. It looks like they don't struggle at all and that fertility treatments are an easy option. But many of these older women who are covered in the media have financial resources and help that others don't have. You never see the part where the bills start rolling in! It is just such a "rose colored glasses" glamorized view of parenthood and my whole soap box about articles like this is that they never talk about the choice NOT to have a child at all.

I mentioned this in another post, but it's related to this.

A gal was asking me if I wanted kids (b/c I'm getting married in October). And she was emphasizing I have plenty of time.

Um, I will be 36 in September. 35 is the turning point when pregnancy risks greatly increase.

The woman in the article is 39, and said she's trying for another. It might be possible, but is it a good idea, NO! 39 is too old, I'm sorry, it just is.

I know someone that is 38 and pregnant right now. And she was bugging me about babies. And of course you can't say this to someone that's pregnant, but she's in a risk category! And encouraging me to do the same.

I don't want one anyway, but I think it's really crazy to have one after a certain age.

What if you said to these women "But what about the risks to the mother and baby in pregnancies after age 35?" I guess they think it won't happen to them or anyone they know. But I happen to know of a woman (and her baby) who DIED due to late term preeclampsia. I'm pretty sure she was over 35, too. I also have a coworker whose daughter lost a baby late in term due to a ruptured placenta. It's not all baby showers and happy baby photo ops, folks.

Cindy

I have a girlfriend who got married in Feb and is 35 this year - and sensibly, they discussed the kid thing and decided that they didn't have any time to waste. They began "trying" at the start of the year, it's now June and nothing yet. I really hope things work out for her, she really wants to be a mother...

I have two female cousins both of whom have fertility issues and both desparately want babies. One is spending $15K (for the third time) for IVF which hasn't worked yet. The other spent about $15K one time and adopted from Guatemala. She said she wasn't going to invest that kind of money for the "chance" that she might get a baby. With the adoption, she was certain to get one.

Personally, for $15K, I got a hellava nice vacation plan. ;-)

Cindy:

I should have shared that with them. The woman I was talking to has two kids, and, doing the math, she was 37 when she had one of them.

I know she would say, "it worked out well for me." Well, yeah, thank GOD! She obviously didn't know she was taking a risk, or didn't care. It's so scary!

Pikasam: I hope it works out for your friend, too.

Thanks Happy :-) I'll pass her the good karma.

I know that when I was having a "discussion" with my ex once, I jokingly said I was way too old to have kids. His reply was "well, my sister had hers at 40". He's VERY (in fact, almost obsessively) close to his sister and I had to bite my tongue on replying "your sister needs her head read". Like if she jumped off a freeway overpass, I'd be lining up to follow!

I'd love to point out to his 41 year old self that the rate of birth defects stemming from deformed sperm, when the guy is past the age of 40, skyrockets as well. So guess if his baby momma is 40+ then he's asking for a double dose of trouble. It's so risky it makes me cringe - like playing baby Russian roulette. And if you lose, you lose BIG.

Even if I'd wanted kids, 40 is too late. Too hard, too risky, too old. There's a reason nature designed us the way we are ...