We are having our babies older than we used to. Which is why our population is not increasing. (As a matter of fact, it was just announced that there were more deaths than births for soon-to-be minority majority Whites in America.) Because the longer we wait, the less likely we will have our (old) average of 2.2 children per family. Even that wasn’t “self-replicating”, with 2.33 children per family- which keeps the population stable. Right now, US families are averaging just over 1.9 children per family.
This is one of the reasons why American demographics are changing. Hispanic families are average 2.4 children per household, which is clearly above simple replacement. By contrast, Caucasians are averaging 1.8 children- mostly because these women are waiting until the mid-30’s to start their families. (Don’t let a certain party tell you that the minority is almost the majority because of illegal immigration- these are the facts.)
But, these numbers are really related to our decisions to have children later. Oh, yes, women can have children at 40- my son is a prime example of that statistic, a surprise that gladdens me each day (and, with whom, I spent a glorious Father’s Day in NYC). But, realistically, that is more the exception than the norm.
I know it’s not politically correct (an attribute that I personally detest), but these facts are true. They may even be self-evident. A woman’s fertility decreases with age. As we wait to marry, as we wait to have children, the odds increase that we will have fewer- if any- children.
One of the ways this is evident is to examine the rates women have children while undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) . Why? Because we know these women want to become pregnant and we know exactly when they were presented the opportunity to be pregnant.
Oh, I know there are tests that can “assess ovarian reserve”. But, that test (and the anti-Mullerian hormone or AMH test) cannot discern the future. It is valid to determine the levels of fertility drugs it will take to get a woman pregnant, but not the odds of conception.
Women below the age of 35 that underwent IVF were able to become pregnant almost 45% of the time. As a matter of fact, those women under the age of 30 have a 20% probability of being pregnant each and every month of the year. By the time women are between 35 and 37 years of age, their ability to become pregnant has dropped by almost 1/5 to 37%. Those whose ages range between 38 ad 40 have their chances dropped by another 1/3 to some 26.6%. Those over 40 are now presented with a 1 in 6 chance to be pregnant and down to 1 in 16 by the time they are 43 or 44 years of age.
So, the choice is yours, women. But, you need to know that every choice has a consequence.
There are plenty of children in the world who don’t have homes. IVF or not having children aren’t the only options, especially in an already overpopulated world.
Absolutely correct, Marie. The problem is that there if there are fewer children being born- wanted by the parents or not, there are fewer chances to adopt.
Many folks have tremendous reservations when it comes to adopting children over the age of 6, which is yet another difficulty.
I certainly tip my hat- all six of them- to you and your husband for your efforts each and every day in this regard.
Roy, sometimes the choice is not the woman’s. Three examples: one was a woman with very irregular periods, who tried to conceive a second time from the time she was 29 and did not succeed until she was 35. This was not her choice. The second was a woman who was single and seemed to have no prospects as she headed for 30. This was not her choice either. Third I also have a son who is half Hispanic and a daughter-in-law who is Hispanic. He is already 37 and she is older. She told me in the last year or so that it looked like they weren’t having children. I don’t know why, but I don’t think this was their choice either. It is best not to be so assured of the rightness of you position. Does that make sense?
Ann Mullen recently posted..Senior Care: Golden Girl Homes – A New Lifestyle
The general trend, Ann, is that it is the women’s choices. But, I certainly agree that marrying someone- or become impregnated by someone- just because that clock is ticking is scarier than the alternatives!!!
Lots of things to ponder here. My thoughts go to higher likelihood of a disabled child when the mother is older. I wonder if there has been any study as to linking the increase of autism to more late pregnancies?
Yes, disability is one issue to consider, Alessa. There are also issues with the health of the progeny given the fragility of the genes.
There are links- but the link is not 1:1; age is but one of the environmental factors. (I’ve reported slightly on this in the past… https://www.adjuvancy.com/wordpress/eugenics-euthenics-autism/ and have a few in the queue…)
I fall right into this category myself. I was 36 when my first was born. She is now 5 and we are workign toward having our second. My wife will be 40 later this year (don’t tell her I said that), so we need to get going if we are going to.
Bill Gelwick recently posted..Can’t Keep up? 5 Ways to Simplify Your Infopreneurial Business
Ah, yes, interesting ages…
FWIW, Bill, my son is a treasure. (Oh, and so are the the others in the tribe!)
The problem is that women are at their most fertile when they are still building their life and career. It remains, even in this day and age, difficult to climb up the corporate ladder and have kids.
I don’t have the solution. I am trying to take it one day at a time!
Oh, that’s clearly the point, Muriel!
And, it would help if we really trusted employers to provide us that time we are promised for family issues…
Well, I guess that’s one way to thwart the population explosion. Just wait to have kids! And I agree with Marie, that there are too many children who don’t have adequate homes.
Suerae:
We actually no longer consider the population explosion to be universal…relating that instead to each region or nation.
But, I agree that adoption is a vital function… but there is a dearth of available children for adoption, as well.
My fertility was cut short at 29 when I had to have a hysterectomy. Not that I mourn that fact, I was not interested in having children. I’ve watched my generation have children both as children, and then at a time when many are already becoming grandparents. So I have friends now who are both grandparents, and new parents at the same age. That kind of gives me a headache, but to each his own. I’m just glad I’m not in the mix of things.
Lisa recently posted..Heal The World by Lisa Brandel
Yes, that is a real issue, Lisa. Which is among the reasons why the “status quo” number is 2.3- because not everyone has children- or can have them. If we all had children, that number would be slightly more than 2 (since, unfortunately, some young children don’t make it to adulthood).
And, I am in the same boat- with most of my friends having grandchildren- and I have one who just graduated from college…(I do have ONE grandchild, though.)
Then there are the ones who have not become pregnant and adopt. Two of my three children are from Guatemala. Gay households can also make a difference by arranging births that change the statistics. You mention race, but not religion. Islam favours large families.
Carol Tomany recently posted..Firenza
Adoption requires the availability of children, Carol. And, if a greater number of adults are not having children, then the pool of adoptable children also drops.
I am all for adoption- and applaud every parent, who is willing to go through the process. (We don’t screen potential parents before there is a pregnancy; yet, have a cumbersome process for those willing to rescue an abandoned child.)
Decisions have Consequences – We are having our babies older than we used to. Which is why our population is… http://t.co/o5dwT3tMCc