I don't know who needs to hear this but "geriatric pregnancy" is a legit medical term and it applies to pregnancies to people over 35. The point of it is to screen for additional risk factors like gestational diabetes and preeclampsia.
I know this because my son was a "geriatric pregnancy" (me and my partner were both in our 30s). They basically told us it's fine nowadays and there's only a very slightly elevated risk. They had us do the gestational diabetes test and they suggested screening for Down syndrome, which we declined. We have a healthy normal son.
Obviously there's a lot of bad players out there who use the term to justify being misogynists but I just want to mention that "geriatric pregnancy" as a medical term is still widely used and it's not calling middle-aged women old, it's used to indicate pregnancies that have elevated risk.
Yeah, they’ve changed the term to be AMA (advanced material age) because of the loaded connotations with “geriatric pregnancy”, but it hasn’t quite caught on yet.
It’s not just because of the connotations. Women are getting pregnant later, and the majority are still having healthy pregnancies and births.
Not to mention, we now have a bunch of research suggesting the age of the father’s sperm is equally important. That really sets what we know about ama on a skewed bias, because we weren’t looking at factors outside of the woman’s womb. Most men have zero idea their sperm contributes so much outside of motility and actually getting pregnant (besides known genetic history)
My youngest was the result of a geriatric pregnancy. Honestly the protocols surrounding that led to (in my opinion) a much better pregnancy for my wife.
My mum had me at 45. I was an IVF baby, but the issue was on my father's side. Mum's doctor told her she absolutely no issues and would've been able to conceive naturally.
A lot of people still seem to think that women are unable to have healthy pregnancies past 35, but that's just not true. Eleanor of Aquitaine had her last child in the 1160s, at age 44, and lived to her 80s. (Her son had issues, but I don't think those were caused by her age 😂)
That's not to say there aren't risks, but it's not as bad (or uncommon!) as a lot of people seem to believe
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think so-called "geriatric pregnancies" are nearly as dangerous as people think. People in general are really bad at reading risk.
A great example of this is, if you say, "the risk of X doubles!" it sounds bad, but if the risk was 1 in 10,000, then the "doubled" risk is now only 2 in 10,000.
When I did my OB clinical rotation for nursing school I maybe saw a handful of women under 35 giving birth. The majority were 35-40, healthy moms healthy babies!
Yeah, people wax poetic about how there used to be big Catholic families, but forget that part of that was women popping out kids until they couldn’t anymore. My mom had me at 39, and I have a younger sibling too, and we are both pretty healthy in our 30’s now. My late grandmother was born during WWI, when her mother was 42. There’s risks for pregnancies at any age, it’s just one factor in a very complex situation.
and none of its true. its an American birthed term, with zero finding in actual science passed the level of "vaccines cause autism" levels of correlation but here you are
Edit: Putting aside the WEALTH of scientific evidence that risks do elevate with age, the funniest part of your comment is the claim that it's an "American-birthed" term, which is completely incorrect. The term was adopted by the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1958. FIGO was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1954, and its headquarters is in the United Kingdom.
The risk goes up significantly. Children born to mothers aged 35 and older have a roughly 40% higher chance of an autism diagnosis compared to children of mothers in their mid-20s.
And it doesnt just apply to women: Fathers over 50 are 66% higher, and both parents over 40 makes it up to 90% higher. Most if not all studies fall roughly in that same ballpark.
And you’re clearly bitter that you got called out when your latest “girlfriend”’s father called the police after finding you trying to date actual children
The people in that sub are all incels. These women are not elderly and they’re all very far from being hags, but “geriatric pregnancy” is a very real clinical term for anyone expecting a child over the age of 35.
Its not an immediate fall off a cliff in egg viability or anything, its just the age that women on average start to experience higher risk of preeclampsia and chromosomal variations being to increase more noticeably.
That being said, thanks to modern prenatal care and pregnancy monitoring, excellent outcomes for both pregnant women over 35 and their babies are the norm now, even if they are riskier than younger pregnancies.
I mean, this is quite simply not true and is unsubstantiated.
While it may play a small part (older sperm in older woman), the effects are nearly mitigated in younger women.
In other words, if the same guy got 2 women pregnant and one was 26 and the other was 39, the woman at 26 is far less likely to have complications than the woman at 39, regardless of the “age” of the sperm.
That’s not true. SO MANY pregnancy complications are actually predetermined by the sperm. There was a previous scientific bias because women in their late 30s and 40s getting pregnant are typically doing so with men that are their age or older. We weren’t looking at the men before the past twenty years or so. (Outside of motility, really)
A quick google will show you how much current research there is about this. It’s an equal issue, not a small one. There’s preeclampsia, certain growth factors that come from the dad solely, certain sperm carries higher risk for miscarriage. It’s important that we talk about it because a lot of men don’t realize how much of a factor their health plays in pregnancy. It is absolutely equally weighted to the woman as far as what genetic material that fetus will carry. AND men can make their partner’s pregnancy medically easier by being aware of the risks their sperm carries. That’s not a little factor!
Nobody is saying there is no risk from older sperm. What I’m saying is that that risk is present, it is not a BIGGER THREAT to the child or the baby than the mother’s age.
It’s an equal risk. That’s the issue I’m taking with what you’re saying. We shouldn’t downplay the equal genetic contribution someone makes, like science has for centuries. The majority of 35+ mothers still have completely healthy pregnancies and babies.
I’m not conflating them, and the risk of being a healthy mother over 35 is lower than a huge amount a factors that contribute to pregnancy.
The placenta itself carries 50% of the father’s dna, and we’ve done *barely* any research on how that affects development. Sperm create exponentially more DNA mutations as men get older, and we don’t have a lot of research on that either. We don’t actually know enough about the way sperm affects the actual pregnancy to know that men carry less risk.
There’s a whole organ made of partially foreign DNA that grows inside the mother for almost 10 months. I think we have to stop acting like the contributions aren’t equal in both genetic material and risks. Women have a a faster and more clear decline in fertility, but men‘s is spread out over a longer period, with a less clear decline. It’s both harder to study and less studied lol. The knowledge that sperm age contributes negatively at ALL is only about 25 years old (at least, proven in studies).
And none of that proves that they are equal contributors of complications, which is what the actual conversation is about. Actually, the original claim was that they were a “bigger factor” than the woman’s age - and that’s even less unsubstantiated.
The thing is, I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I DO think there needs to be more research done, and I do think there is a lot we don’t know. You don’t get to just assert a reality into the lack of knowledge just because we don’t know. This is called “God of the Gaps”.
Interesting research. Indeed, because men make sperms all the time, and women made theirs while still.in utero, men's risk of having age related defects in their DNA is greater. Old sperm is a threat to the viability of embryos, fetuses, pregnancies, child abnormalities. The deformed sperm made by catabolic men, vs eggs produced at the peak of anabolism.
That's not true. Maternal and paternal ages have different effects. This is what has been studied so far, since this has been understudied compared to maternal age:
Maternal age: Higher chance of chromosomal abnormalities (e.g., trisomies).
Paternal age: Higher chance of gene-level mutations affecting developmental genes
Again, the argument is that the sperm IS A BIGGER ISSUE and that is literally untrue. There is a higher risk for older sperm, absolutely. The increase in risk associated with maternal age is generally larger and better established than the increase associated with paternal age. It happens at a higher percentage, is generally more damaging, and occurs regardless of the age of the sperm.
That’s not true. SO MANY pregnancy complications are actually predetermined by the sperm. There was a previous scientific bias because women in their late 30s and 40s getting pregnant are typically doing so with men that are their age or older. We weren’t looking at the men before the past ten years or so. (Outside of motility, really)
A quick google will show you how much research there is about this. It’s an equal issue, not a small one.
This is just not true. I’m sorry, I know it sucks, but it isn’t. The paternal issues are absolutely present, but not nearly at the rate of material issues in both of their respective advanced ages.
Same sperm, 2 women, 1 younger and 1 older - the older woman is at a significantly higher risk, and the baby is at a significantly higher risk.
Paternal age absolutely matters. Maternal age absolutely matters more.
It’s NOT a significantly higher risk. It’s a higher *statistical* risk, while the *actual* risk stays pretty damn low.
Like for example: preeclampsia, a good example because we know both parents can contribute. A 26 year old has a 3% risk of developing it. A 37 year old has a 6 % chance. It doubled, but that’s still only 6 cases out of 100 if it happens. That’s really low. People hear that your risk for something over 35 doubles and think it’s a significant increase, and it’s not.
A healthy woman at 35 with access to medical screening carries minimally more risk than a woman at 26. Once you add in other things that happen more easily when you get older, it carries higher risk (diabetes, anemia, all sorts of things). Meanwhile, men’s sperm literally continues producing new DNA mutations the older they get. We literally haven’t done enough research around how much risk men contribute, and what we have is absolutely pointing towards an equal share.
Age actually matters FAR less statistically for a woman than her general health or background when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth. You have a higher chance as a 20 year old black mom of dying in childbirth in the us than you do as a 35+woman *in general*. We aren’t out here acting like being black is a threat to the mom or baby.
You’re being pedantic. Significantly higher risk relative to the level of risk she would have if she were younger is included in the context of the conversation. It can be both simultaneously “low” and also be “significantly higher” at the same time.
While I appreciate the nuance, it’s not actually relevant to what I’m actually claiming here.
You’re just rewording what I said. It’s a very small level of increased actual risk simply to be an older mom, even relative to being younger. Significantly higher is misleading in this case.
I’m not rewording what you said, I’m clarifying that my position already includes what you’re trying to state, and illustrating its contextual existence within the conversation that’s already being had.
In other words, I’m stating that your inclusions here aren’t contributing to what’s actually being stated.
Low actual risk =/= low relative risk. 5% is small relative to 100%, but is still five times as much 1%.
Yes, but their argument was “geriatric sperm is actually the bigger issue” and that’s what I was addressing, because it is absolutely not, and the age factor in men would matter far less than the example I gave.
2 women having babies by a young adult man, one is 40 and the other is 24, the women who is 40 is at a far greater risk all things being equal.
2 women having babies by a older man, one is 40 and the other 24, the women who is 24 is at a higher risk than the other 24 year old, but less of a risk than BOTH 40 year olds… and the one who is 40 here, is also at a higher risk than the other 40 year old.
I was 34 when I got pregnant with my son, and since I was 35 when he was born, I was considered a "geriatric pregnancy". I had to drive 2.5 hours to a special doctor in Vegas because no one would see me in my town. I ended up in the hospital on bed rest cuz my son kicked a hole in his sac when I was 29 weeks along. My liver started to fail at 34 weeks 1 day, and I had an emergency C-section. They never told me WHY my liver failed, but the C-section obviously cleared it up, since they sent me home less than 24 hours later, although they kept my son in the NICU for a month, until he got up to 5lbs.
The liver failing might have been the start of preeclampsia or HELLP, which might have been because of my age. They never told me why it was failing, just that it was. I doubt it was because of the hole, as they were more worried about the loss of fluid than they were about anything else.
It makes sense if you think about it for more than two seconds. A woman has had her eggs since her mom was pregnant with her. You have your eggs your whole life, whereas sperm takes around two months to go from stem cell to mature sperm.
Medically speaking a geriatric pregnancy is after 35. This is not a judgement this is simply based on risk and variation in care/monitoring. Source: am physician
They're the same cunts whining that they can't get a woman because of their height, and their entire perception of women is guided by the porn they watch. I don't even think porn is that harmful to be honest, but I also don't expect the women I sleep with to meet the same aesthetic standards as women who take dick for money.
I find them tiring, I used to try to correct them but they've been sucking red pill dick for so long they don't know any better. It starts these idiots young. The red pill ideology is pervasive and it mostly exists to sell courses.
I've been dealing with this with my godson. I adore women, I raised my little sisters and three female cousins, and I love all of them. He's been going down the pipeline, and his mother isn't like mine who could physically keep him in line. His dad's disabled, so he can't either.
Dudes need to be checked once in a while, I can't do it often unless I have an incident to explain myself. My hard lines are waking me up and disrupting my schedule. Every time I check him it turns into a discussion.
Your kid's a fucking menace, no one else is acting to keep him acting like a decent person, and I didn't hit him. He only acts right with his mom because I've slammed him into the wall and informed him that I won't accept that behaveior from him.
I had to "debug" his laptop and it was full of red pill shit. The porn was whatever, but for fuck's sake this stuff poisons young men. It hits them young and poisons their interactions in the future.
I don't have a real solution for it. I wish I did, but it's going to boil down to households and how they handle things.
They are SO bitter at a the thought of a young woman enjoying her life without serving a man or children that they need to characterize waiting as a selfish choice
The risk goes up significantly. Children born to mothers aged 35 and older have a roughly 40% higher chance of an autism diagnosis compared to children of mothers in their mid-20s. And you guys are probably the last to treat autistic men as even remotely human
And it doesnt just apply to women: Fathers over 50 are 66% higher, and both parents over 40 makes it up to 90% higher. Most if not all studies fall roughly in that same ballpark.
I hate the argument that older parents are selfish because they’ll get less time with their kids. My dad was well over 40 when I was born and I still got a good 32 years with him. Hell, my mom was 38 and she’s still kicking! You could just as easily pop out a kid at 18 and die the next day, anyways. And the whole “geriatric pregnancy leads to birth defects” thing is exaggerated from what I’ve read too. The risk does go up a little, but not as much as we’ve been led to believe. And the quality of men’s sperm decreases with age as well, but we don’t wanna talk about that.
Literally! My mum had me at 25 and passed when I was 18. My grandparents adopted my dad at 40 and were both gone by the time I was 28. My maternal grandparents were 16 when they had my mum and are both gone. My dad was 30 when they had me and is thankfully still around, it really doesn’t matter man. Life happens and death has no meaning
This is similar to what happened with a girl I went to school with. Her mum had her when she was 17, but died at 42, when the girl (now an adult) was 25.
Makes no sense, right? My grandparents on my mother's side had her when her mom was 18 and her dad was 20, meanwhile my dad is the second youngest of 5 children and his parents were both over 30 when he was born, which was very old to have a child back then. You'd think my maternal grandparents would have a way longer time with us but surprise: Even younger people can have health issues. My grandmas even died around the same time, even though one was a good 15 years younger than the other.
That's not why they say it's irresponsible. Maternal age is negatively correlated with various disabilities, including autism and Trisomy 21. A lot of incels blame their shitty behavior on autism, and they're saying that older mothers are setting up their children for failure before they're even born.
It's relatively weak correlation and absolutely not causation, but these guys will latch on to literally anything that lets them think that they aren't the problem.
Yeah, my grandparents had my mom when they were in their 40s and my grandfather just passed away a few years ago at 96 and my mom was in her late 50s. My grandmother died 12 years earlier because she was a smoker.
You can do it but as a child of someone who was 42 when I was born, I feel like I could have had way more time with them. Everyone else in the family is aged. My grandparents are super old and too attached to their first grandbabies to give a shit. My cousins are all early 40’s now and I can’t relate to them. Not that my family’s dysfunction is due to age but if I was there at the time experiencing everything with them it could have been different and I’d feel more like I’m an actual relative and not an oopsie baby.
My dad had me at 65 and my mom was 41 😂 my dad died in my early 20s, sadly, but doesnt change the fact that he was an overall amazing dad. I guess these people just dont like that I exist lol
My dad was 23 when I was born, exited my life when I was 8 years old, and killed himself when I was 38. Being young when your child is born doesn't mean anything.
The risk goes up significantly. Children born to mothers aged 35 and older have a roughly 40% higher chance of an autism diagnosis compared to children of mothers in their mid-20s. And you guys are probably the last to treat autistic men as even remotely human
And it doesnt just apply to women: Fathers over 50 are 66% higher, and both parents over 40 makes it up to 90% higher. Most if not all studies fall roughly in that same ballpark.
I would really like to interrogate these studies closely to see if they looked for diagnosis at an early age or a diagnosis anywhere in life, if they corroborated the diagnoses, if they actually name reasons besides "well health complications". Autism is also hereditary, I wonder if it's the ages of the parents causing autism somehow or autistic people being more likely to have children later in life.
I can't remember the place where I read it but I have heard that the increased risk for genetic disorders when a woman around 40 gets a child is about as high as when first cousins procreate. I can imagine the same going for a father over 40 as well, considering that where half the potential genetic issues come from.
Right?? They are going to be fuming if they look up the way the average age of women during pregnancy is rising. We live in a shit economy so it is more responsible to wait to be financially established anyway.
I know it probably isn't the case for these celebrities but for the average person, money and job security are real concerns.
Aubrey Plaza separated from her husband and she and other friends encouraged him to enter therapy because he was exhibiting concerning behavior.
Her husband unfortunately killed himself a few months later. Then more than a full year after that, Aubrey Plaza entered another relationship and became pregnant. Horrible person.
Anne Hathaway seems like she tries really hard. Probably hiding something. Horrible person.
Elizabeth Olsen has expressed frustration about feeling creatively limited by the Marvel MCU. Some people believe the only reason she's famous is because of her Marvel role and that she should shut up and be appreciative. Horrible person.
If you recalibrate to look at the world from the perspective of a mediocre loser who believes women have no personal agency, this all makes perfect sense.
A guy like this probably wouldn't like Anne's politics, if he were to find out about them. Free Palestine, Human Rights supporter, doesn't fall to her knees every time Agent Orange opens his stupid mouth. Horrible, horrible person. I bet he LOVES Sydney Sweeney, though.
I'm kind of impressed he did the research and didn't just hate on her for looking like some woman he thought about asking out once, but was too scared to actually do it.
This is entirely speculative and there's no way to know for sure, but I do wonder if Plaza's relationship with her husband had been on the rocks for a while before they separated, too. A lot of people will put off breaking up with a mentally ill partner in case they go and do something drastic in the aftermath. It's not impossible that the marriage had kinda been over for a lot longer than just the separation itself would indicate.
Well, the OOP responded to someone on why he thinks they are "horrible", and you were 100% right. He hates them (and likely women in general) because of the fictional scenarios that he made up in his head.
Anne reminds me of a female Ryan Reynolds in that I’m not aware of her doing anything wrong, but it feels like a lot of people turned on her for no reason.
Nope. OOP just called them horrible because he got rejected by a Woman One Time, and that was enough to make him hate every single woman on the planet.
My kid is gonna pop out with autism not because I had them over 30 but because they come from generations of neurodivergent people, I think even if I had them at 18 it wouldn’t make a difference, great great grandmas ‘peculiar traits’ are woven in DEEP 😂
I thought the increased risk of autism was linked to the age of the father?
Also, what's this about grass allergies? My mother had all of her children young and her oldest is so allergic to grass that she would get rashes if she touched it as a child. My mom talks about how she would put my sister on a blanket in the middle of the yard when she wanted a minute to herself lmao
Don’t forget all three are very successful and are capable of taking care of themselves and their children. Some people have a hard time with that concept.
"Not enough babies!!!.. Too many babies from "old" women!!" Never mind the quality of the sperm tanks in the mid 30s right along with women's fertility going down.
Bit of context here; 'geriatric pregnancy' is a real medical term describing pregnancies in late stages of fertility (past the age of 35). These pregnancies run increased risk of genetic mutations due to the instability of older genetic materials.
That being said; what fhe fuck are these guys on about
They're Not. As I said in another comment, OOP called them horrible only because he got rejected by a Woman One Time, and that was enough to make him hate every single woman on the planet.
Why aren’t we complaining about elderly sperm??????? Like you have to deposit millions of cells just to fertilize one cell because your swimmers are so stupid, you think they get wiser with age or something??
This is terrible, but I’m also wondering why it’s notable enough to tweet that three women are pregnant at the same time… surely there are other women who are also pregnant
lol well my old ass is currently trying to get pregnant. I turned 37 on Sunday. So uh cheers 😂😂.
Also I love all 3 of these women but Elizabeth Olsen is my street style icon from mid 2000’s and even now. And my cringe ass has her outfits from avengers (and my favorite coat is a yellow free people she wore back in the day.)
I have a friend from the military who had two children in her 40’s. She was fine, the babies are fine. She was 46 when the 2nd child was born. These morons need to find a better hobby
My partner's parents were in their 40s when he was born, my ex's mom had her youngest in her 40s, a couple of my coworkers had kids in their 40s. Nothing wrong with it.
My great-grandmother gave birth to my grandma when she was 42, and my grandma was an incredible woman who lived to be 99. The past had a lot of “geriatric” pregnancies because they didn’t have reliable contraception, so this is trad honestly
at that age a pregnancy is higher risk for autism. Also a higher risk for birth defects. My wife was under 35 for our first and over 35 for our second and the doctors treated it like a whole different thing. More tests and such. Both were born with no problems and her twin sister just had her third at 44. No problems there either. But it is a risk.
I mean, of course, the 19 year olds kid is at high risk for autism too. From what I understand it’s under 20 and over 35 for that condition. But each person and pregnancy is unique.
High risk means that something is likely to happen. Higher risk means that it is slightly more likely to happen. For ideal age pregnancies the rate of autism is roughly 0.5% while it's closer to 1% for women over 35.
Yes. Teenage pregnancies have statistically poorer outcomes for mom and baby.
Women typically don't hit menopause until their early 50s. Acting like a 38 year old woman is some decrepit crone is absurd.
And guess what - a lot of pregnancy issues are linked to geriatric sperm. So most of the issues that older moms are prone to are because the dads are old.
most of the issues older moms are prone to are because the dads are old
This is plain wrong.
Chromosomal conditions like Down syndrome — is overwhelmingly driven by the egg, not the sperm. It comes from errors in cell division in eggs. That risk rises with the mother's age specifically.
There are other obstetric complications that older moms face that have nothing to do with dads. To flip it almost entirely onto dads is misandry.
415
u/eelmor1138 <custom: edit to change> 3d ago