55.3% of California births are to mothers age 30+. In San Francisco? 82.5%.pic.twitter.com/fdP4cxFAVR
Show this thread
-
Interesting. All the stuff I've seen before has either been contingent on advanced maternal age, showed little risk <45 or appeared confounded by sexual selection factors (e.g. only fathers whose *first* children were born to them at an advanced age appeared to introduce risk)
Anyway, these births likely involve both advanced maternal age & advanced paternal age. One of the two is much easier to track accurately, for obvious reasons. Dudes should definitely freeze their stuff early, as should women, if they're lucky enough to have affordable options
-
-
Yeah, I think the paternal stuff doesn't get enough attention. And you're right, though I think there are questions re: the effectiveness of egg freezing. Anyway, as a mid-30something who has never wanted kids, I've definitely seen a lot of my friends go into panic mode.
-
It's much less effective at a substantially higher personal & financial cost relative to the male options for fertility preservation, which is why I tend to focus on the risks of pushing motherhood back. Obviously nobody is to "blame" for any of this, it's just biological fact.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
She's right. Advanced maternal age carries with it a whole host of increased risks. Biologically speaking, having babies is a young woman's game. Culturally this has changed, which is fine don't get me wrong. But the underlying biology has not.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.