[pettifogger]

Click on link for rest of this informative article. Notice how NOW doesn't want women to know this critical information about their fertility. Related to Lesley Stahl's piece on 60 Minutes on April 7.

[mvpel]

How much more horrible to string her along, putting her through painful and extremely expen$ive procedures on the remote chance that she might someday be mistaken for her child's grandmother?

[r9etb]

It was so cruel. She was holding out for that one last glimpse of hope. How horrible was it to shoot that hope down?

What -- it's more gentle to take piles of her money first, and then tell her?

It's very instructive that it's presented as being somehow the doctor's fault that this woman is trying to reproduce so late in life. Nothing about the choices she's made, and how all the desires driving those choices ended up being nothing as compared to the fulfillment of that one, now forlorn, hope.

[pabianice]

Another Big Lie of the Left exposed as fraud: You Can Have it All, or, Accessorizing with Children. How fortunate for potential children of such selfish, egotistic Liberals.

[Norwell]

I am glad somebody is finally writing about this.

When folks ask why do want to marry a woman in her twenties and they get a reply that all things being equal, you are much much more likely to be able to have a family....boy do you get some disgusted looks. Particularly from women who are 35+.

[Cicero]

There are a raft of problems. For one thing, fertility clinics are horribly unnatural. You can't have an in-vitro baby without killing off numerous other embryos in the process, for which reason the procedure is forbidden by the Catholic Church. And if you take fertility drugs you are liable to conceive five or six embryos and have the doctor tell you that half of them must be aborted. For another, many women, encouraged to be promiscuous when they are young, are infected by STDs that render them infertile. Finally, you have the age problem. Women who have had children earlier are better able to have children at an advanced age than women who wait around to have their first child because it would have been too inconvenient earlier.

No, you can't have it all. You have to choose, and with all the feminist drivel they are instilled with in school and through the media, many women are very poorly informed to make such choices. Until it's too late.

[olivia3boys]

This is SO important for women to know. Also, the chance of miscarriage rises to almost 50% per pregnancy by the late 30s! So even if women manage to get pregnant in their late 30s half the time they will have devastating losses. And those who think, "I'll just try fertility treatments" need to know that IUI only works about 15% of the time and IVF only works about 25-40% of the time (and the 40% figure is for women in their 20s with only tubal problems) *AND* IVF is $10K+ per attempt. It drives me nuts to see my friends cavalierly deciding to "start trying" in their mid to late 30s.

[Beeline40@aol.com]

To imply that these women did not know
borders on the hard to belive. They chose
not to hear. I knew this stuff in my 20's.

They made their choice, live with it ladies.

[LibertyGirl77]

And yet when I, a twenty-something, express my desire to marry and have children SOONER, rather than later, I get mocked for being in 'such a hurry.' People say I should focus on myself and my career now, rather than finding a partner and starting a family. I'm glad the research points to what I've known all along--I wasn't MEANT to do the power-career thing until I'm 35 and then marry. I want the family first. After all, that's a career unto itself.

[PoisedWoman]

Related to Lesley Stahl's piece on 60 Minutes on April 7.

I rarely watch 60 minutes, but caught this last night. A good piece of work and I hope word continues to spread among women of child-bearing age. I'd never before seen Kim Gandy, NOW president, and was appalled. I blocked out the right half of her face, then the left. A raging, furious, hate-filled woman trying to look reasonable, not succeeding. The statistics on women under 35 who have never had children are staggering.....wasn't it 50%? We're going to disappear.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

A lot of it is not so for career reasons but for economic reasons. Many people have a hard time affording children before age 30.

[gimmemymuffler]

I wonder how many of these women are now regretting the abortion they had in their twenties, when having a child was too inconvenient.

[Wolfie]

Speaking as a male, I'd hate to look like Tony Randall with his youngest.

[Calico Cat]

I had my son at 26, my daughter at 34 and now (at 36) am thinking about having another. My husband and I know that we have a finite amount of time. Mother Nature intended for women to be younger when they have children because, face it, the woman is probably going to be the primary, long-term caregiver and needs to be around for the 18 years or so it takes to get the little ones out of the nest and into the world to fend for themselves. If a woman of 45 has a newborn, she's going to be near retirement age by the time her child graduates from high school. Also, little children take a lot of care, and you should be relatively young and healthy to keep up with them. Sorry, girls, it's the way it is. It's not politics, it's nature.

[moyden]

The feminist is a bitter thug.

[kpp_kpp]

here is the real link

[ColdSteelTalon]

The funny part of this is that I am 37 years old and single. If I want to raise a family I most likely will have to marry a woman in her mid 20's. I can't marry a 40 year old woman and a woman my age is pushing it.

[Ward Smythe]

For years, women have been told they could wait until 40 or later to have babies. But a new book argues thats way too late

I'm waiting for the next "expert" book that says "women" should have their children before they're 18, that way they can put them in a (state run) daycare and get on with their careers...