One of the women Im seeing wants to have my kids but is 33 yro. How do you politely explain to her that it's too risky because of her age?

[Vegasrunner]

[WintersDaughter]

You start by understanding its not actually risky to have kids past 30 🤦‍♀️

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter That's certainly not true. At age 30 about half of women's eggs are gone.

[WintersDaughter]

The quality of eggs is more important than the quantity—and even that varies widely between individuals. Saying women "lose half their eggs by 30" oversimplifies a very complex process.

Plenty of women have healthy pregnancies and babies well into their 30s and even 40s. Fertility is nuanced, not a countdown clock with a sudden buzzer at 30. Plus, statements like that tend to feed into unnecessary fear and pressure, which women absolutely don’t need more of.

Age alone doesn’t determine pregnancy outcomes. Lifestyle, overall health, and prenatal support matter way more than just the number on a birth certificate. Most women in their 30s are more financially stable, emotionally mature, and prepared—which actually supports better outcomes for both mom and baby.

According to the CDC, the birth rate for women aged 30–34 is now higher than for women in their 20s.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter The quantity is more important. Women loss half their eggs after age 30 so waiting till age 33 is dangerous. Some women have healthy babies over 30 however it doesn't change the fact that that it is much more risky. This doesn't include the fact that compared to a much younger woman it's exponentially more risky.

[WintersDaughter]

Do you have any actual studies to back that up?

The quantity doesn't increase or decrease your chances of having a healthy pregnancy, it increases or decreases your chance of GETTING pregnant. The quality of a woman's eggs determines how healthy the pregnancy is, both the baby and her. Her lifestyle plays a huge part in a healthy pregnancy.

There is a SMALL increase in CERTAIN risk, like gestational diabetes. However, it's still a SMALL RISK.

You very obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Quantity absolutely increases your chance of having kids. Who told you it doesn't?

[WintersDaughter]

Quantity is your chances of GETTING pregnant. Quality is your chances of STAYING pregnant. Learn reading comprehension.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter That's factual incorrect on a variety of levels, the first one being math. Old women have less eggs, and are at the highest risk of producing Mentally challenged kids. Which is why men generally prefer younger women.

[WintersDaughter]

You do realize that sperm also plays a role in "producing mentally challenged kids," right? Unlike women, who are born with all their eggs, men produce new sperm continuously. Each new round of sperm production involves DNA replication, and over time, replication errors accumulate. So the older the man, the more rounds of replication, and the more opportunities for mutations. A man in his 30s has a higher chance of this. However, just like with women and her eggs, if a man has a healthy lifestyle, he can decrease this.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Men can have kids until the day they day, women only have a short window and her risk of having unhealthy children increases w/ age. As you mentioned a man's risk is pretty much the same throughout his life.

[WintersDaughter]

No, a man's risk gets higher and higher as he gets older. However, just like with a woman, his lifestyle can change that risk.

Gonna ask you one more time to provide some studies to back up your claims.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Not really, at least not to the degree of a woman's risk. There is no age where a man can't produce children, whereas it becomes nearly impossible for a woman as she reaches 35+. If you haven't studied this subject, why did you feel the need to weigh in?

[WintersDaughter]

I literally work with pregnant women, fertility, and birth. You have never studied this subject, it's extremely obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Most women in the last few years are having kids in their 30s. It's not hard to get pregnant after 35. It's not dangerous. Show me a study that says it is.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter If you work with pregnant women then you should know that geriatric pregnancy is 35

[WintersDaughter]

Geriatric pregnancy literally means pregnant at 35+ and it's a very outdated term. Most pregnant women I work with, and my colleagues work with, are in their 30s or older and they all have healthy pregnancies and births. Which is just another reason I know you're full of shit. Give me those studies, unless you can't because you don't have any.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter So you agree with me regarding the age of geriatric pregnancy, good. I think I see your confusion, you're using anecdotal evidence to address a general concern, just because a few people you know have beaten the odds doesn't make it the norm, as exceptions don't make the rule. Furthermore the comparison is are they more likely to run into complications than a younger woman would be. Why would any man want to take such a risk when he can avoid it by getting a younger woman?

[WintersDaughter]

Lmao, the norm is women in their 30s having healthy pregnancies. Show me where you get your information or stop talking.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Perhaps in their 30's but not at 35 and older which I said, also those same women are at a much higher risk than a younger woman in her 20's is, Which is the argument. Can women have kids after geriatric pregnancy stage, maybe but they are at a higher risk than younger women. You obviously agree on this which is why you continue to leave this part out.

[WintersDaughter]

The risk is small and depends on a lot of factors, and men have that same risk. Again, most women tofag are having kids well into their 30s and 40s. Show me your sources or stop talking.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter How can men have the same risk? A man can impregnate an infinite number of women but a women can only have one child at a time.

[WintersDaughter]

I already told you about a man's risk with his semen. Give me your sources or stop talking.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter You said sperm plays a role, so if that's true, the more women a man impregnate the higher the chance he has a healthy child. Women on the other hand are unlikely to have children at all once that reach geriatric pregnancy age.

[WintersDaughter]

Your logic is astounding. Show me your sources.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter It's not "my logic" it's simply logic, mixed with biology.

[WintersDaughter]

Still waiting for those sources

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter You shouldn't wait you she be proactive and do your own research. The "sources" is just a female deflection tactic designed to disguise the fact that you can't refute the argument. You've presented small sample anecdotal evidence for your beliefs, yet others need to present you w/ evidence of a common known medical fact? If you don't even know the studies about this subject, have you thought perhaps it's to complex for you?

[WintersDaughter]

Forgetting i work in this field are you? Stop trying to distract me and back up your claims.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter You work in this field and are trying to tell me that a 33 yro doesn't have more pregnancy risk than a 23 yro?

[WintersDaughter]

You obviously aren't paying attention to this conversation. The risk is MINIMAL and depends on a million other factors, it's not high enough to actively NOT get pregnant. Men have that SAME RISK. Show me your evidence.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Even if that were true, how is that relevant? You think a 33 yro woman has the same risk as a 22 year old?

[WintersDaughter]

Show me your evidence.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter Evidence that reproduction is harder for woman at 33 vs 23? I thought you said this was your field?

[WintersDaughter]

Evidence that it's "nearly impossible for a women" to have kids at 35+, that men can have kids until they die with no risk, that the quantity of a woman's eggs is more important than the quality, etc. These are all things you've said, now back them up.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter A basic understanding of biology will tell, you this. I never said men have no risk, I said it's far less than the risk that old women have. If you, trust believe that a 35 yro woman has the same risk of having kids as a 25 yro woman, then natural selection will weed you out. Have you considered that you may like a grasp of these facts?

[WintersDaughter]

I dont see any links to studies.

[Vegasrunner]

@WintersDaughter That's ok, this is probably a subject to advanced for you.

[Anonymous]

33 is not that risky.

[Vegasrunner]

@anonymous 35 is considered Geariatric pregnancy. Considering it takes time to get pregnant than 9 months carrying the child I would be taking a big risk because of her age.

[princeofromance]

33 is very risky, but he should give it a chance. A woman's biological clock is already on borrowed time by the age of 30.

[Vegasrunner]

@princeofromance Agreed, but I'm not taking a risk w/ a woman that old.

[princeofromance]

That is up to you. You must follow what your heart and mind are telling you.

[Vegasrunner]

@princeofromance Nah, the heart is what women use, logic is for men. Logically no reason for me to risk it w/ a woman that old.

[slatyb]

33 is not that old.

[Vegasrunner]

@slatyb For women yes, it's close to geriatric pregnancy age.

[slatyb]

Plenty of women having children at 40 or older.

[Vegasrunner]

@slatyb Small number when compared to women not undergoing Geariatric pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

You should have children with her.

[Vegasrunner]

@anonymous Na to much of a risk. If I have kids maximize age the woman can be is 28