 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
January 5th, 2012
02:51 PM ET
Births of twins up dramatically since 1980In 1980, one in every 53 babies born in the United States was a twin. By 2009, that number had risen to one in 30, according to a new brief released by the National Center for Health Statistics. Over the three decades, the twin birth rate (number of twins per 1,000 births) rose 76%. "It's quite remarkable that the rate has increased as much as it has over this time period," says co-author Joyce Martin, an epidemiologist with the CDC who has studied trends in twins and triplets for decades. Twin birth rates rose by at least 50% in 43 states and the District of Columbia, and by more than 100% in five: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The largest increase occurred among non-Hispanic white mothers. Basically, Martin says, "the increase has been pretty widespread. Twins have increased for most age groups and all across the country, across race groups." Twin births still only make up about 3% of all births, but the increase has some experts concerned. The study of multiple births is important, the brief notes, because of their elevated health risks and health care costs. Twins are more likely to be born earlier in pregnancy and be smaller than single babies - 1 in 10 twins born between 1980 and 2009 had very low birth weights. More than half are born prematurely, Martin says, and moms of twins and their infants are more likely to be hospitalized longer.
Next entry »Study: High-fat foods cause brain scarring
« Previous entryOlympian Cullen Jones inspires kids to swim
|
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love. Recent Comments
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
You're referring to women in their 30s as "older women." Are we really considered "older" if we have kids in our 30s? Even if it's, say, at age 31? I think the statement might make some women feel like they better hurry up and not sure if that's entirely necessary.
Don't sweat it, Dee Dee. We're living longer than ever, so naturally some folks are going to wait. Our brains just haven't caught up with that notion. 31 is the new 12.
In the 1800s life expectancy was 37 years old, so historically speaking, 30 is very old to have a child. Average child bearing age does continue to rise, but with it, the risks of birth defects increases, so you might not like that 30 is considered an "older woman" for child bearing, but thats just reality.
Calm down -you are still very young (smile)! It is for folks like me who had a baby at 38 and are still hopeful for more at 41.
Unfortunately yes it is considered "older" in terms of child bearing. They start to offer Down Syndrome tests when you turn 30 these days (I think it used to be 35). Risks for child defect increases once you turn 30 and then even more when you turn 35.
No offense ladies – but when it comes to child rearing, 30 IS slightly old. Nature (not me) has dictated that females begin having children around 13 years old. Based on that, the optimum scenario for SUPER- healthy children is a mother of about 19-22 years old. Women can continue to have healthy children after that of course – but after 35 you are pushing it.
for having kids 31 is older. If you live in Utah or other places in them midwest you should be pushing out fetuses by 24 tops. And if you aren't married by 23 in those places something is seriously wrong with you. Big cities like NY, SF, LA though are diffferent, getting married before 30 is bizarre and simply not proper.
Yes, women in their 30s ARE much older than was typical 40 years ago. That is what the article is comparing. The largest birth rate is still to mothers in their early to late 20s. In earlier centuries, maternal ages were even lower. Women typically married and started having children in their mid-teens before the 20th century. That made sense back when infant mortality rates were generally over 50%, but that is no longer true. However, the risks of many types of problems, most notably Down's Syndrome and other genetic defects, starts to rise rapidly for mothers in their late 30s and even more so for mothers in their 40s and above. Mothers in their early 30s, however, actually have the lowest risk of infant mortality and low birthweight, so the early 30s is not really TOO old, just older than was typical in the past.
Yes you are. Think about 30,40, 50 years ago ,most woman had chicdren in their early to mid-20's.
Take a chill pill. People are so quick to be offended. Are you ashamed of getting older or something, there is nothing wrong with being called "older" it's going to happen sooner or later, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
31, or even 39, is not old to have a child.
But more American women are having babies in their 30s than ever before, and less in their teens and 20s than ever before. Which explains the increase. And woman in their 30s ARE OLDER than women in their 20s.
I guess using the comparative form of the word made you leap to the regular adjective form, but there was no reason to.
31 is now 13..think this way and have kids in mid of 30z
Geez take a pill and lie down......
This is what you're concerned about? A label used to describe the relative age of a mother? Looks like you need to come to terms with your self esteem.
Dee Dee,
After age 30, there is a decline in female fertility and an increase in complications with pregnancy and delivery. The fact that people are living longer or are more healthy has no effect on this natural decline. It's just the biological clock ticking away and you can't stop it. I get concerned that so many women figure they can just wait until their 30s (or later) to have children and their age won't matter. It does.
Everybody, just mind your own business.
Age 25 – 35 are the years that produce the healthiest results for both mother & child. The eggs are in their best condition & the mother's bone structure is fully mature. Once you reach 35 problems are more likely to emerge in pregnancy, threatening both mother & child, like diabetes. 30 is fine, but try to finish you family planning before 35.
You like to manufacture issues to be outraged at, don't you?
Compare the demographics of women who gave birth in the 1980s and those that give birth now. You will find that women are giving birth when they are older. When you add 'er' to the end of a word it is comparative. The truth is that women in their 30s are in fact older than women in their 20s. Lighten up, it doesn't say they are on death's door.
You are a drama queen or have been able to come to a internal resolution to the fact you are going to age. The author doesn't place any value on people of different ages but you certainly did.
That's ok. Some guys like older women, lol.
It's because of fertility drugs! Duh uh. My daughter who took fertility drugs and twins too.
Wow a lot of people inferring a lot of information based on an offhand comment (drama queen, chill pill, etc.). It's a legitimate question. Our society tells us we'll be young until we're 60 and maybe even longer and it is quite surprising when you reach your thirties to learn biology is biology.
I was an 'older' mom when we were surprised by twins when I was 38. My medical chart had an "AMA" written on it, which meant "Advanced Maternal Age" and I was labelled at risk due to my age. Our twins were born premature and both spent a month in NICU before being able to come home. It is a fact that there are more risks to pregnancy and babies after the mother is 35 years old, and our fertility rates start to plummet after 25. Waiting to have children until you are in your 30's is often wise and necessary in our society (to be in a stable and financially resposible place), but people should be aware that they may be dealing with health and fertility issues as a result.
The population is larger than 30 years ago, statistically with more people having babies, the odds are higher.
That, or there is something in the water
No, the odds would remain the same. There would be more births, yes, but statistically the odds should remain the same. It should have remained 1 in 53, whether you had a pool of 53 women or 53 billion women......
Enoch, yu've got it all wrong. A 1 in 53 RATIO, is the same whether the total is 106 or 10 billion. So no, it's not due to a higher popuation. A larger group does not change a ratio. You should have learned this in grade school.
Enoch, the article says that the odds of a twin pregnancy are age dependent. As the population changes, the odds will change.
Enoch is saying the same as Jojo. If anyone should be called out for not learning basic statistics, it should be Sara G. Good lord woman! You give women, and the sterotype for lacking math skills, a bad name with your idiotic comment. Go back to school sweetie.
Enoch, my mistake...I misread the context of what you wrote.
No. Your statistical reasoning is completely false.
That's not how statistics work. Not at all.
Well, if those are the only two options, then I'm staying away from the water. I'm not sure where you learned statistics. I'm an English major and I know that's completely wrong.
Please do not use the phrase "statistically speaking" again if you have not taken statistics. That's like saying the chance of having a boy was 50% (or 48% or whatever it is) when there were 100 people, but when there are 1,000 people, the chance of having a boy multiplies by 10. That would be 500%. Let's just think logically. Hmmm, something is wrong here...
Like others are saying, the % of people does NOT depend on the number of people. That's the point of a percent....
Go back to school Sara. You math skills are atrocious.
err "Your"
You're all right. It was my mistake. I apologize.
This country needs a one-child, or two-child policy. We're at 307 million and the government is struggling to support us all! Twins aren't the answer
If the government just got out of the support business, the birth rate would dive on its own. Don't need a policy, just less government.
If you believe that it is the governments job to support you, maybe a zero child policy would have been appropriate in your family!
I am pretty sure the article did not imply twins were a solution to anything. I am fall in the 1/3 who have naturally occurring twins. While they are a blessing, I certainly was not "trying" for them.
The fertility rate in the US is 2.1 births per woman, which is just enough to sustain a population. The growth in population is from immigration, leave the twins out of it.
Neither are you. I had twins by surprise and they are the best little miracles I could ask for. I don't live off the government and I work my butt off for my family, This article isn't saying that twins are the answer so don't be jealous that you obviously won't have the bond with anyone like they have.
That went really well for all the baby girls in China...
You're absolutely right, Vyvian: the government is struggling to support us all. But the solution isn't for people to have fewer twins; the solution is for the goverment to work harder to support us.
It is my 5 children that will be wiping the butts of those people that have decided to not have any children....I take care of my children just fine thank you.
Actually, with the problem we'll have sustaining social security as the aging boomer population goes into the system, the best thing this country could have is a huge influx of new young workers capable of supporting themselves and paying taxes. There are many countries where a one or two child policy would help problems, this isn't one of them.
I had my twins (naturally) at 30. I don't believe in invitro fertilization. I work in the medical field and seeing what these kids have to deal with, prematurity, failure to thrive, immature respitory systems, lets not even mention the cerebral palsy or seizure disorders.I had mine naturally and I got really really lucky. They were 6.5 lbs a piece and I kept them till 38 weeks, I could probably have gone the whole time by my doctor was leaving town. They have no health problems, but I was lucky, I don't think I would goose that with IVF. Just my opinion.
CTB67- you are an idiot. IVF does not make women give birth prematurely, twins or not. A lot of women (such as myself) need infertility treatments which are not covered under insurance (even though they are a MEDICAL problem, and infertility IS a disease) because of people like you, thinking it is a luxury to have children and that IVF is "wrong". I think you're wrong, lady.
You were also very blessed to be in a position to have kids earlier in life. Not everyone at 30 even has a husband...try being 38 with your first!
I'm 30 and currently expecting twins...which was a suprise because I had no knowledge of twins running in the family (hyperovulation). While folks like you and I got really really lucky we still have the same sort of risks carring multiples as folks who become parents through invitro or through use of horomones. I'd say that perhaps another increase in twin pregnancy perhaps is due to increased prenatal health care and awareness. I found out right away about the twins and so was able to be hypervigilant about my diet and taking prenatal vitamins and making sure I'm not around smoke or other things that might endanger my pregnancy.
I figured it would be due to the increase in folks utilizing fertility resources. I, too, am having issues with fertility but have hesitated to start treatment due to these concerns (multiple births). I agree with Seriously. Having twins, whether IVF or not is a non-issue re health issues of the mother and babies. It must be nice to have the luxury, though, of not even having to struggle with those decisions.
So you are bragging about your good luck and wondering why everybody doesn't do it your way ? Really ? Not everyone gets married in their 20s, gets pregnant naturally and when they wish to.
Your doctor induced labor because he was leaving town? Seriously? I would have gotten another doctor.
I dont know about age twin didnt run in my familly but i had twin girls at age 32 ok there i fit the patern but both my girls had twins at age 23 with no help from pill or other and the 3 of us gave birth at 38 weeks babies of 6.11 to 7 lbs
I have "Irish twins", does that count?
Check them out...
I had my fraternal twins at age 23. We were not trying for twins, it happened. They were born over 16 years ago and weighed 6lbs, 6 oz and 6 lbs. 15 oz and were 30 minutes apart. They went to 39 weeks and my doctor asked if I wanted to be induced (break my water bag) or wait another week? I said yes to being induced, as I was so big I couldn't drive and sleeping was very uncomfortable. They were delivered naturally with no complications, we got to go home the next day.
Still trying to figure out what age has to do with giving birth to twins? How is it that ppl who are older are more likely to give birth to twins, if not on infertility treatments?
Older women have higher levels of a hormone that can create fraternal twins...
Having learned the hard way – as women age so do their ovaries...which start to misbehave. There is something called Hyperovulation where each ovary outputs an egg so multiple eggs are available for pregnancy. Hyperovulation can run in a family (my family also has a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome...wonder if it's related) and so technically my twins could have been conceived a day apart from eachother (and I am pregnant right now with fraternal twins). Sometimes one twin absorbs another (disappearing twin syndrome) or just doesn't make it to term so it would be possible for twins to run in a family without actually having twin relatives.
That's like asking what age has to do with any other body function. Your body functions change as you get older. When you used to produce one egg, now there's two....
Ricky,
My wife and I had twin boys while on the birth control pill, eleven years ago. We did not know they ran in our family. We were in our late 30's at the time. We were told by medical staff that as a woman grows older her body dispenses two eggs per month instead of just one in an effort I suppose to get rid of the eggs prior to menapause. As people grow older, there is a tendency for the twins to be autistic which is the case with us.
Monsanto.
You got it.
ctb67 – Any reputable RE who does IVF will tell you the goal is to ONLY have a singleton baby. When you put back more than one embryo there's a chance both will stick and you have multiples. But it is never a goal. Because so many embryos are abnormal and would never produce a baby, based on the age of the person who provided the egg as well as taking into account the male who fertilized the egg...most REs will put back more than one embryo in hopes of a round of IVF getting the woman pregnant and at least one of the embryos is genetically normal. I believe in IVF as I have a condition that would make it extremely difficult for me to get pregnant naturally. We're hoping for a singleton through IVF soon.
Did your RE also inform you of the very real possibility of identical twins from even "putting back" one embryo? I don't believe they understand why yet, but IVF is notorious for encouraging zygotes to split resulting in identical twins. So while the goal may be (should be) to only have a singleton pregnancy, often times that's just not the case no matter what you do. This may sound like a dig, but it is honest; good luck in your IVF treatment. I hope it works out well for you!
But also, studies have shown that women over the age of 30 have higher concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) which causes multiple oocytes (eggs) to mature and be released. This is why there is an increase in the rate of twins in older women without fertility treatments.
Ricky – I have never heard of older women having a higher order of multiples naturally and question the authors interpretation. As a woman ages the number of genetically normal eggs she produces drops around the age of 35 and only gets worse with each passing year. So, how the author believes that multiples from a natural occuring pregnancy as opposed to ART (artificial reproductive technology – aka IUI and IVF) has me lost.
Older women are more likely to release more than one egg during ovulation resulting in fraternal twins.
misbehaving ovaries. I grew up in a large Catholic community – no birth control = lots of babies. Almost every occurrence of twins there (and there were many) was to women who were 35+ when the babies were conceived.
Mmmmmm, good thing I had my first baby 3 days before I turned 30. Otherwise I would be in the "older women having babies club" LOL
Well I became pregnant with my twins at 35, AFTER I was told a previous surgery would not allow me to get pregnant. I all ready had three older kids and even ask my Dr about birth control. Yes twins run in our family history, I said after having mine they require a lot of energy to run after them. Twins are for parents in thier 20's .. Naming mine Matthew and Mark. I am ever gratefull there was not a Luke n John to follow, someone else can have them.. I also say if they were triplets I would have had to auction one off just to keep my sanity.. Thank God they will be 18 in a few months.. Keep the humor in life lite...
We've entered the Age of Gemini.
Twins would suck, one new born is hard enough but two at the same time, throw me off a cliff.
Stop the fight.. 30 is young or old who cares. I don't know if somebody noticed how cute the babies are in the photo. Based on facts and figures you have only 25550 days to live of which 8516 hrs you spend sleeping. Enjoy the rest that way you won't have any grudges when you depart from this big guest house(Earth)
having twins is dumb and for losers
This reminds me of when women used to be killed for not producing boys.
I'm a twin and I'm appalled by your comment. My twin and I are VERY close and ur name should be outhouse.
so is posting troll comments on cnn
The babies in the picture are very cute and alert ! Looks like they heard us disucssing about babies like them !
The picture of those twins are very cute!
for SERIOULY? as of today there are 13 states that have manditory IVF insurance coverage for their employees. as for ivf causing preterm babies that is true. while it is not the single reason the chances are higher...I work in a reproductive clinic.
Xenoestrogens.
Gotta love all those "harmless" manmade chemicals so abundant in our everyday lives including those in our air, food and water supplies. Now if we just had some clue as to why cancer incidence rates are also increasing.....
What's that got to do with birthing multiples ???
That should be obvious LaLa.
To quote my boss, who is an academic obstetrician, (at age 38) "you may look young and cute, but your ovaries know how old you are"... deflating to someone trying to get pregnant, but true.
These figures are from the Arkansas Department of Health:
Arkansas, 1990 – 2006
Mother's Twins as
Age Percent of
Singletons
Under 15 Years 1.61%
15 – 17 Years 1.32%
18 – 19 Years 1.86%
20 – 24 Years 2.33%
25 – 29 Years 2.99%
30 – 34 Years 3.53%
35 – 39 Years 3.62%
40 – 44 Years 3.45%
45 Years and Over 9.59%
Similar results have been found for other groups.
(CNN messed up the formatting of the when it was posted. The table should be in two columns, "Mother's Age" and "Twins as Percent of Singletons".)
I was almost 35 when I found out I was pregnant with fraternal twins and it was my first pregnancy. Twins don't run in either my side or my husband's side of the family, and we sure didn't plan to have twins as they were conceived with no medical intervention. Sometimes things just happen.
My boys are now 8 months old and yes, taking care of them with a FT job is super exhausting but it's an absolute joy and blessing to have them in our lives.
Whether you like it or not Dee Dee, biologically the prime childbearing years END at 35. College educated women are putting off childbearing until their clock is winding down. Average age was 30.1 for them in 2005, with 1 in 12 firstborns to mothers over 35. The rate of first time mothers ages 40-45 was 13 times higher by 2005. A lot of these over 35 women are compensating with expensive fertility treatments that increase the likelihood of twins. The rate of twins is 20% over age 45 but only 2% for teenage mothers. Unfortunately birth defects are much more prevalent after 35. At 25 a woman has a 1 in 1,250 chance of having a Downs Syndrome baby, at 40 it is 1 in 100, by 45 it is 1 in 25. Those are just the babies that are born. Even though IVF doctors discard embryos that show some chromosomal defects, & amniocentesis allows parents to abort DS fetuses...There are no tests to diagnose autism until after birth. The lower fertility among older women limited the rates of autism until recent progress in fertility caused them to rise. . Personally, I would rather lower the chances of twins & increase the likelihood of healthier babies by encouraging women to use their best years of 25 – 35 for childbearing.
It's all well and good to tell women to have babies before they turn 35, but what about those of us who don't marry till later? It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that women start having babies just because they "should". I got married at 35, after dating my husband for a year. I hadn't met anyone I wanted to spend the rest of my life with before I met him. I had a daughter at 39. Not ideal, but what was I supposed to do, marry just any old guy just to have a baby? Plus, I didn't really want to have a child until after I met my husband. Then I knew I wanted to have a family with him. We knew the genetic risks and the chance that we wouldn't be able to conceive. I'm so glad we were able to have our daughter. People ask me when I'm going to have another, and I feel that one healthy baby at my age is enough.
With all the fertility treatments, why is this surprising? Many of the twins are the result of medical science...not mother nature. I am an identical twin..born before fertility treatments even existed. I am the rarest kind. Most twins born are not identical.
Well maybe you will win the twin prize!
How one conceives is nobody's business!
Wow. Mommy and daddy (or perhaps a therapist?) really put in an effort to make sure their little Kimmy felt special, didn't they? Good for you for being an identical twin conceived by natural means, but in all honesty – who really cares? Actually, unless your twin is standing next to you and you both have the same hairstyle and weight, who even knows you're a twin? Get over yourself and go start a club if it's that important to you that everyone knows how you were conceived.
Hey old hags, stop having twins.
I guess its too late for your old hag to take you back.
Jimbo, trying to be "openly" gay??
National Geographic has a great article about twins:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/featurehub
"The largest increase occurred among non-Hispanic white mothers." nature's way of saying enough brownies, lets get more whites in the population
While there is a difference between ignorant and stupid, the sad fact is too many stupids are breeding... and you are living proof!
Besides being insensitive, your comment is not based in any fact at all, is it?
Grow up, wise up or shut up. Please.
Great, just what the earth needed.
Well I conceived identical (spontaneous) twins at 28 through no use of fertility meds, but everyone likes to assume I was on drugs to get them. How one conceives is nobody's business.
The article doesn't say anything about fraternal vs. identical twins. I n other words, iIs the overall increase in twin births solely reflective of a increase in fraternal twins or has there also been a rise in the rate of identical twins as well? As I understand it, identical twin births are driven more by genetics than fraternal twins, which are more influenced by environmental factors (age, infertility treatments, etc.).
I am the father of identical twin girls...conceived naturally (since the mode of conception seems to be of interest in people) and from what i understood when researching identical twins...it is Unknown why a single egg splits into 2. it is one of life's great mysteries.
Why are fertility treatments legal in a seriously overpopulated world? That's just plain insane! Why not adopt?
More people would adopt if there wasn't so much red tape involved. Why do you think so many people wind up adopting babies from other countries? I know a few people who looked into adopting in the U.S. and they said the whole process was absolutely ridiculous and would take years to get a baby. When it takes a rich celebrity like Sandra Bullock 4 years to adopt a baby from Louisiana, you know there's a problem for the average Joe who wants to adopt in this country.
Identical twins are not hereditary..like fraternal twins are. Identical is purely from a fluke of nature. My great grandfather was an identical twin. Skipped 2 generations them came me and my sister who are identical.
fertility drops at around 30 for women then again at 35. What that means is that most women by 35 are still fertile, it just might take a little longer to get pregnant. I had both my kids in my 30's with no fertility help. First one at 32..second at 36. My second one took about 9 months to conceive because I had a large cyst on my cervix I did not know about, DR saw it during a pap. Once it was removed, I ovulated and got pregnant very next cycle. I was lucky. My identical twin sister is 39 and is struggling to conceive her 1st. She wishes she would not have waited.
The increase is DEFINITELY b/c of IVF and other fertility drugs, why are they saying its because of older mothers?? dumb
Because as women age they are more likely to release two eggs during a cycle. This results in fraternal twins. So, increased egg release (which is natural in some older women ) and increasing multiple eggs released with fertility drugs added to IVF which implants more babies at once all factor in.
Also if women are more likely to have twins in their 40's are they counting fertility help in these numbers or natual with no help? Keep in mind that many women that conceive in their 40's with fertility help conceive using donor eggs. These make stats much higher than they are. With a donor egg almost anyone can conceive that has a uterus. IVF Dr's push donor eggs in 40's to make their pregnancy rates higher but to me this is misleading as most women want to use their own eggs and use donor only as a last resort.
Did they distinguish between identicals (splits of one fertilized egg) versus fraternals (multiple fertilized eggs)? I suspect it's the latter category that's up, if fertility treatments and "older" moms are the cause.
Totally IVF and fertility drugs. Actually only 2 women boosted the multiples and that would be Kate and Nadia. That's where the 1 in 30 came in. Yep i'm positive.
GMO frankenfoods.
.
What a dumb dumb article. Of course there are tons of twins now. Women are taking fertility drugs and getting guess what? Twins!
twins run in my family big time im a identical twin an there are 3 other sets of identicals in my family with 6 sets of faternal twins i personally wouldnt want two new borns at once i have two kids one boy at 21 an my daughter at 25 i dont see anything wrong with twins but the higher numbers of babies at one time i see as a issue like that lady who had 8 babies at one time i mean come on people we arnt dogs we shouldnt be having litters like that lol but twins i dont see a big issue with i love being a twin
How one conceives is nobody's business!
Most insurances don't cover fertility treatment so the couple pay the full amount of money out of pocket.
On the other hand the best age to have a baby is when somebody is ready and in a good economic situation.
Most woman at their late thirties have strong careers and they have more money.
Most woman that have children at the yearly twenties don't have a strong career yet and their marriages have the highest possibilities to end in a future divorce.
I'm an identical twin. I have cousins on maternal and paternal sides that are twins too (moms side are identical and dads side fraternal). I'd love to have twins, but it's probably not to be as I'm 34 and have polycystic ovarian syndrome. Anyway, it isn't my business if someone gets IVF, as long as you can take care of your children in every way (finically, emotionally, etc) who cares,
I was 30 with PCOS and I got pregnant. It is possible. Talk to an RE, get a full hormone panel done, and go from there. There is a lot of help now for it.
This article is missing a major major factor in twin birth, IVF. Almost everyone that I know who has done IVF has twins
out with the old (and old mentality!) and in with the new (evolved mentality) for our planet. Everything is working out just fine. Everything will be alright.
@Seriously you are mistaken, IVF does have a higher rate of premature births than naturally occurring pregnancies. And multiple gestation pregnancies have an even higher risk of prematurity (and all the complications that come from prematurity that no one ever tells us about like cerebral palsy, lung disease, retinopathy, etc). IVF is the number one cause of twins/triplets in the US and Canada, about 30% of IVF pregnancies result in multiples (natural pregnancies only have a ~2% chance of multiples). Unrestricted IVF practices are a drain on healthcare and no one is talking about it because private companies that do IVF have a financial incentive and don't counsel these parents appropriately about the risk to their babies should they make it to delivery. My NICU is filled with 28 week twins and triplets who stay in the hospital for 8+weeks after birth, some have bleeding in the brain, need ventilators, and feeding tubes for weeks, etc. Insurance companies should be covering more of IVF expenses so we can get better regulation about IVF practices that are safer for the infants too!
Beware. Wishful thinking doesn't change biological reality.
Prime childbearing years are the 20s. Fertility and health are at its peak in those years in the general population. As women age they become less fertile. This is reality. (You can spend $300 per consult with my reproductive endocrinologist for the details if you like.)
For women who only want 1 or 2 children, starting in your early 30s is probably fine for most. However, if you have an infertility issue (As I recall it's about 1 in 7 couples in the US) that is not age related going on, starting even in your early in your 30s could be a problem.
Usually couples with infertility issues don't know they have an issue until they start trying to have a baby. Then they have to decide how long they are going to wait and see if they conceive naturally before they see a doctor about it. Most insurance companies do not cover infertility treatments, and when we looked into it 8 years ago, IVF had about a 30% general success rate (higher the younger your eggs were and lower the older your eggs were) at around $20,000 per attempt. Few insurance companies cover those fees. I don't know if the costs are down and the success rates are up or not now.
So, most people are going to try on their own for quite a while (some for a few years) before they start paying for treatment. Then there is the testing required to diagnose the treatment. That can take time. Then the options and the budgets are weighed against the treatment options. Then the treatment begins. Couples then have to decide how long they can emotionally, physically, and financially afford the treatments before choose to stop if they haven't conceived. If they do successfully conceive, they often face a higher risk pregnancy and delivery because of maternal age and an increased chance of multiples. OBs aren't making up the fact that older moms have higher risk rates.
Premies often have health and developmental challenges, which inclines most parents to space the next child a little later so the first one with special needs (sometimes temporary sometimes permanent) can get the extra attention and care they need adding time.
People mistakenly think "we'll just adopt" is an easy solution to the problem. Fostercare adoption (I was a certified foster parent in AZ in 2005) can take just as much, if not more time. The few people who successfully adopt often have to spend 3+ years waiting to have the parental rights of their foster kids severed. Most foster kids end up with extended biological relatives who have priority over foster parents. (I interviewed a dozen foster parents as we considered our adoption options.) Most people who want to adopt are not interested in foster care anyway because most are not willing to give a child back after the child was placed in their home- a hard cold reality for foster parenting.
Very few American women place their unplanned babies for adoption. It's about 1% as I recall. Birthmothers typically choose childless couples over those who already have children (adopted or biological.) If you have secondary infertility issues like we do (issues that come up after biological children have been born) you are unlikely to get an American newborn. Fostercare adoption, international adoption, and hiring a surrogate are your best bets. Private American adoption can be very expensive. So can surrogacy.
International adoption is slowing down and closing down all over the world. It's also got age limits in most countries. Our youngest child is from S. Korea where parents must be finished with the adoption (a 2 year prcoess from beginning to end) by the time the oldest parent is 43. Tick tock. You're on a clock. It's also very expensive and some foreign countries are very picky about who is eligible. We had to meet financial, educational, health, and marital standards than many couples could not have met.
@Kripley – Yes, I am aware of the possiblity of idential twins from a single embryo being transferred back. When the embryo reaches blastocysts stage if it is already hatching there's a good chance it will split and a pretty high probability that a woman will end up pregnant, or at least one of the split embryos will implant. If I have a high quality embryo that looks like that we'll only be putting one back. Twins is definitely not the goal but am willing to accept it as a consequence of having done IVF. Good luck to all the IVF'ers out here commenting.