To the FDA....please, please release the male pill. Men want to take control of their reproductive rights too.

Have people heard of the essure procedure? Low-impact, low-risk female sterilization. Seems perfect for older women who know that they don't want to ever become pregnant. No hormones to mess with your natural biology. Even easier to perform than a vasectomy, more effective, and fewer complications. Not to mention, men are known to get irrational when scalpel and scrotum are used in the same sentence. (link below).

Great--later-life pregnancies are up 40%. From 1000 to 1400? from 10000 to 14000? 100000 to 140000? I don't have a subscription to read the original article, but without absolute numbers policy prescriptions seem more than a little silly. I mean, if your chances of an unintended pregancy "doubled", then it sure sounds like you better break out the jimmy hats, but if your chances of an unintended pregancy went from 0.08% to 0.16%, then is it really worth it?

I've looked into the question of fertility at 45, and I came up with a lot higher number than 1%. I forget what research I did, but I am curious about the source of Lynn Harris's numbers.

Besides, how can all those 40-somethings be conceiving if their fertility is so low? I mean it doesn't nose dive to 1% on your 45th birthday.

I'm talking off the top of my head, but as I recall the 1% number is for each month of trying to conceive.

My brother is now a teenager. But my mom is rare. I know lots and lots of women in their upper 30s who just waited too long – and my mom is the only example of an after 40 ‘whoops’ I can come up with.

I also wish you’d included the actual numbers. It’s sort of a useless/sensational story without the real figures.

...that Broadsheet hasn't made a posting yet about how women were the main victims of the cyclone in Myanmar.

Either because there were disproportionate numbers of female dead or disproportionate numbers of female survivors, either way you can bet that women are the biggest victims.

Maybe that'll come tomorrow?

The "change" baby is a phenomenon as old as menopause and womanhood. Menstruation becomes irregular and you can think you've hit menopause when in fact ... you've skipped your period because you conceived.

The rate of miscarriage goes up after 35 too -- quite steeply after 40 -- and so does the rate of chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy complications. All of these may seem worth risking if you are, say, 44 and really, really still want a baby ... but if you've had your children and are happy to be done and then suddenly find yourself pregnant, and facing the emotional roller-coaster of considering abortion ... or else deciding to embrace the surprise only to find yourself having a miscarriage ... or having to decide whether to end the pregnancy because of the discovery of an abnormality ... or ending up with a very complicated high-risk third trimester ...

Yeah, just like when you were 19, it's better to take precautions.

... or if you've been contentedly child-free and now suddenly find yourself facing possible new motherhood at the peak of your career ...

or whatever.

She was in her late 40s and newly married to her second husband, both with all the children they wanted all grown up. She's always been strongly opposed to abortion but seriously considered it before deciding she couldn't do it, then had a miscarriage. She was an emotional mess for well over a year after that.

I read somewhere that overall 50% of pregnancies are unwanted. WTF? In this day and age how is that possible?

Not to mention, men are known to get irrational when scalpel and scrotum are used in the same sentence.

Yeah, that combination usually makes us cross our legs, but having gotten the big V last year, I have to say it was one of the best decisions I've made since deciding to add carrot greens to my stews.

The thing is, if a woman is 40+ and married and she doesn't want to have more kids (or a kid), then her husband has a moral duty to get a vasectomy, since it's much healthier than having her stay on the Pill. (This is good advice for any couples who don't want kids/more kids). If a hetero woman of any age is single and prowling around for sex (yowling in the full moon, that sort of thing), she should insist on a condom to safeguard against STD's.

Simple, ain't it?

I'm wondering if the increase in over-40 pregnancies is for women who have already had successful pregnancies in the past, or for "first-timers". Maybe they didn't break it down that far.

My understanding is that, if you've been fertile in the past (carried one or more pregnancies to term), then you'd better use protection even into your forties. If you haven't ever been pregnant, or haven't carried a pregnancy to term, your chances of getting pregnant in your forties are pretty slim.

Read up on the essure procedure, it is superior to vasectomies in a number of ways.

Vasectomies have a higher rate of complications, and while most people have no problems at all (like yourself) other people have problems ranging from mild discomfort to pain serious enough to reverse the procedure. It is all a matter of how well your body does at re-absorbing the sperm that have nowhere to go.

Not to mention, marriages don't always last forever. A women in her 40s getting an essure is giving up maybe 5-10 years of fertility at the most, a man is giving up decades, and who knows if his future trophy wife will want a child? Sounds bad to frame it in those terms, but situations can change, and it is one reason in addition to the superiority of the procedure to chose essure over vasectomy.

about carrot greens in soup! Never heard of it. Is it parsley-like?

Also, I have heard of vasectomies undoing themselves years later (my personal worst nightmare). Don't you ever worry about that?

But try convincing a medical professional to give you one at any age if you've never had a kid! Apparently, doctors know more about a woman's wants and desires in the fertility arena than a woman does. Silly women! Changing their minds and such!