This commentary is irresponsible. It becomes progressively harder to get pregnant after 30. Your article didn't mention the high cost of fertility treatments. Most couples don't have $30,000 lying around to spend on getting pregnant. You also didn't mention the higher rate of Down's syndrome in children born to older mothers, nor did you mention the higher rates of autism and schizophrenia in children born to fathers over 40 (most women over 35 are marrying men who are their age or older). It may be that the skyrocketing rates of autism are related to the increasing ages at which people decide to become parents. Sorry, but 40-year-olds aren't 20-year-olds.

Please note the Down's Syndrome Association's "Estimated likelihood of having a baby with Down's syndrome" chart:

http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/DSA_detBackground.aspx?ba=0

One must wonder how good a thing it really is to have more choices available when the morality of pursuing them is put in such doubt by relatively immutable health considerations and the availability of adoption.

There should always be a mention, how much ever brief, of challenges and risks with such a data. This article indeed is irresponsible in its content. It seems like it is encouraging women to go ahead and to do so without giving them a warning which surely is adviced.

I'm going to agree with Dr. Newman on this one. I really don't think any woman considering having a child or children is going to read this blog entry and say, "Well what do you know?! The media, my OB/GYN, and vast amounts of societal pressure are absolutely wrong. We should all be delaying parenthood until after 40. In fact, thanks to Susan Newman, that's what I'll do! Throw caution to the wind!"

Seriously. Anyone who reads the newspaper can see that in the past 6-10 months alone there have been many, many articles reporting on risks of bad outcomes when one or both parents is over 40. You'd have to live in a cave to miss it. Any woman getting a semi-regular cervical exam knows that "advanced maternal age" is defined as delivery at 35 and older.

I just can't get behind the comments that decry this blog entry as irresponsible because Dr. Newman doesn't address the medical risks. I like the fact that she addresses the positives, because you know, there ARE some. I don't think the burden of addressing the cons should be on her, because pretty much any literate woman of childbearing age knows what the risks are. This is the reason that sitcoms and movies get a lot of mileage out of the "biological clock ticking like THIS" joke (picture Marisa Tomei stomping on the floor in My Cousin Vinny) - we've all been told delaying childbirth is a bad idea, and it's become conventional wisdom by now.

There are lots of things in life that are risky, and many of them are perceived as safe and as the norm (such as logging lots of miles in a car on a daily basis). I don't see anyone giving up long commutes and donuts, and I'll wager that those two things are at least as risky to a "healthy family and healthier society" as - gasp - having a baby at 40.

Often, articles of such nature are written to justify what the writer personally feels about an issue. As for the research backing the claims, there invariably is research to support both sides.

I think it is an established fact that having babies at ages lesser than 35 and preferably before 30 is the way to go. If some women are going to end up believing otherwise, it would be too late when they realise their mistake.

This is not about forcing women to look at themselves as baby-producing machines. It is about making them realise something that really is for their own good.

I'm like the poster who is in her 40's & looks & has the health of a person in their 20's. That's not pride, that's hard work, self discipline, and a way of life. I had my baby girl at 40. Zero complications. My OBGYN treated my pregnancy as a moderate risk because of my age, because she legally had to. She gave me the option of special testing & for the most part, we declined.

The risks involved are documented by compiling statistics pulled from the median of society & medical averages. That includes women who treat their bodies like they're disposable, take recreational drugs, drink in excess, AS WELL AS those who are on prescribed medications that haven't had adequate research on fetal development, and those who have special medical or genetic situations where pregnancy & childbirth would be a special risk.

There are way too many factors involved and every mom or potential mom has to make an informed personal decision as to whether pregnancy and motherhood are in the cards for her. Emotional maturity and life experience is an absolute bonus for me so far! Pregnancy & childbirth are nothing compared to parenting a toddler. It's more of an emotional roller coaster ride than a physical challenge!

Although there are various positives of having children later on in life including “emotional readiness to cope with parenting” negatives regarding health issues and birth defects need to be addressed. Older mothers have an extremely greater risk of giving birth to children with chromosomal abnormalities. According to Elizabeth Eden, MD, “at the age of 20, a mother has 1 chance in 1,667 of having a child with Down syndrome; at the age of 35, she has 1 chance in 385; at the age of 40, she has 1 chance in 106.” With a dramatically higher possibility of bringing a child in this world with a birth defect at the age of 40, it is an irresponsible and selfish decision to give birth later on in life. Too wrapped up in their own desires and unwilling to bear the burden of responsibility in their earlier, more fertile years, older mothers have consciously made the decision to delay procreation. As the author stated previously, almost 85% of older mothers are married. The option of having a child younger was there, older mothers just chose not to. Possibly because of career advancement, or just keeping their options open, when they finally gear down and make the decision to take on the ultimate responsibility of having a child, their bodies are no longer in their healthiest condition. Because of their ticking biological clock, older mothers are putting their possible children at serious health risks.

To address the fact that increasingly more older women have cesareans versus natural childbirth, this is because of placental abruption (the premature separation of the placenta) which is more common in this age group, making cesareans a necessity.

Let us not neglect to mention that chronic illnesses including high-blood pressure, glandular disorders and diabetes are far more likely at the age of 40, which by itself is not a severe issue, but when adding pregnancy into the mix, can become uncontrollable and a serious health concern. Chronic illnesses can affect the fetus, and are associated with an increased risk of stillbirth and miscarriage. How exactly, do women convince themselves that having a child later on is a good idea when there they are putting their child at risk? A mother, by definition, is supposed to nurture her child, not put him/her in harms way. Having a child in your 40s is the equivalent to putting your child into oncoming traffic, and convincing yourself that traffic will swerve to avoid your child. Nature is ambiguous and uncertain, and toying with odds is never a wise idea.