Like the Romans used to drink from lead cups. Something like that.
(it appears that the moderator is removing any replies with which he disagrees. It might be a piefed issue. But all the removed replies are top level and upopular. Stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.)
No, you’re getting confused by the fact that a large percentage increase in a small number is still a small number. And that the healthiest outcomes have an ideal spot at the late 20’s to begin with, and that having babies before 25 has slightly elevated risk of poor outcomes, as well.
Down syndrome risk peaks at around maternal age 44, but with about 0.6% of pregnancies. That’s still a small number.
Other concerns like preterm birth and low birth weight tend to have the healthiest outcomes at maternal age in late 20’s. For example, studies like this show that preterm birth is less likely for 30-32 year olds than the broad category of “younger than 30,” and low birth weight for gestational age is lower between 30-40 than it is for younger than 30.
Either way, though, the correlation is so weak and the overall odds are so low that it’s like playing with slightly different weighted dice. In the end, maybe some statistical significance might appear across a huge sample size, but for individuals making their own family planning decisions, the probability differentials are too small to place too much weight in those stats. Statistical significance isn’t real-world significance.
Throw in other advantages of delaying birth, like those who defer for educational/career reasons and find themselves in a different demographic category (wealthier, less likely to be divorced) as a result, and it might actually be advantageous for a 20-year-old’s future children to intentionally pursue paths that lead to later births.
Just let people do what they want with family planning: have kids, don’t have kids, have kids young, have kids old, have lots of kids, have fewer kids, adopt, IVF, surrogates, whatever. These are deeply personal decisions that people should be left alone on.
Bruh, we’re not talking about probability of a single negative event. We’re talking about probability of any negative event. It’s not the same.
It’s not a secret knowledge that age increases all sorts of risks (not just down syndrome) and optimal window is in the 20s.
Not better babies - I do think it’s harder on the mom’s body to have a first baby later (by later I mean 40, around the time I was having my last). At least anecdotally I have seen it play out that way every time among the women I know - though it may just be that they are immediately categorized as high risk and it is a self- fulfilling prophecy.
Agree (absolutely) that we should leave women alone to do what they think is right for their own lives though. And I was surprised when I looked up my ancestry - most of my more well off foremothers married in their late 20s, not early. So women who had choices, I guess they did wait till near 30 even in the past.