Perhaps someone with medical knowledge can elaborate, but it’s widely accepted that the risk of having offspring with genetic defects increases with age.

“The likelihood of having a baby born with Down's syndrome increases with the mother's age:

* 20 years - 1 in 1,500
* 25 years - 1 in 1,300
* 30 years - 1 in 900
* 35 years - 1 in 350
* 40 years - 1 in 100
* 45 years - 1 in 30
*
* Please note these are approximate figures and that maternal age is taken by convention to refer to age at estimated or actual delivery of the baby. Also note that the risk of conceiving a baby with Down's syndrome is higher than the above figures but many are lost early in the pregnancy through spontaneous miscarriage.”

According to this, there’s nothing wrong with telling women to stop having children after 40. I know that occasionally we read about some high-profile woman having kids later in life, but keep in mind that they have access to pretty much every medical service. And even though I have an aunt who gave birth to a normal girl at 42, I don’t think anyone with a medical degree would recommend putting off having kids until after 40.

Try being a childless woman in her 20's wanting a tubal ligation. The doctors I spoke to absolutely refused to do it.

Nice to know that I don't *really* have control over my own reproductive organs.

I thought it was interesting they suggested IUDs and Implants for "young" people.

I had some trouble finding a doctor go give me an IUD because it is for "women who have already had children." and not a good option for us youngins.

I find it interesting that the "50s+ person" is 1) the only place where STIs and condoms are mentioned, and 2) that condoms are the only way to be safe when it comes to STIs. The other ages have a connotation that one is in a long term monogamous relationship (ignoring the fact that the average marriage age is in the late 20s now), and condoms and STIs are no concern for that age range.

If anything, I would think that in a slideshow that assumes that one will get pregnant and have children that the importance of STIs would be high on the list of concerns for younger, non partnered people.

The thing that honestly surprises me is that they even reference the 50+ demographic having sex. They're usually an invisible group when it comes to protection from STIs, and I almost never see them being referred to as sexual at all. I've seen reasoning for it from "Ew, gross" to "They wouldn't be interested in sex by that age."

With this kind of "advice", I guess I can stop being surprised that teenage pregnancy is such a big issue in the States. I also notice that women in their 20's are apparently supposed to be ashamed if others find out they are having sex (hint: advice young women to be lesbians, resolves that problem once and for all).

On the positive side, they do acknowledge that people over 40 have sex.

Friend of mine could not be sterilized also (she's in her twenties). They thought she was too young also.

People are talking here about the health risks of having a baby after 40. But look in the the 'soup theory' for example. The fact that having babies with a rather large age gap influences intelligence positively has been tested and there is evidence that this theory might be correct.
But this theory and the risks of having a baby after your 40's is not the real issue here I think.

I don't know how I exactly got this idea, but I greatly feel infanticized (how do you spell that?) by this. This lines kind of get me irritated: "Because you will want" and "because you will need". Aargghhh...
They blatantly tell me I should follow this path and wash away any possibility that I might have a different opinion about this. It greatly annoys me, but it might be because of my defiant personality.

It should be noted that iVillage's target demographic is pretty specific: female, straight, 25-50 years, educated, with a career, and probably middle to upper middle class with a relatively traditional lifestyle. That being said, there's no surprise that teen sex is not mentioned; very few teenagers read the articles (though I did occasionally as a teen, most of the articles were pretty boring because a teenage girl has different interests and life experiences than an adult woman. Most of the relationship articles were about marriage, weddings, babies, and careers, when I was still on math class, prom, and 3-week-average 'relationships'). Though I do believe they have some affiliation with the gURL website, which is aimed at teenage girls, and does acknowledge that teens have sex and provides quite a lot of advice about birth control, sex, and relationships.

As for the rest, everyone's said it already, but they ARE pandering to their audience.

In Your Thirties: Because You Want To Start A Family Soon.

I am thirty, currently pregnant, and have two kids.

When I read this it reminds me of the pressure I have felt over the past 7 years. It reminds me that others think that I should have been doing more worth while things in my 20s, other than having kids. I've missed out. I've jumped the gun. I am a less developed woman now since I didn't spend that decade of my life free of kids.

Any one else out there have a similar reaction?

I have a better idea. Why not just skip the baby part altogether? With the world overpopulated as it is, nobody NEEDS to have children. Why don't women focus on self improvement through artistic or educational activities, instead of just breeding, breeding, breeding?

Self-improvement is "selfish"? Wow.

The point is the slide show glosses over individual differences and creates a picture of the "average" (which is different than "normal") female life course. Most whatever you do can be considered "normal" though not "average" (I cannot stand when these two words are used incorrectly). Sort of like a 1950's educational film....a little too perfect and tied in a bow.

As for having/not having kids I feel as if both sides get hammered unnecessarily. Whatever happened to the concept of "choice"? Fine to have kids; also fine not to. Taking the biological angle, we are designed to reproduce so it would be ignorant to think that the drive to do so isn't going to be dominant. Our genes are telling us to do so (think Dawkins here).
However that is also not to say that we MUST do so. We have a CHOICE.

I'm over 40 and without children myself, by choice. However, I find the child-free community to be pretty harsh to those who choose to have kids. Fine to single out the idiots who breed without consideration, fine to call out the annoying parents at the restaurant but to condemn people for listening to the strong biological (and yes, cultural) urge to reproduce is ridiculous. And there are risks to having kids at any age.

Not sure when selfishness became a crime. This is what one side calls the other - you're selfish for having kids; well, YOU'RE selfish for not!!

Frankly I think working a dead end, repetitious job is far worse to one's mental health and relationship health than having children. Having a family -you can either accept the changes or lament them. As opposed to having a dog (which will be toddler-like all of its life) a human being doesn't remain in one state - so the diaper/drooling mode will eventually pass (and onto other, perhaps more challenging stages). I laugh at folks who raise their fists about not having kids yet own slobbering, pissing, poorly trained dogs that are just as dependent on them. Then they take them to day-care, doggy camps and puppy gyms (note: I realize not all dog owners are like that). At least a child will eventually stop drooling on you.

As an asexual person, I find this kind of insulting.  I mean, "need?"  Why exactly would I need to get in the habit of using contraceptives if I have absolutely no interest in being sexually active? 

It's really problematic how much iVillage is assuming that because--after all--it is part of the expected life course and the "normal" way the be, every woman reading the article is going to be having heterosexual sex, or is even interested in sex at all for that matter.