It's a smart number, if she starts at 21 she'll be done before she's 40 so less chances of unhealthy children and she'll still have the energy to raise them.
She should have already started
I thought the whole "Having babies after 40 is risky" was actually bullshit. I read somewhere that, yes chances of complications double. The thing is it just means instead of a 1% chance of complications, a woman will have a 2% chance.
They don't really know the full implications of having kids after 40. Downs and autism risk are definitely higher. Our shit pseudo-health system is really bad at doing long-term tracking of this kind of stuff both because its more and more operated by pajeets and other retards and also because any data to suggest women should spend their healthiest and most fertile years focused on their families would run counter to the interest of our corporate overlords who want us assured that post-40 parenting is totally fine.
BTW, theres increased risk if either parent is above 40. Men are also more likely to have "weak" / mutated seed after 40. The effect is less severe for men than women though.
Gotcha. It was something I read a long time ago and I never actually looked into it any further. Thanks for the response.
no the troubles actually start at 30, Here is a sauce. https://www.boldsky.com/pregnancy-parenting/basics/2018/how-age-factors-affects-pregnancy-123979.html
You nitwit. The kids raise themselves. She only has to rear five or so. By the time the eldest is 6, hopefully a girl, she will be helping mom. Mom is taking care of the dinners while preggers. AND the sisters will be all hands on. This is Community.
Your math made sense of her statement... thanks!
Mafs iz ez 2010 + 2015 = 15 simple.
Maffs crazy
(post is archived)