Hacker News Reader

Comment by milleramp | Hacker News Reader

35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy. https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/parenthood-pregnancy/ger...

Literally the first words in TFA: ‘A “geriatric pregnancy” is an outdated term’

That's a result of the euphemism treadmill, not of physical reality changing. Some call it advanced maternal age now and it's exactly the same thing, if you go see a fertility specialist you can be sure he will change his recommendations greatly depending on whether you are younger or older than 35.

It's a confusing term as well, as geriatric, even when it comes to technical terms ("geriatric medicine") tends to refer to actual seniors and the elderly.

Descriptions are usually relative. Obviously, a 65+ year old cannot get pregnant, so logically, geriatric pregnancy must mean a pregnancy at the older end of the ages that it is possible to be pregnant.

There have been cases where older women can still gestate a baby.

Here's a story of a grandmother birthing her own grandchild.

https://people.com/human-interest/grandmother-gave-birth-son...

But that is not what geriatric means, neither in the layman definition nor in the medical definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric

https://www.health.harvard.edu/d-through-i#G-terms

https://openmd.com/define?q=geriatrics

The term was replaced by “advanced maternal age”. Same issues, new modern name.

It’s a bizarre cultural problem.

I was shocked that this was the case and wished I knew about this sooner. Also had kids in mid-30s and it is complicated to say the least. I thought 40 was late (as had some friends succeed at that age).

Statistics are a thing, individual biology and factors are another thing. Had our son when I was 41 and hubby 47 - got pregnant easily, pregnancy and birth was no problem, kiddo doing great.

We did not plan it this late, but just wanted to say that higher age is not a guarantee of bad things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com