Post: #1

tl;dr basically the article says if you are healthy enough to naturally have a baby over 33 then your genes may allow you to live longer. No fertility drugs etc.

I can only imagine women ignoring key facts and just saying it is ok to have a baby when they are older, or manipulate it into something allowing them to feel good about themselves after hitting the wall. Which based on this article would imply they don't look like they hit the wall because they had good genes to start with.

Just more female hamster stuff.

Quote:A silver lining for some older moms: the genes that allow some women to naturally have children later in life also make it likely these women will live a longer life.

A study published Wednesday found that women who are able to have children after age 33–without using drugs or other infertility treatments–have a greater chance of living longer than women who had their last child before 30.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-yo...lder-moms/

Post: #2

Post: #3

It refers to women able to have a baby after 33. If a woman is naturally fertile and has a healthy lifestyle, then it may sound plausible.

What is not plausible is the cohort of women of 33 who have smoked, drank, taken drungs and the pill plus a couple abortions, suddenly thinking they will be Hale Herry.

Post: #4

How many gallons of cum does it take for a woman over 33 to get pregnant though

Post: #5

(06-26-2014 02:08 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  How many gallons of cum does it take for a woman over 33 to get pregnant though

About this much...give or take.

Post: #6

Healthier women probably are fertile longer.

Post: #7

Another feel-good article for the Female Hamster, whose fears must be appeased. Riding the carousel is fine honey - go jump on the next cock!

A pilates Yoga wholefoods bride who works out is likely to be in better physical condition at age 33 than a welfare hoarding Walmart broad who got her third welfare-cheque-kid by age 24.

The very same Yoga bride would still be better served to have her child at 22 - that would likely prolong her life even more.

Post: #8

While the older mother may live longer, her kids are the ones who will likely suffer with an increased risk for autism and other birth defects.

Post: #9

Confusing title suggests improper cause and effect relationship.

It's not that having children after 33 makes a woman live longer, it's that a woman who is capable of having children after 33 are the same ones who have excellent genes and can live longer. It's not the child that has anything to do with it, it's the genes.

That said, what percentage of women have these amazing genes? 5%?

Post: #10

(06-26-2014 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Confusing title suggests improper cause and effect relationship.

It's not that having children after 33 makes a woman live longer, it's that a woman who is capable of having children after 33 are the same ones who have excellent genes and can live longer. It's not the child that has anything to do with it, it's the genes.

That said, what percentage of women have these amazing genes? 5%?

That was my guess.

Though I wonder if the human body has some mechanism that increases its lifespan
to take of offspring longer if it gives birth later, thereby increasing longevity.

Post: #11

...

Post: #12

(06-26-2014 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Confusing title suggests improper cause and effect relationship.

It's not that having children after 33 makes a woman live longer, it's that a woman who is capable of having children after 33 are the same ones who have excellent genes and can live longer. It's not the child that has anything to do with it, it's the genes.

That said, what percentage of women have these amazing genes? 5%?

I think pregnancy helps to reset the female body somewhat. All the extra hormones and nutrition are flowing around. I'm sure the immune system is working overdrive. That's why they say pregnant women have a glow to them.

Post: #13

(06-26-2014 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  That said, what percentage of women have these amazing genes? 5%?

An IVF Specialist on Halle Berry:

"Natural pregnancies—when a woman is trying to get pregnant with her own egg—do occur in women in their mid 40s, but it would be nearly miraculous," he said. Even in women using the assistance of IVF (in vitro fertilization), there has never been a clearly documented case of a baby being born from an IVF pregnancy in a woman older than age 45 using her own eggs. Klein estimated that the chance of having a baby at age 46 without intervention is probably about 0.01 percent or less.

The general feeling by the doctors is she had treatment, but isn't being transparent about it. Standard female competition.

Post: #14

I had a theory that having children actually drains life out of women (another reason they age so poorly).

She's the host for a new life. which takes mounds and mounds of energy/life. the new baby is literally sucking the life out of her

like I said, it's MY theory

Post: #15

^^^ There's truth to that, actually. The developing baby is given priority as far as nutrients, etc. and if they are not sufficient in the mother's diet they will be extracted from the mother's body.

Post: #16

(06-26-2014 09:16 PM)Mr. Butterworth Wrote:  I had a theory that having children actually drains life out of women (another reason they age so poorly).

She's the host for a new life. which takes mounds and mounds of energy/life. the new baby is literally sucking the life out of her

like I said, it's MY theory

More reason to have babies while young plus a longer recovery time frame. Good luck trying to explain the logic to this shit that our ancestors knew instictively to these modern know it all tarts.

Post: #17

(06-26-2014 09:16 PM)Mr. Butterworth Wrote:  I had a theory that having children actually drains life out of women (another reason they age so poorly).

She's the host for a new life. which takes mounds and mounds of energy/life. the new baby is literally sucking the life out of her

like I said, it's MY theory

That is correct - pregnancy just like extreme physical activities like professional sports drains the body of essential nutrients.

Orthomolecular doctors have been stating for decades now that pregnant women need exorbitant amounts of vitamins and minerals starting 3 months before conception. BTW - also 1 month before conception for men to insure the best genetic sperm material. The currently prescribed stuff is better than nothing but still ridiculous.

I personally use orthomolecular supplementation - here Dr. Wallach on the topic:





Now regardless of optimal supplementation and lifestyle, there is a basic biology and the fact is that women women between the ages of 16 and 26 have the best chance to conceive a healthy child that strains her body less. Just look at the Down Syndrome incidences and other birth defects for first-time mothers above 30 - they are x-times higher.

Usual Hamsterese-article full of BS.

Post: #18

....life is a trick to get you to create life which is a trick to ......

I don't think there's anything holy or special to life. It can be fun, but
we are just vehicles for genes... we exist because something reproduced and it existed because something reproduced.

ad infinitum.

There's no reason for any of it, it just happened, it's not benevolent and it implies nothing.

Post: #19

Sad to say but many women these days are too immature to be having kids before that age anyhow.

Post: #20

Having a child leaves a lifelong imprint on a woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell-free_fetal_DNA

Post: #21

(06-26-2014 02:08 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  How many gallons of cum does it take for a woman over 33 to get pregnant though

Parlay44, Terrence Popp breaks this down in his follow up video to a woman finding her "500 Miles of Mr. Right" at the ripe old age of of 37. Pretty funny. 4.89 gallons of cum.

Post: #22

(06-26-2014 02:21 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 02:08 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  How many gallons of cum does it take for a woman over 33 to get pregnant though

About this much...give or take.

I think I just found a new porn niche business opportunity.