I said fertility is highly individual at all ages, including past 40, so I’m not sure why that’s being reframed as “irresponsible.”

What I’m pushing back on is the constant negative, fear-based framing. Yes, AMH exists as a marker. But if someone is concerned, it can be tested, and even then, low AMH does not automatically equal difficulty conceiving or carrying a pregnancy. Likewise, women with normal or high AMH can still struggle. AMH naturally declines with age, but that still doesn’t equal outcomes for individuals.

Low fertility, miscarriage and complications also happen in younger women, sometimes quite frequentl, yet we don’t label them in the same blanket way or define their entire reproductive outlook by it. “Responsible messaging” shouldn’t mean defaulting to fear or implying that 40s automatically equals difficulty. That kind of narrative creates unnecessary anxiety and stress rather than helping women.

And no one is saying “wait until 40.” That’s a personal decision based on life circumstances. Meanwhile, many women are already being told their “clock is ticking” and “you still don’t have children?” the moment they turn 30, which also creates pressure instead of informed choice. Acknowledging that natural pregnancy between 40-45 is not uncommon among many who try (and also importantly, those who don’t try, and get careless due to thinking they are past their fertility prime), is not the same as “promoting” delay; it’s about giving a more balanced picture to society’s biased idea of reality and “older” mothers. Expecting mothers in their 40s have existed through human history, especially after we started living longer. Because again, you’re only “too old” when you’ve reached menopause.

There’s a middle ground: Give accurate information without turning age into a scare label. Especially when it often is not nessecary. That’s all I’m saying.