Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

News More births amongst women 40+ than teenagers

AdExpress

AdExpress

Officer
★★★
Joined
Jun 18, 2025
Posts
719

View: https://x.com/mymixtapez/status/1946390654784884871


- mothers over 40 have a 51% higher risk of having a child with autism than mothers 25 to 29, and a 77% higher risk than mothers under 25
- chance of having a child affected by Down syndrome increases from 1 in 1,250 for a 25yo woman, to about 1 in 100 for a 40yo woman, to 1 in 30 for a 45 yo woman
- women over 40 have the highest risk of preterm births: 7.8% of pregnancies resulted in preterm births which is linked to long-term intellectual and developmental disabilities

But we've been left out the dating market cause women are finally practicing eugenics:lul::lul:
 
Autism rates implode...
 
What does it matter
Mine had me at 20 and I still ended up here
 
The next Generation is going to be mega autistic.
 
Foids are responsible for our dysgenics
 
Foids are responsible for our dysgenics
ugly foids reproducing=incel male descendants most of the time

but even if ur parents are good looking, genetic recombination can still rape you if ur really unlucky
 
WTF when you wait until 40 to have kids because you were unwilling to settle for anything except a perfect jawline chad and now your kids have downs syndrome and the face that comes wit it.
 
It's dangerous for the foid giving birth too. Retarded roasties.
 
Who cares if having children later in age increases the chances of autism and down syndrome? I don't believe the former anyways - vaccines are what cause autism. Down syndrome people have a right to life. What's wrong with them? They're glad to be alive. Also it's not either or. You can have children early in life and late in life. That's better because you should have as much children at you can.

1709972948635988
 
There will be a huge increase in foid killers who'll kill their disabled kids.
 
Women are pure evil

aka
water
 
Wouldn't it be fair if ugly men aren't allowed to reproduce, ugly foids shouldn't either? Since they care so much about never passing on ugly genes? :feelshehe:
 
Reading the comments, Women and Simps are stupid as fuck for thinking this is a good thing, birth defects will be at a all time high, and of course the comments are blaming men
 
Then their autistic children are the villain for soyciety, owing it being it's punching bag, slave labor and cannon fodder for existing and daring to vent about their inceldom and failure. Fuck normies teasing us about natural selection when the weak link is foids, who can have their autistic children by infertility treatments. Meanwhile incels are told to kill themselves when demanding a hug.
 

View: https://x.com/mymixtapez/status/1946390654784884871


- mothers over 40 have a 51% higher risk of having a child with autism than mothers 25 to 29, and a 77% higher risk than mothers under 25
- chance of having a child affected by Down syndrome increases from 1 in 1,250 for a 25yo woman, to about 1 in 100 for a 40yo woman, to 1 in 30 for a 45 yo woman
- women over 40 have the highest risk of preterm births: 7.8% of pregnancies resulted in preterm births which is linked to long-term intellectual and developmental disabilities

But we've been left out the dating market cause women are finally practicing eugenics:lul::lul:

ofc theres a pathalogical liar femorrhoid in the comments of that twitter post saying its the ageing MENS fault that kids turn out worse with age.
TFD. With everything thats wrong with holes, their need to lie about everything and escape any accountability even for cold hard biological facts is what makes me hate them more than almost anything else.
 
ofc theres a pathalogical liar femorrhoid in the comments of that twitter post saying its the ageing MENS fault that kids turn out worse with age.
TFD. With everything thats wrong with holes, their need to lie about everything and escape any accountability even for cold hard biological facts is what makes me hate them more than almost anything else.
Most old Men I know are locked down in relationships already with Old Women, so this idea is stupid as hell, they think 70 year old men are fucking bitches that’s 20.
 
This is what happens when women chase careers and ride the carousel.
 
This is what happens when women chase careers and ride the carousel.
jews plan of having childless womens daycare ages 18-40 is working as intended. The title of this twitter post may as well spell out society has died and foids+sex havers killed it
 
Who cares if having children later in age increases the chances of autism and down syndrome? I don't believe the former anyways - vaccines are what cause autism. Down syndrome people have a right to life. What's wrong with them? They're glad to be alive. Also it's not either or. You can have children early in life and late in life. That's better because you should have as much children at you can.

View attachment 1496212
‘Glad to be alive’ doesn’t mean the kid won’t suffer or the parents won’t be burdened for life.
 
Women deadass practicing dysgenics
1. Going For Men who have horrible personality traits that can pass on to they’re psychopathic tendencies
2. Going For height leading to fisherian runaway
3. Having Kids at 40 and older
4. Not focusing on good traits like IQ
 
Women deadass practicing dysgenics
1. Going For Men who have horrible personality traits that can pass on to they’re psychopathic tendencies
2. Going For height leading to fisherian runaway
3. Having Kids at 40 and older
4. Not focusing on good traits like IQ
Humanity is slowly going down the Irish Elk route.
 

View: https://x.com/mymixtapez/status/1946390654784884871


- mothers over 40 have a 51% higher risk of having a child with autism than mothers 25 to 29, and a 77% higher risk than mothers under 25
- chance of having a child affected by Down syndrome increases from 1 in 1,250 for a 25yo woman, to about 1 in 100 for a 40yo woman, to 1 in 30 for a 45 yo woman
- women over 40 have the highest risk of preterm births: 7.8% of pregnancies resulted in preterm births which is linked to long-term intellectual and developmental disabilities

But we've been left out the dating market cause women are finally practicing eugenics:lul::lul:

That old hag in the pic has insane bone for a 40yo
 
‘Glad to be alive’ doesn’t mean the kid won’t suffer or the parents won’t be burdened for life.
Down syndrome people won't suffer and neither will their family. Here's proof:


Did you know that a 2011 study surveyed individuals ages 12 and older with Down syndrome, analyzing their self-perceptions… and 96 percent liked the way they look? 99 percent said they were happy with their lives, and 97 percent liked who they are.

For example, one study found that 88 percent of siblings reported feeling they were better people for having a sibling with Down syndrome, and parents with a child with Down syndrome had a lower divorce rate than the average for families with a child with another genetic disorder or typical child.

Down syndrome people make the world happier. Down syndrome people suffer less than other people.
 
Down syndrome people won't suffer and neither will their family. Here's proof:






Down syndrome people make the world happier. Down syndrome people suffer less than other people.
A few things:

[1] Firstly, the study about self-perception and happiness is contestable, primarily because it surveyed only individuals with DS who were capable of understanding and answering questions, thus, excluding those with severe intellectual disability, who are far more likely to face serious difficulties and might not be able to self-report at all. That's without mentioning these people are usually raised to please authority figures and could give optimistic answers to avoid disappointing them. This is especially relevant when questions involve subjective satisfaction. Also, just because someone might report being happy doesn't mean they don't require constant care, medical treatment, and special education, all of which are challenges for families, and a burden to society as a whole.

[2] The part about the siblings perceiving themselves as 'better people' seems more like a subjective moral framing to me, not a measure of the actual impact on their lives. This also ignores negative outcomes reported in other studies, such as receiving less attention, emotional pressure to be the “stable child,” or becoming the caretaker after the parents age or die.

[3] Regarding the divorce rates — it is certainly interesting that they are lower (though they remain relatively close to the national average). I’ve done some research on this topic, and this phenomenon is referred to as the “Down syndrome advantage.” However, it should be noted that this is not universal and is based on comparisons between children with other developmental disorders (such as autism) and those with DS. This could be due to a variety of reasons, but my guess is that it’s probably related to how behaviors are externalized, how certain traits they possess are more likable, and also due to the fact that it’s significantly easier to diagnose (even before birth). Still, there are studies showing that parents of children with Down syndrome do experience higher levels of stress:

Roach MA, Orsmond GI, Barratt MS. Mothers and fathers of children with Down syndrome: parental stress and involvement in childcare. Am J Ment Retard. 1999 Sep;104(5):422-36. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(1999)104<0422:MAFOCW>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 10541413.

And individuals with DS apparently have a higher likelihood to be depressed:


Furthermore, they still suffer increased rates of congenital heart defects, leukemia, Alzheimer’s, and shortened lifespans — and, as I mentioned, a lifetime dependence (for most of them).
 
Last edited:
A few things:

[1] Firstly, the study about self-perception and happiness is contestable, primarily because it surveyed only individuals with DS who were capable of understanding and answering questions, thus, excluding those with severe intellectual disability, who are far more likely to face serious difficulties and might not be able to self-report at all. That's without mentioning these people are usually raised to please authority figures and could give optimistic answers to avoid disappointing them. This is especially relevant when questions involve subjective satisfaction. Also, just because someone might report being happy doesn't mean they don't require constant care, medical treatment, and special education, all of which are challenges for families, and a burden to society as a whole.

[2] The part about the siblings perceiving themselves as 'better people' seems more like a subjective moral framing to me, not a measure of the actual impact on their lives. This also ignores negative outcomes reported in other studies, such as receiving less attention, emotional pressure to be the “stable child,” or becoming the caretaker after the parents age or die.

[3] Regarding the divorce rates — it is certainly interesting that they are lower (though they remain relatively close to the national average). I’ve done some research on this topic, and this phenomenon is referred to as the “Down syndrome advantage.” However, it should be noted that this is not universal and is based on comparisons between children with other developmental disorders (such as autism) and those with DS. This could be due to a variety of reasons, but my guess is that it’s probably related to how behaviors are externalized, how certain traits they possess are more likable, and also due to the fact that it’s significantly easier to diagnose (even before birth). Still, there are studies showing that parents of children with Down syndrome do experience higher levels of stress:

Roach MA, Orsmond GI, Barratt MS. Mothers and fathers of children with Down syndrome: parental stress and involvement in childcare. Am J Ment Retard. 1999 Sep;104(5):422-36. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(1999)104<0422:MAFOCW>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 10541413.

And people with DS apparently have a higher likelihood to be depressed:


Furthermore, they still suffer increased rates of congenital heart defects, leukemia, Alzheimer’s, and shortened lifespans — and, as I mentioned, a lifetime dependence (for most of them).
If shortened lifespan is bad, why is aborting them okay? That is what you guys seem to be arguing for. Abortion cuts their lifespan. The "burden" meme is also fueling assisted suicide. For example, Stephen Hawking requested suicide if he were to become a "burden." Many such cases.
 
If shortened lifespan is bad, why is aborting them okay? That is what you guys seem to be arguing for. Abortion cuts their lifespan. The "burden" meme is also fueling assisted suicide. For example, Stephen Hawking requested suicide if he were to become a "burden." Many such cases.
My original reply was referring to older women having children, which is irresponsible and harmful because it significantly increases the risk of such conditions and the potential suffering for those individuals, not whether abortion/assisted suicide is justified or not (though I could expand on that, but it's still somewhat irrelevant to the main idea).
 
My original reply was referring to older women having children, which is irresponsible and harmful because it significantly increases the risk of such conditions and the potential suffering for those individuals, not whether abortion/assisted suicide is justified or not (though I could expand on that, but it's still somewhat irrelevant to the main idea).
You're still a cuck even if you may or may not be a "pro-lifer." You're saying it's wrong to have children later in age. What if they're childless and want children? You're saying they shouldn't have children. What about the low birth rate problem? Also you specifically mention "older women" but this logic probably applies to older men too. This logic can also be used to defend abortion. By your logic not aborting a down syndrome child is "irresponsible"(the very word you used).
 
Last edited:
You're still a cuck even if you may or may not be a "pro-lifer." You're saying it's wrong to have children later in age. What if they're childless and want children? You're saying they shouldn't have children. What about the low birth rate problem? Also you specifically mention "older women" but this logic probably applies to older men too.
I said having children at an older age is irresponsible when it significantly increases the risk of serious genetic disorders, which is not the same as saying no one should have kids or that we should ignore low birth rates. If someone is childless and wants children, but the odds of bringing a severely impaired child into the world are relatively high, it's reasonable to say that risk should be weighed heavily, just like we do with anything that can cause preventable harm. Also, low birth rates stem from significantly different causes, and I can assure you that older women having children isn't going to affect this trend.

And you are right that older paternal age also entails risks, and I never denied that. The healthiest babies are born when both parents are young (though it should be noted that older maternal age still carries significantly more risks, especially when it comes to down syndrome).

This logic can also be used to defend abortion. By your logic not aborting a down syndrome child is "irresponsible"(the very word you used).
Not at all. There's a major difference between stating older women having children is irresponsible and carries risks, and claiming that humans that were already conceived need to be aborted. (But again, that's a whole different topic).
 
Last edited:
If someone is childless and wants children, but the odds of bringing a severely impaired child into the world are relatively high, it's reasonable to say that risk should be weighed heavily, just like we do with anything that can cause preventable harm.
I don't think having children is harmful. Having children is the greatest good.
 
I said having children at an older age is irresponsible when it significantly increases the risk of serious genetic disorders, which is not the same as saying no one should have kids or that we should ignore low birth rates. If someone is childless and wants children, but the odds of bringing a severely impaired child into the world are relatively high, it's reasonable to say that risk should be weighed heavily, just like we do with anything that can cause preventable harm. Also, low birth rates stem from significantly different causes, and I can assure you that older women having children isn't going to affect this trend.

And you are right that older paternal age also entails risks, and I never denied that. The healthiest babies are born when both parents are young (though it should be noted that older maternal age still carries significantly more risks, especially when it comes to down syndrome).


Not at all. There's a major difference between stating older women having children is irresponsible and carries risks, and claiming that humans that were already conceived need to be aborted. (But again, that's a whole different topic).
Also, you're saying we incels shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. We're young now, but it'd take years for us to get political power to end inceldom. By that point we'll be old and you say "old" people shouldn't reproduce. You're anti-incel.
 
imagine impregnating a 40yo woman
 
Also, you're saying we incels shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. We're young now, but it'd take years for us to get political power to end inceldom. By that point we'll be old and you say "old" people shouldn't reproduce. You're anti-incel.
That’s a ridiculous strawman and a huge leap from what I actually said. I never said incels shouldn’t reproduce, nor did I say that “old people" categorically shouldn’t have kids. What I said (and I still stand by it) is that having children at an age where the risk of serious genetic disorders significantly increases is irresponsible, because it knowingly increases the chance of preventable suffering. That applies to anyone, not just “incels” or any specific group. That's without mentioning that your thinking is extremely binary and black and white; even if I did believe every single older individual shouldn’t have kids, it wouldn't imply any anti-incel sentiment — at best, it would imply anti-older-people-having-children sentiment. Also, there's a major difference between incels who have been involuntarily put into a position where they are unable to have children until old age (if we assume the change you mentioned, which is unlikely) — and women who (mostly) voluntarily choose to do it, despite the fact that they are most certainly capable of having children before that. What I actually advocate for is a world where parents have children at a relatively young age; if that is impossible for certain people, exceptions could certainly be made, but it doesn't change my main point about the potential for suffering and harm, especially with cases of DS.
 

Similar threads

Stupid Clown
Replies
35
Views
539
Kamanbert
Kamanbert
kay'
Replies
14
Views
515
kay'
kay'
tranny destroyer
Replies
11
Views
538
tranny destroyer
tranny destroyer
four1298
Replies
9
Views
800
four1298
four1298

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top