As Always, the Media Focuses on the Elites,

especially women elites, who can afford to postpone childbearing until their late forties and even their fifties as if this is any big trend at all. The only reason anybody is doing this is because the technology is there to do it; otherwise, women would still be unable to have children that late in life. They would adopt if possible, or simply move on with their lives.

Whatever floats one's boat, I guess, but one must realize these first-time parents are responsible for a tiny number of births in the United States, a few hundred at most. It is hardly an epidemic.

link

The age of first motherhood is rising all over the West. In Italy, Germany, and Great Britain, it’s 30. In the U.S., it’s gone up to 25 from 21 since 1970, and in New York State, it’s even higher, at 27. But among the extremely middle-aged, births aren’t just inching up. They are booming. In 2008, the most recent year for which detailed data are available, about 8,000 babies were born to women 45 or older, more than double the number in 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Five hundred and forty-one of these were born to women age 50 or older—a 375 percent increase. In adoption, the story is the same. Nearly a quarter of adopted children in the U.S. have parents more than 45 years older than they are.

Writing about a few hundred births like it is an explosion is dubious at best, especially when it is only the wealthy who can do this.