Very Old Mothers

[Winks_Elf]

Maybe selfish is the wrong word. It just seems to me that it's unfair to the children. And I think it's irresponsible of the doctors who facilitate it. Helping infertile women during normal child bearing years is great,but this is going too far.

I think Lulu hit the nail on the head. There's a reason we start going through fertility changes in our 40's. Please don't think me insensitive towards infertile couples because I've been there myself. However, when you are looking at being retirement age before that child would be out of high school, you need to take into consideration not only health issues but financial issues as well. My MIL, God bless her, had my little SIL when she was somewhere between 45 and 46. My husband was 24 at the time. He really doesn't know a lot about his sister as he didn't grow up with her, and while she was busy in kindergarten and grammar school, we were busy having our own family. My oldest is only 4 years younger than her. Now my in-laws are fretting over the rising taxes in their town (they already pay over $13k a year!), what they're going to do in another year and a half when my MIL's husband retires, and how they'll put their daughter through college. Also, medically speaking, children who are born to older parents are not as healthy as those born to parents in their 20's and 30's.

 

[janinegirly]

I don't think it is any more selfish then men having children in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and we see that happen all the time (hello, Larry King and Rod Stewart!)

We certainly wouldn't say its selfish for people in relatively dangerous occupations (military, law enforcement, coal mining) to have children when there is an increased chance of them expiring early.

Seems there is a bit of a double standard.

I agree!

And while this thread started out as about the more extreme end of older moms, are some saying 30's and 40's (for the mom) merits the same response as well? Like an earlier poster said, life expectancy is a big part of it (compared to the 3rd world and 1800's when people had kids at 14 and dead at 40!)..not to mention society (people marrying later,etc). I just personally have not seen these exhausted pregnant late 30/early 40 somethings (relatively speaking at least)- but maybe I'm looking at a skewed group? And while teenagers are a handful, geesh are they all life draining, energizer bunnies that a 50/60+ and instead rather retire to their rocking chair? It's just not matching the real life examples I've seen. I get that the extremes are pushing the limits, but the fact is there has been a surge in first time mothers in their 30's so expect to see alot of 50 somethings with teenagers over the coming decades.

 

[Sha]

I don't think having children in your 30's and early 40's is too old at all, generally speaking. I got pregnant with my first at 32 and delivered at 33. I had an easy pregnancy and bounced back pretty well too, and I'm also happy I got my education and some other pursuits out of the way before getting pg, since there's no way I would be able to focus on that now.

I think anything past age 50 is too old, though.

 

[Indylady]

I don't think it is any more selfish then men having children in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and we see that happen all the time (hello, Larry King and Rod Stewart!)

We certainly wouldn't say its selfish for people in relatively dangerous occupations (military, law enforcement, coal mining) to have children when there is an increased chance of them expiring early.

Seems there is a bit of a double standard.

Like I said I don't think it's selfish because they're going to die when the child is young, I think it's selfish because as a senior citizen you don't always have the energy (mental, physical or emotional) necessary to be really active in your child's life. And I think the irresponsibility is equally shared by men and women in this situation. However, guys like Larry King and Rod Stewart and Michael Douglas all have young wives to take care of the kids.

HH, my SO would agree with you entirely. His dad was in his early 60's when he was in highschool, and it was tough for him to have an older dad, especially because his parents divorced while he was young and his parents lived in different countries, so he'd wind up living full time with one or the other, and not having the benefit of another younger parent. He's in no particular rush to be engaged or even married, but he knows that he wants kids (or wants to start trying) by the time he's 30. Its the one "life-cycle-timeline" point that he is adamant about.

 

[cara]

But the reason Michelle Duggar had her last baby very prematurely has nothing to do with how many times she's been pregnant before. She had very common age-related complications to her pregnancy [/color]which progressed to the point of imperiling her life and the life of her baby. Add a decade or more to her 42 years, and what might have been the outcome?

Is this true/documented? Of all the women I know in their 40's (not to mention celebs), I don't know of anyone who had similar complications. I agree that if science has to work some medical magic for one to conceive, it is more about the person's desires than the natural progression of life. How about Kelly Preston, isn't she almost 50? That should be interesting.

Advanced maternal age is a significant risk factor for preeclampsia, which is what prompted the early birth of Michelle Duggar's latest child. But Pre-E is not all that rare (I think it happens in about 5% of all pregnancies?), and not exclusively found in older women. Many health risks go up for older moms, especially after age 40. I think it is a real concern about older moms giving birth.

 

[cara]

As for original topic, men have been Very Old Fathers for millenia. So while I think there is (of course) some concern for the additional health risks that old mothers take on (and pass on to their child) by having children when they are older, and using reproductive technology to conceive and maintain the pregnancy as they are past their natural childbearing years, a lot of the issues involved such as parents dying when kids are not yet grown, or parents not having youthful vigor to raise their kids, these issues are not new. Old men have been conceiving children with much younger women for generations.

One of my good friends had a much older father and a younger mother. But her Mom died of breast cancer when she was 18ish, and her father (in his 70s) lived on. Not ideal, I think, but also not some horrible societal problem.

Or another friend was mostly raised by his grandmother. This is really not that uncommon in the world. His parents are still alive, and financially supported him, but left him to be raised in their home country by his grandparents while they sought work overseas. Well, yes, he did have to experience the death of a primary parent-figure in his 20s, a good bit younger than most of his peers. But I wouldn't say that it was a bad decision overall. Especially not with a strong family support network - such as his actual parents and other relatives - that survive and continue to support him.

If an older woman is having a baby with a younger man, and the man is interested in being an involved parent, then I think this is a parallel situation to what has gone on previously with older fathers/younger mothers. Just that technology has now made the older mom, younger dad situation possible.

If an older couple is having kids, well, then there *are* new issues, but these issues can be compensated with extended family structures and resources. Mostly. 70-year olds caring for a newborn does make my head spin (since caring for one in my 30s seems daunting enough!) but 50 year olds? If they are realistic about it, and the challenges of getting hip-replacements when their kids are going to soccer practice and college and doing a better-than-average job of planning for their own retirement... Well, its their life to live.

I guess my bottom line is that the older parents need to be better prepared than your average parent, both for childraising and dealing with their own aging-related decline. And they need to be realistic. I can see *some* 50-year old couples doing a suitable job of raising a new child to adulthood. Yes, they will likely not help out in early adulthood as much as younger parents, or be a spry in chasing around an active child, but if they plan well and raise the kid well it seems somewhat reasonable. But two 70 year olds do not have a realistic plan for raising a new child to adulthood by themselves. Their time horizon to death or significant age-related decline is just not long enough. You would need younger 'parents' lined up to take over... and I'm not sure that qualifies as a reasonable plan unless those younger parent-figures are part of the driving decision to have the kid(s).

 

[janinegirly]

Cara-Oh didn't know it was preeclampsia (I really didn't follow the story at all). Like you said that is something that can strike anyone--the women I know who experienced it were late 20's.

Anyway, saw this and it's funny how timely it is with this thread. Her husband is 68 I believe. Crazy if you ask me!

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/celine-dion-a ... s/43625?nc

 

[Dancing Fire]

both of our daughters were born before we turn 30, ain't no way i want to go chasing a 7 yr old kid in my late 40's or 50's.

 

[HVVS]

It's hard to say to a 50 yr old (who's in great health) that they shouldn't have a child. I would never say that. I had my 3rd child at 40yr and am 42yr now. I don't feel 42 and my son keeps me on my toes. Would I have a child at 50? No it's not for me. I know that some ppl had issues with me pg at 40yr but I don't care. Many say that I'll be in my 60s when he's graduating from college. That's ok! As for the comments I've heard ppl say that it's selfish because they won't be around for the child long enough, I tell them a long life is not guaranteed to anyone. A friend of mine died when her daughter was only 3 yr old from cancer and 2 more dads I knew died when their kids were 3y and 4yr old.

People in my family live to be mid-80s to early 90s and are generally in great health until the moment they abruptly die from a heart attack. 40 or 50 in my family is NOT old, and is NOT in poor health. My parents have to hang around with people 10 to 20 years younger because they've outlived most of their peers. And some other people I know, their families are in poor health and live on Disability by the time they hit 45. So, it depends on the person's lifestyle, genetic makeup, and financial means, I suppose.

As for retirement and not being able to retire, I know quite a few dual-career couples in their 40s and 50s who will not be able to retire before age 70 for certain, and may not have much other than Social Security. Many of those people lost their jobs and saw their industries vanish right when they ought to have been hitting their peak earning years before retirement. Due to the instability of the job market, the large mortgages, the big spending and big debts, followed by kids in college and one or both parents laid off or vastly underemployed, savings are long gone, 401ks have been cashed out, they negotiated lowering the payments and stretching out the mortgage b/c the bank doesn't want a house that it can't sell, the couple lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and the kids of the formerly-Yuppie are working their way through college by parting out cars and working as waitresses. These are people formerly employed in banking, engineering, IT, and / or former business owners. So, all you well-off people in your 20s and 30s, keep your eye on the economy and the employer. Many, many employers want people out the door by age 40 and definitely by age 50. They can replace you with fresh-outs for less salary. The states and Feds are not enforcing the age discrimination laws.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I had my children young and still worry about what they will eventually do without me when I die. I couldn't even imaging turning 70 when my children are graduating college or high school. Just when they would be buying their first homes or having kids I would be reaching the end of my life expectency. They would most likely be orphans and their kids would miss out on grandparents and an extended family. How can you plan that? I would never do it.

 

[Arkteia]

I had my second child at 42 - and it was a total surprize. Let me not get into details...it was against the law of probability in many ways, so we found out about pregnancy when the fetus was 14 weeks. So we kept it...it was a fully-formed baby on the US monitor. And it is scary, but what can you do? It happens. I am also concerned that because we are both old, our friends are old, too, but only one couple has grandchildren and my son has very few playdates. His older brother is 20 and lives separately, Peter always asks where his grandmothers are and I have to explain the concept of "death" to him. It is sad for him, but it happens, and you just do what you can do to raise the kid the best way you can.

 

[AGBF]

I had my second child at 42 - and it was a total surprize. Let me not get into details...it was against the law of probability in many ways, so we found out about pregnancy when the fetus was 14 weeks. So we kept it...it was a fully-formed baby on the US monitor. And it is scary, but what can you do? It happens. I am also concerned that because we are both old, our friends are old, too, but only one couple has grandchildren and my son has very few playdates. His older brother is 20 and lives separately, Peter always asks where his grandmothers are and I have to explain the concept of "death" to him. It is sad for him, but it happens, and you just do what you can do to raise the kid the best way you can.

42 is hardly "very old"! However, it sounds as if, for some reason, you are more socially isolated with your second son than you were with your first (you mention few playdates and you also allude to the absence of grandparents). Not all parents will be more socially isolated or have less family at 42 than at 22. Although there are certainly things that make pregnacy harder at 42, 42 is still an age at which women get pregnant naturally...as you did.

Not that there is anything wrong with modern medicine! I used it to try to get pregnant. It didn't work. I adopted. And then (since I was 41 and no one had ever found anything wrong with me) my doctors kept warning me that I could get pregnant and that I should use birth control if I didn't want a second baby!

AGBF

 

[kelpie]

I have a coworker who is 64 and has 4 kids age 6 and under with his 5th wife. I don't believe we should judge people's reproductive choices as long as any child brought into this work is loved and cared for but I do have concerns about how he will never be able to retire and those kids and their very young stay at home mom could be left all alone. At the end of the day it is none of my business though!!! He is one of those pretty extreme people who is sure the rapture is happening in 2011 so he has zero plans for the future besides having as many kids as God allows between now and then.

For me personally going to such extreme lengths with medical intervention to have a child when resources are so constrained and so many children are parentless would make me feel incredibly self absorbed. If I were in that situation I'm certain I would adopt or foster if I desperately wanted a child in my life, but I have never walked in the shoes of someone whose biological clock is ticking so I can't judge their choices from here.

 

[zhuzhu]

A lot of "young parents" don't give any thoughts about how to raise and educate their children. To me THAT is selfish and irresponsible parenting. Regardless of one's age, as long as the mother or the parents plan carefully and intelligently in advance about the health outcome of the baby (due to older parental age), and have strategy in place to care for their children, it is really not an irresponsible thing.

 

[tberube]

I dunno. I'm not having kids, so I realize I'm probably an outlier in my opinions about this topic on here. But what the hell...

I think there's plenty of people on earth already, there's no reason to push the envelope by trying to have risky pregnancies at 40, 50, 60 years of age (forget just being old...think about the risk of birth defects!). I think it's downright ridiculous. If you really want children I can't blame you for that, but why take so many risks to add another person to this crowded world, when you could adopt one of the millions of children already here who need a home? Someone else in this thread already eluded to this (I forget who), there's a reason why you stop being fertile at a certain age...yanno?

Sorry if I sound hateful, I know my opinion is not popular...but I do think people are way too baby-crazy in this day and age. Just my $0.02