Is 50 too old to have children?

Micahelxcx

Are you too old to have children at 50?
Some friends say no you're not; others say you are.
What 21 year old wants his father to be 70, it has been argued.
But I am just wondering if beyond 40 is too old for children.
At what age should women conceive?

prinz

Micahelxcx wrote: »

Are you too old to have children at 50?
Some friends say no you're not; others say you are.
What 21 year old wants his father to be 70, it has been argued.
But I am just wondering if beyond 40 is too old for children.

My father was 44 when I was born, I am 25 and he is 70 this year. Not that old but still personally I wouldn't be interested in having kids myself after that date. I wouldn't change the old fella for the world but I do sometimes wish he was younger so I would have more time for an adult-adult relationship.

Micahelxcx wrote: »

At what age should women conceive?

Ideally when health risks to both parties are at a minimum.

Chuchoter

Definitely. The risk for birth defects/ disorders goes through the roof for women, its not fair on the child. 40 is really max, for both men and women. Any older and you're just not going to be able to keep up.

sam34

crayolastereo wrote: »

Definitely. The risk for birth defects/ disorders goes through the roof for women, its not fair on the child. 40 is really max, for both men and women. Any older and you're just not going to be able to keep up.

my mother was 46 when she had me, my father was 44


both are now in their 70s, fit and healthy

their age has never been a cause of any difficulties in my upbringing or adult life

"keeping up" was never a problem for either of them

Dudess

For a woman there are the health risks for the child all right, but for a man, no, I don't think it's too old. Too old, in my opinion, is an age at which both parents are highly likely to be dead from old age before the child is old enough to fend for themselves (school-leaving age at the very earliest).

Eve_Dublin

Hmmm....50 year old man having a kid? When you´re 20, he´ll be 70, when you´re 30 he´ll be 80?? The life expectancy at the moment for a man in Ireland is 75.....

I´m going to be controversial here and say I don´t think it´s okay for people, both men and women to have kids over the age of 40. My mother was 38 having me and my dad was 40. My mother died when I was 11 and my dad is in very bad shape. If I´m realistic, he won´t see his 80th birthday let alone his 75th (or even sooner ). Granted he smoked like a chimney for years so it wasn´t natural old aging. He´s not going to meet my grand kids if I have any. I was a "pleasant surprise" (as I was called as a kid....a pleasant mistake more like it, no doubt like a lot of kids in Ireland back in the day but never felt I wasn´t loved by both of my parents) so I don´t begrudge them for having me as Ireland was the way it was in 1980 but nowadays we have the choice.

If I was to have children I´d want to know that I´d be around for as long as possible. The older you have kids, the less likely it is that you´ll see them "settling down" (whatever that means for the individual).
Okay I´ve been supporting myself since my early twenties and he was there all the way through....but you don´t have kids just to bring them up so they can take care of themselves. You have them to be there for the long haul.

Sorry...this is a sensitive topic for me....perhaps if you´re both fit and healthy then no worries. Just make sure you are....

seamus

Dudess wrote: »

For a woman there are the health risks for the child all right, but for a man, no, I don't think it's too old. Too old, in my opinion, is an age at which both parents are highly likely to be dead from old age before the child is old enough to fend for themselves (school-leaving age at the very earliest).

"Fend for themselves" obviously is a moving target. I personally would say that 25 should be the cut-off point. I think that represents an age where most people will have developed the emotional maturity and external relationships to help them cope with the loss of a close family member.

I'm the youngest in my family and until I left college and properly stood on my own two feet, my parents were still the carers - there was still a parent-child relationship between us, even though I hadn't been living at home for 7 years. It's only in the last few years after I hit my mid-twenties that I can properly claim to have a one-to-one adult relationship with my father in particular, where every decision I make is my own and I live my life pretty much entirely without his counsel or opinion.

Now, maybe I'm full of ****, but I think it must be much harder to lose a parent when you're still relying on them for support, because at that stage they're still invincible, they're still your parents. It's when you fully stand on your own two feet that you realise and can come to terms with the fact that they're humans, frail, mortal humans who will not be here forever.

Aside from that, you have to consider the generational gap. At 28, there would be a generational gap between me and any child born today. Think about the gap between someone almost twice my age, and a child born today. It could be much more difficult to develop an adult relationship with someone who is 50 years your senior.

Sleepy

Personally, I think the nearer to 25/30 you have your kids the better. You're more able for the sleepless nights, the running around on the beach / football field with them when they're children etc.

There's also the added benefit that you've some freedom for yourself in your later years when you're more likely to be able to afford to indulge your passions etc.

Horses for courses I suppose but I certainly don't think it's fair to have a child when you're unlikely to see them graduate from college. Personally, I think it'd be nice to be able to expect to see my daughter married before anything happens me and, having her at 28 makes that reasonably likely.

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I think the nearer to 25/30 you have your kids the better. Your more able for the sleepless nights, the running around on the beach / football field with them when they're children etc.

There's also the added benefit that you've some freedom for yourself in your later years when you're more likely to be able to afford to indulge your passions etc.

On top of that, the younger you have children, the more you will be able to appreciate your grandchildren. My uncle is in his mid-60's now and the first grandchildren are only starting to appear on the scene, even though all his kids are in their 30's (and almost 40's). He did lament to me one night that he felt like he would be too old to enjoy a pint with his first grandson when he hit 18, if he was even around for it, and even now that he was a bit too old to keep up with kids. His biggest regret was that he reckoned he wouldn't be around to see most of his grandchildren grow into adults of their own, as most of them will be born when he's close to or at 70 years of age.

Grandparents have a direct line of "creation" with their grandkids, so to most, a grandchild is close to being your own child except that you don't have to chase around and pick up after them - you get *all* the good bits.

So if you're having a child at 50, you also need to consider that most people don't have children until their mid-to-late twenties. So you'll be lucky to even meet your grandchildren.

thebullkf

Micahelxcx wrote: »

Are you too old to have children at 50?-Yes.


just cos it happens doesn't mean its ok.




Some friends say no you're not; others say you are.

What 21 year old wants his father to be 70, it has been argued. +1



But I am just wondering if beyond 40 is too old for children.


At what age should women conceive?--no older than 35 imho.

safer for all concerned,esp. in the long run.

[/QUOTE]

---

i recently saw a guy who fathered a child @ 70.....


to me thats child abuse-the kids never gonna have a chance.


PTA's with an 80 y.o....... ffs:rolleyes:

readyletsgo

I'm 28 and my Dad is 75 this year, he is pretty old as in he acts old and wont do anything where as with my older bro's and sis's he did have a father son/daughter relationship with them. When i was growing up my dad never did any of the dad stuff with me cause he just couldnt keep up so yes i think 50 , heck even 40 for men and women is to old to have childern. If you want kids, thank your luck stars you can have them and if you find the right person have them before your 40+

Speaking from experience as being one of those childern...


Edit: I'm not saying i dont love my dad, i love him with all my heart and wouldnt change him for the world! Just a pity we didnt get to do all that father son stuff really

stovelid

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I think the nearer to 25/30 you have your kids the better. Your more able for the sleepless nights, the running around on the beach / football field with them when they're children etc.

I was 37 when I had my (now) two-year old. And I'm just about to become a dad again.

As far as I can remember, the sleepless nights didn't kill me. And I'm still able to play 1-2 hours of five-a-side these days. I think you might reconsider the view of your 30s as being an era of infirmity when you get there. :P

Personally, I think if there is a statistically decent chance of you dying (of natural causes) before your child reaches early twenties, you probably should think twice, but who am I to judge?

You see junkies in their 20s pushing kids around town all the time. I'd prefer a loving, responsible 70-year old dad in my late teens to that.

Sleepy

It's not that I see my thirties (coming this year) as an age of infirmity, nor that I feel like I can judge others' parenting, I just think it makes more sense to have your kids at a time when you're young enough to be able to expect to enjoy spending time with them as both children and adults. With any luck, having children in your mid twenties to early thirties means you should still be capable of running around a bit with the grandkids too.

Like I said in my OP, it's horses for courses but that's my own opinion. My daughter's grandfather on her mum's side is in his 60's and could run rings around me but he's the exception rather than the rule from what I can see.

I definitely agree that an older parent who'll bring up their children as well as they possibly can is infinitely better than a young parent who's more concerned with scoring drugs than being a good influence on their offspring. Hope my opinion didn't offend you (not something I'd care about on most forums on boards but the parenting forum's a bit different ), it's just an opinion, not a judgement on your own parenting.

stovelid

Sleepy wrote: »

it's just an opinion, not a judgement on your own parenting.

I wasn't interpreting it as that at all. Apologies if it sounded like that.

One thing, as you said, I would have liked - in a ideal world - is that if I'm ever to be a grandparent is to be a younger one than I could end up being...barring teenage pregnancies and whatnot. That said, I would have had to sacrifice the freedom of my 20s and 30s though so you'll always lose something, I guess.

Dudess

seamus wrote: »

"Fend for themselves" obviously is a moving target. I personally would say that 25 should be the cut-off point. I think that represents an age where most people will have developed the emotional maturity and external relationships to help them cope with the loss of a close family member.

Oh yeah, when I say "school-leaving age", that is as absolute worst case scenario.

But my uncle was nearly 50 when he became a father for the first time and he is now 58 with three boys (their mother is eight or nine years younger than him). A happier man you could not meet - and a superb dad. He really looks after himself too, so appears considerably younger than his years. That's not to say he doesn't have concerns of course (they'll more than likely be young men when their dad dies, they might be made to feel a bit "different" growing up, etc) but in his case anyway, the good outweighs the bad. His children adore him, that's the main thing...

My grandfather was 52, when he married an 18 year old. He produced 4 daughters. So, no, I don't think its too old.

However from a practical sense the consideration of age, and the likelihood of being able to participate in all activities a father should do with his son/daughter... I don't think its very practical.

But each to their own. It might work for some, and won't work for others. Thats the way our society has always been, and continues to be so. And TBH It could easily happen to me. It might take another 17 years before i wise up and settle down with someone (successfully).

AngryBadger

IMO 50+ is too old to be having kids for someone who is in that age bracket today.

However I feel it's worth pointing out that for generations born in the last 2-3 decades we're more likely to retain a higher standard of health and a higher quality of life beyond what our parents experienced. Where many of us will have parents who experienced much lower standards of health/living all the way through their childhoods, and often young-adulthoods we've experienced certainly better standards of care generally, and overall a better quality of life starting from a younger age, the long-term benefits of which are only really going to be acknowledged in the coming decades, (i.e. as we start hitting our 40s/50s/60s).

So while I think someone considering having children at the age of 50+ today is probably being a bit unfair to those kids, that same logic may not apply in years to come as the overall health of the population improves.

Jesus Wept

Dudess wrote: »

For a woman there are the health risks for the child all right, but for a man, no, I don't think it's too old. Too old, in my opinion, is an age at which both parents are highly likely to be dead from old age before the child is old enough to fend for themselves (school-leaving age at the very earliest).

Is it not a bit cruel to have a child when your life expectancy (average) is that you will be dead when it is 18?
It's a lot to bare, and obviously avoidable by not having kids at such a late age.

That said, I doubt I'll be ready to have kids till I'm about 60, so I've shot myself in the...foot.

The-Rigger

The-Rigger wrote: »

Is it not a bit cruel to have a child when your life expectancy (average) is that you will be dead when it is 18?
It's a lot to bare, and obviously avoidable by not having kids at such a late age.

That said, I doubt I'll be ready to have kids till I'm about 60, so I've shot myself in the...foot.

Is life expectancy at 68 now? I would have thought it was up there around 80 nowadays. Whereas my grandparents all died in their late 60's, my own parents are entering their 70's now and are still going strong. It depends on their lifestyle, and frankly someone that has children at that stage in their lives is likely to take care of themselves...

Jesus Wept

60 + School leaving age (had 18 in my mind, could be 17) = 77/78.

Life expectancy was 76.8 for males born as of 2006, though I'm not that new.

uriah

My father was in his forty-eighth year when I was born. He was in his fifty-third year when my sister was born. He died when I was thirty-four.

He was a wonderful, patient father, who may not have played football with us when we were teenagers, but he had loads of time to talk to us, listen to us, teach us board and card games and, later, argue politics, religion, etc. with us.

I have no idea what it would have been like to have had a younger dad. I never missed what I didn't have.

But I really value what he did give us.

My uncle died at forty-eight, leaving behind a large family which included a three-year-old, a five-year-old and a six year-old.


Age is a number, and life has few guarantees.

Jesus Wept

uriah wrote: »

Age is a number, and life has few guarantees.

Obviously you can only take life expectancy as an average or median, situations will vary, but cmon - play the odds.

If someone opts to father a child at 70, and then shrugs saying - 'sure some people die at 35 and leave behind a big family', their head is in the clouds.

iora_rua

Definitely too old. My mother was about 40 and my father 54 when I arrived. Basically, you've got grandparents, rather than parents, with all the attendant problems - short on patience, energy, or really understanding teenagers. Then, in their twilight years, you're probably still working full time when you really need to be giving your elderly parents extra time and attention. It's very unfair on all involved. 35 at the latest to be a mother and 40 to be a father. My opinion from my own first hand experience.

doubleglaze

Choosing to become a parent at 50 is similar, in my view, to routinely choosing to read Enid Blyton for pleasure at the age of 18...:eek:

I would question the psychological and/or moral disposition of anyone who is actively trying to conceive at age 50.

SugarHigh

Only for women, I don't see a problem for a man as long as he's healthy.

stovelid

Love all the homilies about 'playing ball with the kids'.

Like the park near me is always chock-a-block with all the twenty-something dads in my area when I'm kicking a ball around with my son.

Because being twenty-odd magically guarantees that you don't smoke or eat too much to chase around after your children, like.

oopsadaisy

Sadly we dont live in an ideal world. Not everybody has the pleasure of 'choosing' when they have a child. Some people struggle for 5 or 10 years to have a baby. They may have intended to have a child in late 20's, early 30s, they may not succeed until much later, if they do succeed at all. They did not intend to be 'older' parents, it just ended up that way.

HavingCrack

I don't actually think its the younger years that are the problem but the teenage-twenties ones. You're going to be 70 when your child is 20?? Thats such an enormous gap that the generation difference could cause a lot of friction and fights between parents and children, but thats just my opinion.

LilMsss

SugarHigh wrote: »

Only for women, I don't see a problem for a man as long as he's healthy.

A study actually came out last year that suggested men too go through a type of 'male menopause' after the age of 40, whereby the quality and quantity of sperm actually decreases and the risk of birth defects for any future children born is increased. I don't have the link - sorry!

In saying that, the OP queried whether 50 is too old, and yet so many posters have jumped from 50 to 35 (for women supposedly!) as being the oldest 'responsible' age to have a child. Tying people to an appropriate age to procreate is total crap, and will have little if any bearing on if or when most people choose to have children.

I am 29 and am nowhere near close to getting married or having kids, and that's absolutely fine by me. If and when I do have children, I will be an older mother, as in 35 + and it's nobody's business but mine. My mother is a fit and healthy 54 and you would think looking at her that she was far younger. My Dad was 34 when I was born and died when he was 62, while my grandad died at 82. There's no magic wand to predict life expectancy or even quality of life or the quality of the parenting skills regardless of the age of the parents.

While I agree it is not ideal for most older people (50 +) to have children (health, energy levels etc), it's irrelevant as it will not deter people who are going to do it anyway. And while I say most, I do not mean all, as there will always be exceptions to this.

LilMsss

LilMsss wrote: »

In saying that, the OP queried whether 50 is too old, and yet so many posters have jumped from 50 to 35 (for women supposedly!) as being the oldest 'responsible' age to have a child. Tying people to an appropriate age to procreate is total crap, and will have little if any bearing on if or when most people choose to have children.

I am 29 and am nowhere near close to getting married or having kids, and that's absolutely fine by me. If and when I do have children, I will be an older mother, as in 35 + and it's nobody's business but mine. My mother is a fit and healthy 54 and you would think looking at her that she was far younger. My Dad was 34 when I was born and died when he was 62, while my grandad died at 82. There's no magic wand to predict life expectancy or even quality of life or the quality of the parenting skills regardless of the age of the parents.

While I agree it is not ideal for most older people (50 +) to have children (health, energy levels etc), it's irrelevant as it will not deter people who are going to do it anyway. And while I say most, I do not mean all, as there will always be exceptions to this.

I'll freely admit that my understanding of the medical side is rather hazy, but my understanding was that as a woman gets older the chance of having a mentally/physically "disabled" (never really liked that word) increases dramatically. So while its relatively safe at 35, the chance of something "going wrong" increases in a major way at say 40.

My sister was 33 when she had her 1st child, and 35 with her second. Both children are perfect. However she's often mentioned her friends (she met while being pregnant) who had kids while being older than her, and the large number of them who have some sort of personality or intelligence issues.

Its not an exact science from what I can tell. It still comes down to luck, your family history and the standard of your lifestyle. But as you get older you do increase the risk to both you and the child. And for many older (35+) people, that will be a definite turn off.

LilMsss

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not an exact science from what I can tell. It still comes down to luck, your family history and the standard of your lifestyle. But as you get older you do increase the risk to both you and the child. And for many older (35+) people, that will be a definite turn off.

Yeah there is an increased risk of birth defects or intellectual disability the older a woman gets due to a decrease in the quality and quantity of eggs available, and I may get slated for this, but I think a lot of the risks are greatly exaggerated for dramatic effect.

Now I am not saying that there are no risks, because obviously there are, but teenagers giving birth can also have children with disabilities, so it's not an exact science.

I think there is a lot of cultural scaremongering particularly aimed at women, suggesting that if we don't 'settle down' and become impregnated at a young age, then we will somehow become barren or have other fertility issues, which for most women simply isn't the case: (Read journalist Susan Faludi's work from the early 90s).

Lifestyles have changed so much over the past 50 or so years, and people are staying in education longer, have better access to healthcare, more disposable income and most people, women included spend a good proportion of their twenties and thirties working on their career. The pressure to settle down and have kids by a certain age is unbelieveable for women.

I've been getting it from family (well-meaning aunties and uncles etc) for the past three years, and now I'm even getting it from friends who are married with kids, or close to it, almost feeling sorry for me being 'all on my own', and putting pressure on me to meet anyone and settle down and have kids immediately. I spent my 20s travelling and getting a Masters degree and establishing my career and worked very hard to get where I am, and am not about to throw all of that away by jumping on the first opportunity to have kids that I get.

I feel that waiting until my mid-thirties to have children will provide any kids I have with a solid foundation, I will be financially and emotionally secure, hopefully in a committed relationship and will have a breadth of life experience that my children can only benefit from. Apologies for the rant, but it's just something that really gets to me!!!! :mad:

LilMsss

LilMsss wrote: »

Yeah there is an increased risk of birth defects or intellectual disability the older a woman gets due to a decrease in the quality and quantity of eggs available, and I may get slated for this, but I think a lot of the risks are greatly exaggerated for dramatic effect.

Dramatic effect? We live in Europe which has a falling birth rate and you think they're prohibiting or encouraging women not to have children at older ages simply... for what? Drama?

Now I am not saying that there are no risks, because obviously there are, but teenagers giving birth can also have children with disabilities, so it's not an exact science.

I agree its not an exact science, but you can't really compare teenagers with that of mature women. Medical science prescribes the idea that the risks increase as a woman gets older. Its not drama, its science telling us this.

I think there is a lot of cultural scaremongering particularly aimed at women, suggesting that if we don't 'settle down' and become impregnated at a young age, then we will somehow become barren or have other fertility issues, which for most women simply isn't the case: (Read journalist Susan Faludi's work from the early 90s).

And it is mostly women who are telling other women this. And why would they promote such an idea if it wasn't based on reality?

Lifestyles have changed so much over the past 50 or so years, and people are staying in education longer, have better access to healthcare, more disposable income and most people, women included spend a good proportion of their twenties and thirties working on their career. The pressure to settle down and have kids by a certain age is unbelieveable for women.

You do realise that some things cannot fall into the convenience of our lives. There are some things that cannot be changed. Our bodies have a clock running all the time. I certainly notice the difference in my body now (33) compared to when I was in my early 20's. I don't recover from injury as quick, I can't drink as much, I've found a few grey hairs, etc.

As much as I would like to enjoy the fruits of the modern world (and chase younger women) for the next 3 decades, my body is getting older, and I know in a decade I probably won't be up for most of it.

I've been getting it from family (well-meaning aunties and uncles etc) for the past three years, and now I'm even getting it from friends who are married with kids, or close to it, almost feeling sorry for me being 'all on my own', and putting pressure on me to meet anyone and settle down and have kids immediately. I spent my 20s travelling and getting a Masters degree and establishing my career and worked very hard to get where I am, and am not about to throw all of that away by jumping on the first opportunity to have kids that I get.

And that is your choice. But all choices have consequences. Let me put it this way. There is usually a trade-off between having a family and having a high profile career. (some industries allow both, but most require commitments that a mother cant provide). And while many women want to have both, its simply highly improbable to achieve except for the truly gifted.

I wasted most of my 20's getting stoned, and watching the discovery channel. Now in my 30's I'd love to experience my life now, as a 20 year old. But I can't turn back the clock and do it all over again. Life doesn't work that way. I made a choice and i have to deal with the consequences.

Just as you will have to do the same.

I feel that waiting until my mid-thirties to have children will provide any kids I have with a solid foundation, I will be financially and emotionally secure, hopefully in a committed relationship and will have a breadth of life experience that my children can only benefit from. Apologies for the rant, but it's just something that really gets to me!!!! :mad:

And you're right in all of those things. You will be able to provide everything you describe. But your body will be older and the risk in pregnancy will be increased. Again, it comes down to choice. A trade-off in choices.

Either have children at a younger age, which lowers the risk, or have children at an older age and have increased risk. Your choice. But from what I have heard from friends and family, most people have children at a younger age, to reduce the risk for their children. For their childrens sake, not for their own convenience.

gbee

Men are never too old. Now the ethics of knowing that your children may be fatherless due to one's death is another issue.

Women should be finished child bearing at 30 years of age, beyond that age the risk of unhealthy, handicapped or mentally ill children increases. Risk is further increased depending on both histories.

metrovelvet

gbee wrote: »

Men are never too old. Now the ethics of knowing that your children may be fatherless due to one's death is another issue.

Women should be finished child bearing at 30 years of age, beyond that age the risk of unhealthy, handicapped or mentally ill children increases. Risk is further increased depending on both histories.

With amniocentesis that's not an issue anymore.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote: »

With amniocentesis that's not an issue anymore.

Amniocentesis only notifies a woman that a problem will exist. She's not permitted to abort. So in this country at least, amniocentesis doesn't reduce the incidence of genetically defected children born to mothers in this country.

I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but even if abortion were legal many women will continue with the pregnancy regardless. So the number of genetic defects born will continue to rise as women insist on bearing children at older ages.

That's their right, but it's something we need to be prepared for by having more services available to these mothers and the children who will grow in to adults requiring care.

Certainly there should be something of an educational campaign that putting off having children in order to develop your career could be counter-productive because your children may require most intensive and expensive care at the other end.

metrovelvet

Does someone have accurate stats?

CathyMoran

I must be terrible then - I did the "terrible thing" of having my son at the ripe of age of 36 and I would like to try for another baby. My parents had me at the same age. For me I would not like to try beyond 40 but I do know of a girl whose parents had her at 48 (she was a suprise). I did meet my husband a long time ago but I was very sick in my early 30's so having a baby at 36 was the only choice.

stovelid

gbee wrote: »

Women should be finished child bearing at 30 years of age, beyond that age the risk of unhealthy, handicapped or mentally ill children increases. Risk is further increased depending on both histories.

Life isn't a train timetable unfortunately.

Many people don't meet someone until after their 30s; may have met the wrong person or any other number of factors.

LilMsss

Deleted User wrote: »

Dramatic effect? We live in Europe which has a falling birth rate and you think they're prohibiting or encouraging women not to have children at older ages simply... for what? Drama?

It's not for the purpose of creating 'drama' - if you re-read my post, it's a well-documented cultural phenomenon. In many Western countries where women have good access to education and career prospects, and have made strides in areas they were previously absent from, cultural pressure is placed on women to follow a particular well-prescribed path: i.e. the ideal is to forgo career and personal development and marry, settle and procreate at a young age.

There is often an idea that to defer motherhood and domestic bliss for career and the boardroom will cause women's wombs to shrivel up and untold miseries for their future offspring, should they be lucky enough to find a man to take them on in their thirties. Obviously these are two extremes of the myth, as most women successfully combine career, family, marraige, children and a hell of a lot of other commitments into their lives.

Journalist Susan Faludi won the Pulitizor Prize for her 1991 book, Backlash and details this phenomenon as a being one facet of a backlash against the small gains made by second wave feminism in the 1980s. She uses films like Fatal Attraction as the prime example of the two extremes of femininity: the blissful wife and mother and the demented single childless career woman. While these attitudes aren't as prevalent now, they still exist in some quarters.

I am not about to get into a discussion on feminism as it is off-topic, but the above is to put my statement into context. I hope this makes it clearer.

I don't think 'they', whoever 'they' may be are trying to prevent older women having children, rather discouraging it in favour of younger women. And as I stated in my previous post, while I am not denying that there are risks for older women having children, I believe the extent of those risks can often be exaggerated. And I would also like to point out that there is a massive difference between a woman of 48 having a baby and a woman of 32, yet so many people lump that 15 - 20 year reproductive period in together, which IMO is wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

you can't really compare teenagers with that of mature women. ... Its not drama, its science telling us this.

If you're referring to risks associated with pregnancy, there are always risks - no pregnancy is risk-free. I'm merely stating that a younger mother can have the same birth defects and disabilities in their children, but to a lesser extent.

Deleted User wrote: »

And it is mostly women who are telling other women this. And why would they promote such an idea if it wasn't based on reality?

What evidence do you have for this? This is an attitude that is reinforced from many different sources, not simply women to other women.

Deleted User wrote: »

But all choices have consequences. Let me put it this way. There is usually a trade-off between having a family and having a high profile career. (some industries allow both, but most require commitments that a mother cant provide). And while many women want to have both, its simply highly improbable to achieve except for the truly gifted.

Yes we all have choices and there is always some element of sacrifice to achieve what we want, however, I believe that it all comes down to your personal perspective on life. Anyone can 'have it all', but it depends on how you define your own 'all'.

Many women have a satisfying career, successful marraige and children, and while there may be a high degree of juggling, are very happy with the balance of their lives. It is not highly improbable, but dependent on how you manage the commitments in your life. Also why is the 'having it all' argument never aimed at men? We never hear men saying that they want to 'have it all', possibly because the assumption is that they already do, or at least won't have to make the same sacrifices of their bodies, time and possibly career as women.

Deleted User wrote: »

Either have children at a younger age, which lowers the risk, or have children at an older age and have increased risk. Your choice.

This is a big can of worms which I am not going to get into other than what I have already posted.

LilMsss

seamus wrote: »

So the number of genetic defects born will continue to rise as women insist on bearing children at older ages.

This is quite an inflammatory statement. I have searched a number of online sources for statistics on the number and nature of birth defects and disabilities of children born to older mothers and while I found a lot of sites listing the risks I have yet to find one which quotes exact statistics to back this up.

seamus wrote: »

Certainly there should be something of an educational campaign that putting off having children in order to develop your career could be counter-productive because your children may require most intensive and expensive care at the other end.

An educational campaign ... really??? Is the scourge of older mothers (I'm assuming you were referring to mothers there, apologies if that is not the case) really that rampant and damaging to Irish society?

I realise in my previous posts that I mentioned career as being one factor that may influence family planning, and it is one that has influenced my own ... simply because I have not yet met any man I would be willing to have children with, so I focus on other positive areas of my life, career being one of them. I doubt if there are actually high numbers of women who meet their perfect partner at 18, yet defer having children with them until their late 30s in favour of a career.

The number of women having children in their late thirties isn't actually as high as most people may think, and even more unusual for women in their forties (I haven't got statistics for this, but am basing it on observation and my extended social circle and work, college, community etc.). So I hardly think a national education programme on the dangers of conception over a particular age is actually required.

seamus

LilMsss wrote: »

This is quite an inflammatory statement. I have searched a number of online sources for statistics on the number and nature of birth defects and disabilities of children born to older mothers and while I found a lot of sites listing the risks I have yet to find one which quotes exact statistics to back this up.

This is the most reputable source available:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp and it's consistent with any other source I could find on the topic.

The figures are quite staggering - a woman at 35 is relatively at low risk of a Down's child, however they are still 3 times more likely than a woman at 25.

An educational campaign ... really??? Is the scourge of older mothers (I'm assuming you were referring to mothers there, apologies if that is not the case) really that rampant and damaging to Irish society?

From a monetary and societal point of view, it's prudent to ensure that people have access to the full facts around rearing children.

You seem to be taking some kind of personal offence to being shown the bare facts. I haven't once said that older mothers are bad or evil or wrong. They have a right to bear children until they are physically incapable of doing so, and more power to them. I don't believe there's anything wrong with having a child with Down's. I know people who have Down's children, I know people who work in places like Cheeverstown and despite their special needs, people with Down's are no less deserving of a place on this planet than the rest of us.

However, they do require more care than the rest of us and consequently that requires more resources, so we must be prepared as a society to deal with the outcome of our changing attitudes and decisions. And we must also educate society on these outcomes in order that they make informed decisions.

Going by the CSO figures (which are unfortunately only available up to 2005), the average age of mothers has increased about 8% in the last 20 years. Therefore, it has to be true that proportionally the number of children with Down's syndrome has also increased. Extrapolating a similar increase over the next 20 years, the average age of a mother in 2030 will be almost 34 years old, and again relatively more children will be born with genetic disorders like Down's. We need to be prepared for this.

That said, the recession may have had a downward effect on the trend and without recent figures it's hard to say. Perhaps the recession will cause people to have children younger rather than work at a career - perhaps it will make them wait longer, or it may have no effect on people's family planning at all.

gbee

stovelid wrote: »

Life isn't a train timetable unfortunately. Many people don't meet someone until after their 30s; may have met the wrong person or any other number of factors.

That's not a point. The point in relation to this thread is, knowing the risks, are you going to proceed? Are you one of those people who can consider a handicapped child a 'blessing from God!' ?

I don't want an answer to that, that'll be your decision.

Novella

Tbh, I do think that 50 is too old to have children. My mum had me when she was in her twenties, but because she suffered from depression etc., my grandparents brought me up. I bonded with them, they were my primary carers and while I always knew they weren't my actual parents, they were who I depended on, who I thought the world of. My granny died when I was twelve and the effect on me was huge. I was just about to embark on my teenage years, and I lost my female role model.

So, I have some idea of what it would be like to have to grow up without one of the people you depended on most in the world, and it's not okay. I don't think anyone should have children if they're unlikely to be around for long enough to see their child grow up. Obviously, young people can die too and you never know what's going to happen... but a person in good health at 30 is more likely to be around for the next 30 years than a person over 50.

For that reason, I want to have children relatively young... because I want to spend as much time as I possibly can in their lives.

metrovelvet

Ok. I can see what you're saying but I have...

1. One friend who's father died of liver failure when she was 13

2. One friend who's father died of muscular distrophy when she was 12.

3. One friend who watched his father drown on a beach when he was three

4. A former classmate who saw his mother hanged from the ceiling in his grandparents house he was 16

5.Another classmate who lost his mother in lockerbie.

6. A classmate and schoolmate who died recently of lou gherigs, leaving behind a 7 and three year old.

7. Another former classmate who died in 911 leaving behind two kids and a pregnant widow.

8. A classmate who's father threw himself off a building after the black monday crash.

9. A friend of mine who died at 33 of pancreatic failure, leaving behind a two year old son and a widow.

Amy33

My father was 26 when I was born and my mother was 28. My father became teminally ill when he was 34, that's almost 30 years ago and my mother died when I was 10. Life doesn't always work out the way you hope it will...

Fittle

Wow, that must have been tough amy.

My dad was 52 having me and my mam was 42. Neither were in good health and both were 'old' before their time. I would much have preferred to have healthier parents, with a younger outlook on life, but not necessarily younger parents.
I'm now 42 and I'd love another child - I'm healthy and 'young' at heart. So I don't think this is a yes or no answer. I believe it's down to the individual - Like amy said, there are no guarantees in life, but if you're fit and healthy at 50, I don't see why you shouldn't have a kid. I've a brother who's almost 60 and regularly brings my lad to the park for a a kickabout. I've another brother who's just gone 50 who may as well be 90.

So it's a personal decision, particularly for men (because the decision is taken out of womens hands at a certain age).

bakedbean

I remember one bit of research that suggests older fathers have an increased risk of having a child that develops autism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5313874.stm

Having said that, I don't think age should be a defining factor in whether to have kids or not. The first consideration is whether you have the makings of a loving, supportive, interested (and present!) parent.

Fittle

And while research is great, and does exactly what it says on the tin, I've two friends (one family member, one friend) who have autistic children, and both men are under 45 and perfectly fit and healthy...

So I'll stick to what I said above, and say its a personal decision and one that has a successful outcome if the older parent is healthy...:)

LilMsss

seamus wrote: »

This is the most reputable source available:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp and it's consistent with any other source I could find on the topic.

Thanks for posting that, as I hadn't come across specific figures on any of the sites I had researched.

You do seem to linger on the risk of Downs Syndrome to older mothers, which is only one aspect of potential birth defects for women of any age.

seamus wrote: »

You seem to be taking some kind of personal offence to being shown the bare facts.

This is an Internet forum, and I don't take personal offence to any comments or posts that people make, unless of course they are 'personal' or offensive, of which yours was not. And I had responded to a post where you put forward your opinion; an opinion I happened to disagree with, as you had not posted any 'bare facts' for me to dispute, but simply your own reading of the situation.

seamus

LilMsss wrote: »

You do seem to linger on the risk of Downs Syndrome to older mothers, which is only one aspect of potential birth defects for women of any age.

Absolutely. It's harder to get figures for most other defects though, and it's probably the most high-profile one (after miscarriage). That's pretty much the only reason I'm fixating on it.

This is an Internet forum, and I don't take personal offence to any comments or posts that people make, unless of course they are 'personal' or offensive, of which yours was not. And I had responded to a post where you put forward your opinion; an opinion I happened to disagree with, as you had not posted any 'bare facts' for me to dispute, but simply your own reading of the situation.

Cool.

stovelid

gbee wrote: »

Are you one of those people who can consider a handicapped child a 'blessing from God!' ?

Wtf are you on about?