Is becoming a mother when you're 50 such a bad thing?

emmabrighton · 10-04-2014 10:05AM #1

3 babies a week in the UK are born to women in their 50s

Lifted straight from a Daily Fail article but I am not sure it is as horrendous as it sounds. My mother was 40 when she had me 30 years ago. My sister is 46 having her second child and there is absolutely no comparison between her ability to provide her her children and my ability.

I am still renting, she no longer has a mortgage.

I have to work 5 days a week, she is working part time 3 days per week.

Her son attends creche 2 days per week, goes to 3 different types of classes the days she is at home and is fed only the best that can be bought. She can afford to bring her son on foreign holidays and no doubt will carry on in the same vein with the next miracle.

She worked diligently for 30 years, saved and now gets to reap the rewards. She has plenty of time to lavish on her son and give him one on one special care and attention. She did not return to work at 6 months but stayed home with her little one for 11 months.

Her little fella is the picture of perfection, no developmental issues having been born to an older mother...

In contrast, people my age and younger are away much of the day working to provide for their children so do not get the same time to bond. So, I wonder, is it such a bad thing having children later in life and having your life in order before introducing a new life into the world?

What do you reckon?

Aongus Von Bismarck · 10-04-2014 10:11AM

I think having a child in your 50s is lunacy. Its a selfish move also.

By the time the child is doing their leaving cert you'd be a geriatric. There's a good chance you won't be around for their wedding day, the birth of their children etc.

Ihatecuddles · 10-04-2014 10:12AM

Is this about older mothers or working mothers??

Gatling · 10-04-2014 10:15AM

Certainly not in favor of women in there 50's having assisted pregnancies ,
Another fashion fad I believe ,ohh look this celeb is having a ivf baby quick everyone over 50 get to a clinic

anncoates · 10-04-2014 10:15AM

Wouldn't begrudge anybody having a child as it's their business and I know how important it is to people but any trend toward far later births is a bit risky. There's a far higher chance of birth defects and a higher chance of you passing away when your kids are young, albeit adults, but still quite young.

Assisted pregnancies that late just to get a nest egg put away or your mortgage paid off sounds like something some of the crackpots in here (with their youthful insistence that they'll never have a kid until they have guaranteed 30 years high future income) would come out with.

ameee · 10-04-2014 10:17AM

Dont think its a bad thing as such if you still have the energy. Realistically the statistics show the older you are giving birth the higher the risks of the baby having problems but then again your never guaranteed all will be well with a pregnancy at any age.

I think the one bad thing is your much less likely to be around for your child for as long as say someone in their twenties or thirtys and that is sad but again tomorrow is promised to nobody. There are pros and cons I dont think people should purposefully wait that long but if thats the way things work out and you only meet 'the one' later in life why should you be denied the chance of being a parent.

dodderangler · 10-04-2014 10:19AM

People still have sex in their 50s??
Jayzuz heard it all now.

josip · 10-04-2014 10:19AM

It's each individual's choice at the end of the day.
I would have preferred to have kids at 25 rather than 35.
I definitely wouldn't relish the idea of having kids at 50.
But I would prefer to have kids at 50 than not having them at all.

everdead.ie · 10-04-2014 10:28AM

Don't see the problem other than isn't it supposed to be more common to have issues during pregnancy as you get older?

emmabrighton · 10-04-2014 10:30AM

Well, my thinking is that people live longer now than they did 100 years ago, even 50 years ago

*quick google search*

1960 - life expectancy was 71
2012 - life expectancy was 83

So having a child later does not necessarily mean that you will be dead by the time they graduate college

Also, no guarantees that if you have a child at 25 you won't have an aneurysm when they're 10.

As for the working mothers thing... I am making 2 assumptions:
1) most mothers need to work full time these days
2) the older you are, the more time you will have been working and the more savings you will have..

rainbow kirby · 10-04-2014 10:39AM

My worries in that kind of case would be regarding Downs and other issues for the baby (very high risk after 45!), and whether the mother has the energy to cope with a small child at that age!

Even given all the mitigating financial circumstances of having them later, I would still rather have my future children in my 30s than wait until much later. That would be my choice though, I'm not the Reproductive Police.

seamus · 10-04-2014 10:41AM

It's definitely a much bigger deal than having kids in your 20s or 30s, but it's all about whether you can care for the child. A physically able and financially stable 50 year old is better placed to have a child than an unemployed 20 year old.

If the person in their 50s believes that they have the capacity to do it, then off you go.

The whole death question exists, but most people now don't even need a hint of extra care until they're well into their seventies. Yes, there's an increased chance that you will die and leave a child needing care, but every parent regardless of age should make plans for this possibility.

Don't forget that plenty of grandparents step into the primary carer role in their 60s or even 70s because their grandchild's parent has died or become a junkie or whatever. The age of the primary carer is largely irrelevant to the child's outcome. The stability and love they have is key. All parents die eventually, and practically all parents want to die before their children. While it's tougher on a younger adult to suddenly lose that parental figure when they may not have stability yet themselves, they're still an adult and it's not emotionally easier to lose your parent at 28 than it is at 18.

Micky Dolenz · 10-04-2014 10:42AM

See no issue with it personally.

The kid would be in their 20's when the Mum is in her 70's.

Alf. A. Male · 10-04-2014 10:47AM

Some young parents are useless, some older parents are too. Some parents die young, some older ones live to see their kids grown, some don't. And yadda yadda. Leave 'em all to it and good luck to them.

josip · 10-04-2014 10:50AM

emmabrighton wrote: »

Well, my thinking is that people live longer now than they did 100 years ago, even 50 years ago

*quick google search*

1960 - life expectancy was 71
2012 - life expectancy was 83

...

Are life expectancy figures usually quoted for a person born in that year or are they the average age of all the people who died in that year?

I always understood it to be the former.

ncmc · 10-04-2014 10:53AM

I think socially it’s less of an issue than it was say 50 years ago, life expectancy is longer and also quality of life is better for longer than it would have been 50 years ago so most of us would hope and expect to be fit and healthy well into our 70’s and even 80’s.

However, you can’t argue with biology and the fact is that pregnancy is much higher risk the older the woman gets – both for the mother and the baby. There is a much higher chance of birth defects or abnormalities, all the money or security in the world won’t change that fact.

But at the end of the day, I’m sure most older parents are only too aware of this fact and I’m sure it’s not a decision that is entered into lightly. I wouldn’t agree with someone deliberately putting off having a child at that age, but sometimes circumstances conspire against a person and they aren’t in a position to have children earlier.

Akrasia · 10-04-2014 11:54AM

josip wrote: »

Are life expectancy figures usually quoted for a person born in that year or are they the average age of all the people who died in that year?

I always understood it to be the former.

It's a bit complicated because infant mortality statistics complicate things.
If infant mortality is high, everyone who lives past early childhood is statistically likely to outlive the average life expectancy for their region because they've already survived risky part of life that would have significantly dragged the average down.

If infant mortality is low, then the effect is not so noticable. I suspect that between the 60s and 2012, infant mortality statistics improved very significantly, so people born in 1960 who are still alive today, are likely to outlive the life expectancy of that time.

Akrasia · 10-04-2014 11:58AM

Regarding women having children in their 50s. My biggest objection is that they might not have the energy to deal with a newborn and a toddler at 50, and are going to struggle with a teenager when they're in their 60s.

Gran Hermano · 10-04-2014 12:00PM

Kid's 40th Birthday party will be worth looking forward to.
The crack would be 90

ncmc · 10-04-2014 12:12PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Regarding women having children in their 50s. My biggest objection is that they might not have the energy to deal with a newborn and a toddler at 50, and are going to struggle with a teenager when they're in their 60s.

Again though, this very much comes down to each set of parents, I know some very fit, healthy people in their 50’s and 60’s who wouldn’t have too much hassle running after kids and likewise some fat lazy lumps in their 20’s who would be out of breath after walking up the stairs. Youth is definitely no guarantee of health or fitness.

eviltwin · 10-04-2014 12:16PM

There is a reason why women go through the menopause in their 40's/50's, its not so much the impact of an older mother but for each of those women who have a baby how many more go through the trauma of a miscarriage or stillbirth?

If it happens naturally, which would be rare, then they should get all the help they need but I don't agree with older parents of either gender being offered IVF or adoption of young children.

anncoates · 10-04-2014 12:19PM

ncmc wrote: »

Again though, this very much comes down to each set of parents, I know some very fit, healthy people in their 50’s and 60’s who wouldn’t have too much hassle running after kids and likewise some fat lazy lumps in their 20’s who would be out of breath after walking up the stairs. Youth is definitely no guarantee of health or fitness.

To be fair, most people don't fall into the very fit category so it's not useful predicating on that. I had my kids in my late 30s and I'm not that bad fitness wise - still play football and am active with the kids- but I still have far less energy than I did even 10 years ago.

ncmc · 10-04-2014 12:35PM

anncoates wrote: »

To be fair, most people don't fall into the very fit category so it's not useful predicating on that. I had my kids in my late 30s and I'm not that bad fitness wise - still play football and am active with the kids- but I still have far less energy than I did even 10 years ago.

I didn't mean the superfit 50/60 year olds, I more meant with the growing levels of obesity, it's reckoned that for the first time, life expectancy could actually start to decrease. I wouldn't think it's a big stretch to say that there are a lot of 50/60 year olds that have the same or more energy than the current crop of people in their late teens/early 20's.

Adamantium · 10-04-2014 12:38PM

I'm not addressing the argument, but going off on a tangent

But I live in a rural location, where practically everyone (my age) in their early 20's is having a child, who didn't go to college (This is my pure ancedotal evidence, but it is very noticeable)

And there the least likely people who probably should be parents, I've no problem with somebody who tried and tried and really wanted a child, but couldn't do so for years, as they're likely to be wiser and more worldly, and the child would be delighted to have those people as parents, even though they might be older.

My brother and I are those children. My Mum was nearing 40, for both of us

The father is equal a parent as well you know

Sleepy · 10-04-2014 01:33PM

As long as they're not expecting the state to support their lifestyle choices I've no issues with it.

Gatling · 10-04-2014 01:40PM

Sleepy wrote: »

As long as they're not expecting the state to support their lifestyle choices I've no issues with it.

They could be asking the state to fund fertility treatments on a medical card

Teyla Emmagan · 10-04-2014 01:52PM

This'll be me, the rate I'm going at.

Honestly though, if you're healthy I see no issue. Older mums have time on their hands, are settled in their lives/careers, have more financial security, know what they want (i.e. are more likely to VERY much want this child), and are very focused on their parenting approach. There's studies that show that they're more likely to be more intelligent than younger mothers as well, from I can remember.

10-04-2014 01:55PM

Personally, the idea of having a child at 50 would fill me with horror.
Horror I tells yiz.

Id prefer grandchildren. That way I can hand them back

Sleepy · 10-04-2014 02:11PM

Gatling wrote: »

They could be asking the state to fund fertility treatments on a medical card

And that's exactly the point at which I object to it...

seamus · 10-04-2014 02:17PM

Sleepy wrote: »

And that's exactly the point at which I object to it...

Neh....I'm on the fence about that bit. The main issue for me is that you couldn't discriminate. So if a fit and healthy 50 year old woman can get state-funded fertility treatment, then you'd have to provide the same funding to the 30-fags-a-day, wheezing and obese 50-year-old who can barely look after her own daily needs, never mind a child's. I don't object to the former, I do object to the latter. But legally you wouldn't be allowed discriminate.

I would like to see adoption opened up to parents up to 55 though. Because then you can discriminate and only allow strong and healthy older people to adopt.

Or perhaps some kind of sliding age scale. So up to age 45 you can adopt newborns. 45-50 you can adopt any child older than 4 (i.e. school-going age) and from 50-55 you can only adopt a child over 12 (i.e. secondary school-going age). Or something like that.

Ablehnen · 10-04-2014 02:21PM

My first child wad born when I was 25 and the second at 29 a few months ago. There is no way in hell I would want to be having more at 50. If I have another kid the very oldest I'd have it would be 33 or 34. No way do I want more kids after that.

Is becoming a mother when you're 50 such a bad thing?

Comments