U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-07-2018, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,982 posts, read 100,753,158 times
Reputation: 32388

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bondaroo View Post
I have the same thing with my twin brother. At a family wedding a couple of years ago he and his wife were chasing their bored 2 and 4 year olds around, and my husband and I were relaxing having a great time visiting with our daughter and her boyfriend, and they were grabbing us drinks when they went to the bar.

I wouldn't want to be in my early 50 and three kids in early elementary school, like them. My sister-in-law is not enjoying herself, either. I feel bad for her.
And 20 years earlier, you were the ones chasing the bored toddlers/preschoolers, and they were the unattached singles, laughing and having a good time. Everyone has to go through that stage. You go through it when you go through it. Tell your SIL "this too shall pass".

ETA: I had one of my "Eureka" moments in the shower. Once you become a parent, you are a parent "as long as you both shall live". You never quit worrying about your kids. No, you don't have the responsibility for them once they reach adulthood, but you still are concerned about them. For example, my daughter has a fairly long commute to the edge of the Denver metro area. I always get concerned when I hear there's going to be a lot of snow overnight. Now the other one lives in Minneapolis, and I don't hear the weather reports, so I don't worry so much (about that). That's a dramatic life change.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-07-2018 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2018, 10:31 AM
 
2,144 posts, read 1,431,120 times
Reputation: 2721
There is no right answer to this because so many people have no control over their fertility. Some people struggle to have a baby and finally do get the babies they prayed for in later years. Other times people have unplanned pregnancy at too young age. There are few lucky once who didn't have struggle in preventing or getting pregnant. Good for you, but for rest of the world, there is a story.

for all who are saying I couldn't imagine having a toddler at xyz (older) age, realize there are others who said the same thing when you had babies because they felt they were too young for it". My SIL is 3 years older than me (she is 35) and has a 16 year old boy along with 3 other kids. I could not imagine parenting teenage at this age & she might look at a 50 year old with toddler and think "i could never do this". At same time a 50 year old is looking at her thinking "i could never manage kids at that young age".

We have our path in life & we all adjust to it accordingly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,982 posts, read 100,753,158 times
Reputation: 32388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
KW, I don't understand why you're appalled. This thread is about older moms and Wasel wrote about having an older mom. My mom was 36 when I was born and I was 36 when my daughter was born. I wish we'd both been younger so she would have been in my life longer and I would have the potential to be in my daughter's life longer. I, too, had to take care of my mom with dementia while my daughter was in elementary and middle school. I'm not resentful, but I wish my daughter had enjoyed a fully functional grandma. Don't get me wrong--they loved each other. But my daughter won't have many memories of my mom because after my daughter was about 10, all they could do was watch TV together. And my father, who was 38 when I was born, died when my daughter was 3. I just wish we'd all had more time together.
"Appalled" may not have been the best word to use; it's a lot better than the word I used before I took a break.

The bold is a good point, you wish your daughter had been in your life longer. On the other hand, simply wishing one's mother was younger is something I don't understand. Disclaimer-I was in my 30s when I had both my kids, later 30s with the second. As I said, the parents are the older generation, no matter what their ages. Perhaps this analogy will help-I had a teacher senior year in high school who I found out much later, at my 40th reunion actually, was only a few years older than me and the rest of my classmates. I'm thinking he was probably no older than 25. But we kids still thought of him as the older generation. His wife was having a baby that year. That's not what most college bound seniors in high school are doing. I also had a few college teachers who were again not much older than my classmates and me. But they "seemed" much older.

Another issue-my mother had me in the early days of the post-war baby boom. She was 27. She had gone through the war in the Army Nurse Corps, met my dad through her brother who was in the Navy, got married, etc. She used to talk about being an "older" mother. I grew up thinking my mom was really old. As time went on, I found out she was about the same age, or younger, than the moms of many of my friends, and not *much* older than some of the others. Talking about it much later, she said that all the women around her seemed so young and she felt older. Many women in my hometown did not go on to further education, and got married/started families young. Interestingly, my dad who was 35 when I was born never talked like that and I never thought he was "old", though I subconsciously knew he was since he was 8 years older than my mom! I do remember being surprised to find out he graduated from high school about the same time as many of my friends' parents, including some of their mothers. It was a good lesson to me, I did not talk about how old I was with my kids. And even though I was older than a lot of my kids' friends moms, I was also the same age as some, maybe even younger than a few.

I am more empathetic to the Alzheimer's part of wasel's post, which I did acknowledge. And my mom was in a traffic accident in her 60s (when I did think she was "old") when my oldest was just turning two. She had a severe head injury and had many of the symptoms of Alzeheimers, though no doctor would ever say she did or didn't have AD. I had to take care of her after my dad died and my kids were in late elementary/middle school. So yeah, I've been down that road.

I do think it's not real helpful to imagine some idealized world with the kids, their parents and the grandparents all having these wonderful family get-togethers, and doing all these wonderful things like playing sports and the like. It doesn't always happen like that, even when the grandparents are younger. And I do feel that by seeing me taking care of my mom, my kids may have learned something about caring for others and the circle of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 11:51 AM
 
632 posts, read 355,617 times
Reputation: 860
I highly doubt that the majority of women are going to choose to have children at 50 in our lifetime.

That being said and as a mother who chose to have children from 20-25, it would be nice if we refrain from overt judgement about the choices of others.

We all have different life experiences and health concerns that may dictate if and when we have children. Our babies are precious to us, and no one wants to be made to feel like, "less than," for being an older or younger mother or father.

I'm sure many couldn't imagine having a baby younger and many can't fathom wanting to do it past a certain age either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 02:28 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,472 posts, read 2,029,261 times
Reputation: 15348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
See this study:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317861.php
"While these risks become slightly more likely after hitting 35 years old, this does not mean that they will have a significant impact on everyone in their mid-thirties and older. . . Research comparing pregnancy complications among women aged 18 to 34 years, 35 to 40 years, and 40 and over, found small increases in most pregnancy- and birth-related complications with age."
Small? I guess that's going to be dependent on how one spins "small": There are 7.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 births in the under 20 age group & 32.3 maternal deaths per100,000 births in the over 35 age group.https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/mh/pages/237mm.html

If it was me trying to make an informed choice about my age & having a baby; I would consider this significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
And on the positive side, "Children of older mothers have been found to have fewer behavioral, social, and emotional difficulties. . . According to another study conducted by Myrskylä and his colleague Kieron Barclay, at the London School of Economics, being born later is also associated with being healthier, taller, and obtaining more education."
Taking into account differences of stature in the ethnic majorities, access to healthcare & education, income & figuring in that delaying children is a first-world phenomenon: I think that this is an example of a false association.

I suppose that if a study were done using only the least developed areas; that would be more convincing. Say, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Haiti, etc ... Would those children born to those older women also be healthier, taller & more educated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Maybe the reason it's hard to find this stuff is that there really isn't much more risk. What "other complications" are you referring to? Here's the next article from this newsletter: "Researchers found that pregnant older women had a similar stroke risk as their non-pregnant counterparts, while younger pregnant women were found to be at more than double the risk of stroke than non-pregnant women of the same age."
Okay. This is saying that all older women; pregnant or not ... will have a higher risk of stroke than younger women; pregnant or not.

It does not cancel out that advanced maternal age is one of the leading risk factors for stroke during pregnancy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I recall reading an article that said that most of the problems older mothers have are not related to pregnancy but to their age in general, e.g. high blood pressure is more common in older people, type 2 diabetes, stuff like that. Of course, I can't find that article now! However, this study addresses that issue briefly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418963/ "Moreover, the increased risk of hypertension and superimposed preeclampsia that is associated with age is likely due to age-related increases in hypertension that occurs among women of reproductive age which corroborates existing research on this topic."
Yes, older women will have a higher mortality rate than younger women do. Which should be taken into consideration when deciding when would be the best time to start your family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
22,192 posts, read 16,355,574 times
Reputation: 25624
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
I’m 40 and my kids are teenagers. I could not imagine starting with a new baby now. My main concern with a 50-year-old having a baby is that they have a decent chance of not being around for their child’s high school or college graduation, wedding, etc. Yes, I realize I could die tomorrow and not see my kids graduate, but the chances are much higher for someone nearing 70.
That just puts the parent in their late 60s/early 70s. I agree that having one at 50 isn't ideal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 03:48 PM
 
2,883 posts, read 1,477,253 times
Reputation: 7782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
"Appalled" may not have been the best word to use; it's a lot better than the word I used before I took a break.
Why don't you just go ahead and use the original word?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,982 posts, read 100,753,158 times
Reputation: 32388
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasel View Post
Why don't you just go ahead and use the original word?
Because I decided it didn't express what I was trying to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 03:55 PM
 
5,975 posts, read 3,686,553 times
Reputation: 15139
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
Small? I guess that's going to be dependent on how one spins "small": There are 7.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 births in the under 20 age group & 32.3 maternal deaths per100,000 births in the over 35 age group.https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/mh/pages/237mm.html

If it was me trying to make an informed choice about my age & having a baby; I would consider this significant.
It's statistically significant maybe, but in the real world?

The under-20s have a .007% chance of dying per birth. The over-35s have an .03% chance of the same event.

Seven-thousands of a percent or three-hundredths of a percent; should either number sway people from having a baby at a given age? All of these women have more than a 99.9% chance of NOT dying from pregnancy/birth complications.

I realize there are other risk factors that increase as women age, but in any case, the chances of either a 20-year-old or a 35-year-old (and we can even make that a 40 to 45-year-old) woman delivering a healthy baby and being just fine, herself, are very high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,954 posts, read 10,849,428 times
Reputation: 29454
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot View Post
It's statistically significant maybe, but in the real world?

The under-20s have a .007% chance of dying per birth. The over-35s have an .03% chance of the same event.

Seven-thousands of a percent or three-hundredths of a percent; should either number sway people from having a baby at a given age? All of these women have more than a 99.9% chance of NOT dying from pregnancy/birth complications.

I realize there are other risk factors that increase as women age, but in any case, the chances of either a 20-year-old or a 35-year-old (and we can even make that a 40 to 45-year-old) woman delivering a healthy baby are very high.
Not to mention that maternal mortality is much higher in the US than in other developed countries, so maybe all American women should stop having babies because of that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top