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.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is finances. To each their own but at 50, you're getting closer to retirement. How feasible is it to be starting a family when your ability to earn is going to be more limited as compared to when you're 30. How would your retirement planning be affected by raising a child later in life?
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is finances. To each their own but at 50, you're getting closer to retirement. How feasible is it to be starting a family when your ability to earn is going to be more limited as compared to when you're 30. How would your retirement planning be affected by raising a child later in life?
You would still have had 25-30 years to invest for retirement and 20 or more years to go. By the time retirement rolls around, my husband and I will have been funding retirement accounts for 50 years! I don't really see the problem. I had my children starting in my mid-thirties and am now putting my second of three through college. If I had young children now, I'd still have been investing retirement funds for the previous three decades, probably at a higher level than I did, truth be told, and my spouse and I are well set for the future.
Last edited by randomparent; 05-06-2018 at 10:35 AM..
It's ridiculous, for many reasons. One: She will be a senior citizen when her kid graduates high school. Will probably not get to be a grandma.
Nature has designed women to be most fertile as teens up to twenties.
People are stretching it to try to have kids in their thirties.
If you need IVF, you are basically going against nature (which I understand some people insist upon doing).
Nature is smartest, though.
My husband's grandmothers both had children in their mid-forties and lived not only long enough to see their grandchildren born but also to see them graduate from high school and college and to be married! One of my grandmothers, who also had a child in her forties, lived long enough for the same. I don't know if that will be the case for Tammy Duckworth, too, but I'm not personally willing to bet against her.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is finances. To each their own but at 50, you're getting closer to retirement. How feasible is it to be starting a family when your ability to earn is going to be more limited as compared to when you're 30. How would your retirement planning be affected by raising a child later in life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
You would still have had 25-30 years to invest for retirement. I don't really see the problem. I had my children starting in my mid-thirties and am now putting my second of three through college. If I had young children now, I'd still have been investing retirement funds for the previous three decades, probably at a higher level than I did, truth be told, and my spouse and I are well set for the future.
I was 42, not 50, but I had already been putting retirement money away for over 15 years before I had my child. I'm a lawyer, so my career didn't start until I finished my schooling in my mid-20s. But I'm not a big firm, highly paid lawyer, so my income has always been decent but not really that large so it's not one of those cases where I saved more than the average person earns, as some highly paid professionals are able to do.
In any case, other than the first couple of years where daycare costs were extremely high (as in higher than my mortgage), I have continued to contribute to retirement every year since my son was born. Sure, I could save more, but almost anyone could say that. And even in those really tough years, I still saved enough to get my company match in my 401K because I can't bear the thought of leaving that money on the table, even if I had to really scrimp to get by.
And I hope to have about 6 more years of full time work once my son is out of college, where I will be able to really max out savings to help catch up a bit. Admittedly that wouldn't be the case for having a child at 50.
On the other hand, I'm in a position where I earn a fairly comfortable salary while working far, far less than typical attorney hours. Technically, my work schedule is 45 hours a week (including a lunch break) but I never work that many hours, at least not Mon-Friday in my office. I do bring home work and/or go in on weekends from time to time, but that's based on a personal choice to manage my workload. My boss is fine with the hours I work as long as I stay on top of things. I can come and go as needed for my own medical appts or other activities, for my son's stuff, including things at school, and also as a sandwich generation member, my mom's medical stuff as well. Fortunately she's pretty independent but I work in a medical field (non-clinician) and she appreciates that I can speak with her doctors and then translate into terms she understands more easily.
This kind of freedom is invaluable as a working parent so to have that plus a high enough income to not be stressed out about finances is a something I never would have had if I had my son a decade earlier.
Although other posters have mentioned birth defects associated with older mothers, no one has yet mentioned the thing that is most concerning to me: older mothers have a much higher incidence of having autistic children.
In fact, this is currently being studied as the reason for the rise of incidence of autism. More older women are having babies, and more children are being diagnosed as autistic. (There is a growing body of science on this subject. Here is a link from the National Library of Medicine, which I found on the Autism Speaks website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...arental+age%22 ).
Autism may well not be diagnosed until a child is older than 3. So an older mother may have a baby who seems perfectly healthy, but she may find out several years later that her child is autistic.
Autism is not a death sentence and the science is getting better at dxing.
Soon, we will be able to use EEGs to dx as young as 3 months old. This means early intervention can begin early and outcomes should be much better.
Although other posters have mentioned birth defects associated with older mothers, no one has yet mentioned the thing that is most concerning to me: older mothers have a much higher incidence of having autistic children.
In fact, this is currently being studied as the reason for the rise of incidence of autism. More older women are having babies, and more children are being diagnosed as autistic. (There is a growing body of science on this subject. Here is a link from the National Library of Medicine, which I found on the Autism Speaks website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...arental+age%22 ).
Autism may well not be diagnosed until a child is older than 3. So an older mother may have a baby who seems perfectly healthy, but she may find out several years later that her child is autistic.
It is a woman's right to conceive when she wants to and is physically and financially able. However, it is when public funds need to be expended on children with developmental problems that the conversation gets more complex. Does a woman have a right to conceive a child that has a statistical probability of being a burden on the community at large?
That said, I have the greatest respect for Senator Duckworth, and wish her the best.
It's a correlation, but it's short-sighted to assume that age alone is responsible. There might be something else going on with women who delay child-bearing until later in life.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is finances. To each their own but at 50, you're getting closer to retirement. How feasible is it to be starting a family when your ability to earn is going to be more limited as compared to when you're 30. How would your retirement planning be affected by raising a child later in life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
You would still have had 25-30 years to invest for retirement and 20 or more years to go. By the time retirement rolls around, my husband and I will have been funding retirement accounts for 50 years! I don't really see the problem. I had my children starting in my mid-thirties and am now putting my second of three through college. If I had young children now, I'd still have been investing retirement funds for the previous three decades, probably at a higher level than I did, truth be told, and my spouse and I are well set for the future.
Closer to retirement, LOL! Yes, 20 years closer, but it's still a pretty long way off. The age at which to retire with full SS benefits these days is 67, at which time a baby born to a 50 year old would be 17, and nearly out of high school. Who knows what the full retirement age will be raised to in the coming years? My guess is you are pretty young, Liberty2011!
At 50, one is much higher in the earnings curve than at 30 as well. Many 30 year olds are just a few years into their careers, particularly if they went to grad school. By 50 you may have a house pretty well paid for as well. Plus everything that randomparent said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
My husband's grandmothers both had children in their mid-forties and lived not only long enough to see their grandchildren born but also to see them graduate from high school and college and to be married! One of my grandmothers, who also had a child in her forties, lived long enough for the same. I don't know if that will be the case for Tammy Duckworth, too, but I'm not personally willing to bet against her.
Regarding life expectancy:
A woman age 25 can expect to live 56.9 more years, that is to age 81.9
A woman age 30 can expect to live 52.6 more years, to age 82.6
A woman age 50 can expect to live 33.24 more years, to age 83.24.
So an older mom is likely to live longer than a younger one! Basically what that means is the longer you live, the longer you'll live.
It's very difficult after 50 to have the energy to juggle everything and to keep up a high intensity pace in one's career into your 70's. I'm not saying it's not difficult for a 30 or 40-year old too, but it's just more difficult at 60 (when the child will be only 10). Just be sure you want to be schlepping kids around to ball games on your weekends rather than relaxing. And you won't be going out to movies and dinner with your spouse much anymore or travelling.
This is just my observation watching several older parents I know. Some people can handle that pace but some can't.
I would assume in Tammy Duckworth's case she doesn't have to drive the carpool. She probably has enough money for a full time live-in nanny.
My husband was 50 & 52 when our sons were born (he was much older). He had a triple bypass at 52 when my youngest was 6 weeks old. Then he developed spinal stenosis at 59 which seriously limited his time playing ball or fishing with his sons. He lived with a lot of pain until he got lung cancer and died at 75. At least the boys were in their 20's when he passed but I'm sure they would have loved to have had a more active dad, especially my younger son who is very into sports.
As for me, despite being fairly active, I could never be a mom to a newborn at 50. It was hard sometimes watching my grandbaby for a full day at 53.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is finances. To each their own but at 50, you're getting closer to retirement. How feasible is it to be starting a family when your ability to earn is going to be more limited as compared to when you're 30. How would your retirement planning be affected by raising a child later in life?
The other side of the coin is people like me: had kids young-ish are just now, at 40 years old with a kid heading to college in 5 years, finally financially stable enough to buy a home. Things would have been very different, financially, if we had wait 5 or 10 years to start a family, rather than at 27.
I would assume in Tammy Duckworth's case she doesn't have to drive the carpool. She probably has enough money for a full time live-in nanny.
My husband was 50 & 52 when our sons were born (he was much older). He had a triple bypass at 52 when my youngest was 6 weeks old. Then he developed spinal stenosis at 59 which seriously limited his time playing ball or fishing with his sons. He lived with a lot of pain until he got lung cancer and died at 75. At least the boys were in their 20's when he passed but I'm sure they would have loved to have had a more active dad, especially my younger son who is very into sports.
As for me, despite being fairly active, I could never be a mom to a newborn at 50. It was hard sometimes watching my grandbaby for a full day at 53.
I agree that Tammy D. can probably afford anything she wants WRT child care.
I'm sorry for what happened with your husband. You do need to keep in mind that health problems can happen at any age, although yes, they are more common as one ages.
At 50, when my youngest was 12, I still felt like I had plenty of energy for my kids' activities. I think you just do what you have to do. Sure it's hard watching a grandbaby. You haven't been a mom of young kids for many years. That can happen no matter what your age.
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.
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.
