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.
How can the daughter possibly be blessed when she has a parent who has the physical and mental capabilities of a 50 year old?
Okay. I read through this thread AFTER I posted, so I know where you're coming from. Yes, women having healthy babies, well into their 40s, with few/no complications is, historically, very common. I hate the scare mongering the media has been feeding to women the last couple of decades regarding their fertility and potential health issues should they dare to have babies after the age of 35. But women in previous generations also had more help from other family members than do women today, generally speaking. And kids were far more independent.
I will be 50 next month, and (at the risk of sounding immodest) I'm a very fit, mentally and physically vibrant, youthful 49 3/4. In fact, I have a lot more energy than do many women much younger. I'm a mom of 3, the youngest of whom is 12. I worked out throughout all of my pregnancies, right up until the days I gave birth, and I can honestly say I felt the best during my last pregnancy, which was when I was 36/37. Moreover, in some ways, I was more prepared for him at 37 than I was when I had my two older kids at 30 and 32. Yes, being an "older" parent CAN have advantages. No question.
But, being an older parent -- and, more important, being kids of older parents! -- also has disadvantages. I have no doubt about that, either. My post above to FromCTtoFL referred just as much to men as to women. My ex-husband is 12 years older than I. He was 42, 44 and 49 when our kids were born, and he's VERY fit for his age. But there has always been a big discrepancy in mental and physical energy levels between him and me when it came to our parenting. What a difference 12 little years makes. He's an involved dad in terms of getting them to their activities, but parenting has always utterly exhausted him in a way I doubt it would have had he become a father 10 or 15 years sooner. And, to be fair, when my kids were much younger, they completely drained me, too. And don't even get me started on how my teenagers and preteen feel about having a (albeit fit) 61-year old dad who is "done" for the day and routinely grumpy and snappy with them after 7pm.
Believe me, I am the last person to ever suggest that a woman over 45 or 50 is over the hill. But the truth for most people is that energy levels, no matter how healthy and fit one is, drop as one ages, and that will reflect in parenting. Yes, older parents might have more life experience and wisdom, and perhaps more patience. They might be much more relaxed as parents, too (though I've known some older parents who are tremendously anxious and perfectionist). But raising kids IS, by and large, a younger person's business. Hence the reason that women reach menopause. As I always say, Mother Nature is a smart old girl, and she knows exactly what she's doing!
If what I've gathered from your posts is correct, you are a mom of one child (?). Maybe you'd understand what some people on this thread are saying if, to be honest, you had 2 or more kids. Dealing with one kid is a piece of cake, particularly if that child is reasonably compliant. But chasing after two, three, or more kids, if they are especially energetic and "spirited," attending to their myriad needs and demands, breaking up their fights, getting them to school and wherever else they need to be, etc, etc, etc... is a whole other story.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 04-25-2016 at 04:42 PM..
Okay. I read through this thread AFTER I posted, so I know where you're coming from. Yes, women having healthy babies, well into their 40s, with few/no complications is, historically, very common. I hate the scare mongering the media has been feeding to women the last couple of decades regarding their fertility and potential health issues should they dare to have babies after the age of 35. But women in previous generations also had more help from other family members than do women today, generally speaking. And kids were far more independent.
I will be 50 next month, and (at the risk of sounding immodest) I'm a very fit, mentally and physically vibrant, youthful 49 3/4. In fact, I have a lot more energy than do many women much younger. I'm a mom of 3, the youngest of whom is 12. I worked out throughout all of my pregnancies, right up until the days I gave birth, and I can honestly say I felt the best during my last pregnancy, which was when I was 36/37. Moreover, in some ways, I was more prepared for him at 37 than I was when I had my two older kids at 30 and 32. Yes, being an "older" parent CAN have advantages. No question.
But, being an older parent -- and, more important, being kids of older parents! -- also has disadvantages. I have no doubt about that, either. My post above to FromCTtoFL referred just as much to men as to women. My ex-husband is 12 years older than I. He was 42, 44 and 49 when our kids were born, and he's VERY fit for his age. But there has always been a big discrepancy in mental and physical energy levels between him and me when it came to our parenting. What a difference 12 little years makes. He's an involved dad in terms of getting them to their activities, but parenting has always utterly exhausted him in a way I doubt it would have had he become a father 10 or 15 years sooner. And, to be fair, when my kids were much younger, they completely drained me, too. And don't even get me started on how my teenagers and preteen feel about having a (albeit fit) 61-year old dad who is "done" for the day and routinely grumpy and snappy with them after 7pm.
Believe me, I am the last person to ever suggest that a woman over 45 or 50 is over the hill. But the truth for most people is that energy levels, no matter how healthy and fit one is, drop as one ages, and that will reflect in parenting. Yes, older parents might have more life experience and wisdom, and perhaps more patience. They might be much more relaxed as parents, too (though I've known some older parents who are tremendously anxious, perfectionist parents). But raising kids IS, by and large, a younger person's business. Hence the reason that women reach menopause. As I always say, Mother Nature is a smart old girl, and she knows exactly what she's doing!
If what I've gathered from your posts is correct, you are a mom of one child (?). Maybe you'd understand what some people on this thread are saying if, to be honest, you had 2 or more kids. Dealing with one kid is a piece of cake, particularly if that child is reasonably compliant. But chasing after two, three, or more kids, if they are especially energetic and "spirited," attending to their myriad needs and demands, breaking up their fights, getting them to school and wherever else they need to be, etc, etc, etc... is a whole other story.
I think that's all very reasonable.
As you may have noticed, I take serious umbrage with posters' notions that you shouldn't (should not being the operative word) have a child later in life - generally paired with the idea that everyone over 45 starts decaying at a such rapid and non linear fashion that we are not able to tie our shoes. Most often coming from those who haven't hit 35 yet and can't fathom being 50. We were all there once.
People need to do what's right for them. I could say "should not" about plenty of parenting scenarios parents of the "ideal age" find themselves in. But that would really be none of my business, so I don't. If a child is loved and well cared for, then they're ahead of the curve compared to a lot of their contemporaries. Ideal is a fantasy. We all have our issues.
But I sincerely thank you for getting where I'm (quite sarcastically, mostly) coming from.
No. I think the majority of all women on the planet with be done with having/wanting to have babies long before age 50. Whether because they physically can't or because they just don't want to anymore.
There will be exception and outliers and they will be on magazine covers or have tv specials about them BECAUSE it's odd, not because it's the NEW anything.
Ridiculous. A healthy, active person is very much alive and well and active at 70 and even older (my mom is 75 and rides a bike 30-40 miles a day). On the other hand, people who don't take care of themselves may not live into their 50's. Age is not the deciding factor.
The odds of dying go up as one ages. While maybe a plurality make it to 70 healthy, many do not and die or are infirm before then.
The odds of dying go up as one ages. While maybe a plurality make it to 70 healthy, many do not and die or are infirm before then.
Cite?
But life expectancy goes up too. For women that make it to 65, their life expectancy goes up from 81 to 86.
And illness due to age is just one factor that contributes to death as people get older. One of the 10 leading causes of death is suicide. The other is accidents.
Also, one needs to understand risks and rates. Just because the risk of death is higher, say between 65-85 it does not mean it happens to everyone or even most. The majority of people that die are over age 85.
Number of deaths of persons age 65 and over: 1,904,640
Deaths per 100,000 population:
65-74: 1,802.1
75-84: 4,648.1
85 and over: 13,660.4
Of course, a lot of age related infirmities are due to lifestyle factors and can be avoided or managed. I would venture that if you have a child in your later years, that you are more motivated to stay fit and avoid obesity and other things that contribute to poor health as one ages.
Last edited by FinsterRufus; 04-26-2016 at 11:12 AM..
Reason: I said last instead of later, DYAC.
I had 4 children in my twenties (my last was actually born when I was 30) and it's exhausting no matter how old you are. I remember years being a blur of diapers changes and midnight feedings, trips to the ER for croups/pneumonia/vomiting, speech and feeding therapy, recitals, lessons, you name it! Parenting IS exhausting no matter how old you are.
That being said, I'm 41 and I would not want to start all over. I have chronic health problems now, I don't think I could handle those midnight feedings with any sort of grace anymore
How can a person, who had four (FOUR) kids in her twenties, and is predictably worn out by the thought of starting it all over again 20 years later, - how can this person even understand what NOT having children up until 40s means? Can you imagine a woman, who had NOT had (a blur of diapers changes and midnight feedings, trips to the ER for croups/pneumonia/vomiting, speech and feeding therapy, recitals, lessons) but slept well, travelled, studied, worked? Would she be as exhausted as you are, by her 41 years? I will tell you -no she wouldn't, and I know it because it was me. You and I come from different planets. You have no idea how painfully off such judgements of "should-shouldn't have kids", from worn out people, come out.
How can a person, who had four (FOUR) kids in her twenties, and is predictably worn out by the thought of starting it all over again 20 years later, - how can this person even understand what NOT having children up until 40s means? Can you imagine a woman, who had NOT had (a blur of diapers changes and midnight feedings, trips to the ER for croups/pneumonia/vomiting, speech and feeding therapy, recitals, lessons) but slept well, travelled, studied, worked? Would she be as exhausted as you are, by her 41 years? I will tell you -no she wouldn't, and I know it because it was me. You and I come from different planets. You have no idea how painfully off such judgements of "should-shouldn't have kids", from worn out people, come out.
Your post provides a level of clarity often missed in these conversations. Great to read!
While it is true that women were having babies into their 40s back in the day, it was NOT first babies at these ages, but more babies after having some earlier.
And, the percentage of women having babies from age 45 to 49 was relatively small. In 1940, it was .2 of a percent - that's .002. From 40 to 44, it was 2.5% of births in 1940. While the absolute numbers increase in 2012, the percentage actually went down to 2% for ages 40 to 45 and stayed about the same for ages 45 - 54 (they raised the limit to 54 on the chart).
Fifteen years ago, the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014, that age had risen to 26.3
Quote:
This shift in age among first-time mothers impacts public health, says Dr. Priya Rajan, a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University. She says teen moms are at higher risk of serious medical complications like anemia and hypertension, and are more likely to give birth prematurely and to have small babies.
On the other hand, first-time moms who are over 35 also have a higher-than-average risk of pregnancy complications, and their numbers are growing in the U.S. Since 2000, the proportion of first-time births to women older than 30 and 35 each increased by a few percentage points. These older mothers contributed to the rise in the average age of first-time moms, the researchers say, but the decline in births to teen moms was more influential.
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.
