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.
Older parents have a responsibility to make sure they have long-term care insurance, great life insurance, and a good retirement plan, etc. All parents should but I think it's absolutely necessary for older parents. Since these children are usually planned and very much wanted, that should just be part of the planning process IMHO. They won't be with their children as long as younger parents but they can make sure that their kids are well off financially when they die and that they won't have any burden to care for them when they're unable to care for themselves.
The reason I ask is because a woman I know recently had twins at 44! I don't know much regarding the circumstances, but even so, is that not selfish considering you are far more likely to have children with mental and/or physical disabilities at that age not to mention even if they aren't born with issues you will be far older when they graduate high school and aren't likely to be able to run around and play with them or keep up with them as if you were younger? It also must be very embarrassing for the kids to have such an old mother.
LOL. You must be pretty young to think that 44 is old. Yes, it's older than the norm. But if she's in good health and energetic, no it's not selfish.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that older people make better parents. They're more patient and of course mature. What matters most is that theirs is a loving home and that they're good parents. My parents had me when they were young. They were horrible parents in some ways. I would've traded them for a older but loving couple in a heartbeat.
If there's evidence that it's more likely the kids will have problems, well there's that test they do on older moms to detect some things. Then there's the argument that smokers are more likely to have less healthy babies. What about people who carry the breast cancer gene? What about poor people? What about people whose family has a larger number of cancers, possibly indicating a genetic predisposition? How about gays? Should we only have kids if we are "the right kind" of people?
Do you think 44 is too old for a MAN to have kids? They do it all the time, and no one blinks an eye.
It's a blessing, no matter what the age. Yes, the kids MIGHT be embarrassed by their parents' ages (BOTH parents), just like they would be embarrassed if their parents are overweight, or poor, or nerdy looking. Should only people who look like young movie stars have children, so kids won't be embarrassed by their parents? Having loving parents is what matters most. (But it is great that my dad is still around, now that I'm a senior, because he had me when he was young. He straightened up and became a better father late in life.)
The reason I ask is because a woman I know recently had twins at 44! I don't know much regarding the circumstances, but even so, is that not selfish considering you are far more likely to have children with mental and/or physical disabilities at that age not to mention even if they aren't born with issues you will be far older when they graduate high school and aren't likely to be able to run around and play with them or keep up with them as if you were younger? It also must be very embarrassing for the kids to have such an old mother.
The risk of having kids with disabilities at that age is overblown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrassTacksGal;
Older parents also seem to have the smartest kids who make amazing contributions to society
This is what I've noticed. ^^ A friend of mine had her two youngest kids at 40 and 44. The oldest and the middle one are both scientists in the medical field; the oldest has a PhD. The youngest is in college. All 3 are girls. My friend took each one to China with her when she went for months at a time to do research, so they all learned Mandarin. Once, she took all 3 with her for the summer. They gained a lot of confidence, travelling internationally at a young age, and learning a foreign language. I think having a mom as a role model who was a scholar influenced all the girls to be high achievers.
She had no trouble keeping up with the kids in her 40's and 50's. 40 and 50 aren't what they used to be; people are more energetic and youthful at that age than they were back in the middle of the last century. I know two women who each had a child after 50, by natural means, and did just fine. They had both remarried at around 50 to younger men, and the men wanted a child with the new wife. I really don't see how selfishness could enter into it.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 05-13-2017 at 08:17 PM..
LOL. You must be pretty young to think that 44 is old. Yes, it's older than the norm. But if she's in good health and energetic, no it's not selfish..)
These young people who think 44 is "too old" to become a mom, well, you never know; that young person could drop dead tomorrow, but that mom they think is "old" could live on for another 30 years.
None of us are guaranteed how much time we have in life.
The reason I ask is because a woman I know recently had twins at 44! I don't know much regarding the circumstances, but even so, is that not selfish considering you are far more likely to have children with mental and/or physical disabilities at that age not to mention even if they aren't born with issues you will be far older when they graduate high school and aren't likely to be able to run around and play with them or keep up with them as if you were younger? It also must be very embarrassing for the kids to have such an old mother.
My youngest daughter was born when my wife was 45. We didnt plan on it. It just happens.
But she had absolutely no issues. Was the #1 student, Played the piano great and was completely emotionally stable. Went on to become a doctor then an engineer designing heart valves and the like.
My wife took care of herself and even in her mid 50's people mistook her for being in her early 30's. Its all how you take care of yourself.
It doesn't matter if you look young....a lot of women actually assume that becuase they look young and feel young in their 40s that they will have no issues getting pregnant. Just because you look and feel young doesn't mean your eggs are young.
These young people who think 44 is "too old" to become a mom, well, you never know; that young person could drop dead tomorrow, but that mom they think is "old" could live on for another 30 years.
None of us are guaranteed how much time we have in life.
I think the life expectancy of that 44 year old woman is about 95 or even 100, depending on her genetics. I'm 63. I'll probably live past 90, based on insurance stats and my family history. Ironic, because I don't want to live that long! I can't afford it!
I think it is. How many kids out there need parents?
Kind of obvious.
That doesn't even make sense. "Older" women are still mothers to their children.
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.
