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.
having IVF in your 20s or 30s is one thing...but 40s, 50s is another story. The world does not need everyone reproducing. If you want kids get it done when it's physically possible.
This is a very good post and perspective.
It serves to remind us that with anything, there are trade offs and concessions.
I agree with the second sentence, not the first. For one thing, SteveC thinks this is the most important concern of all-that the child's kids may always have to visit their grandparents instead of the grands coming to them.
Lots of families have "issues". There are families with disabled people of many ages who can't travel easily. There are families where the grands died young and can only be "visited" at the cemetery. There are "blended" families and families where the grands don't accept the grandkids because of their race or whatever. SteveC's future kids might actually enjoy going to FL to visit the grands. You make it fun, visit the grands, then go to the beach, Disney, etc. Just like we did when we went to PA to visit the grands (my parents) who weren't extremely elderly. We'd go to Pittsburgh, then to Niagara Falls, Gettysburg, DC, Rehoboth Beach Delaware, wherever. The other thing is that if you live away from family, you will almost always be the one to do the traveling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
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.
""
Ms. Duckworth has a life expectancy of 33 more years of life, as of 2013. Probably a little longer now. She is very likely to see her daughter graduate from high school, college, maybe get married and have a kid of her own. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
I just can't even. What a totally arrogant statement to make!
Even if a woman has a baby at 40, sure it take a toll on the body and is maybe harder than it would be at 30. What I dont think people often think about is how will you feel at 45 running after a 5 year old...or 50 running after and driving around a 10 year old. It's not just the conception age but it's the years beyond too. People tend to get more tired as they get older but they dont realize it until they're in that boat
What makes you think science had anything to do with it (Duckworth)? Was that stated to be the case?
It's possible that it was an accident. Thought she wouldn't get preggers at her age or something. It is unusual. Even though women haven't gone through menopause, their bodies produce fewer eggs with each passing year past a certain age, making it unlikely they'll get pregnant. Maybe nature's way of saying it might not be a great idea, or you have enough kids already?
So it may have been inadvertent. I wouldn't want to have a baby at that age, but that's me. She'll have a 20 year old when she's 70. That's not too bad. And when she's 90 and may need assistance in some way from her kids, the kid will be 40. It might come in handy to have a child who is still fairly young and energetic, to help deal with Mom's health issues.
As long as she can afford it, I don't see the big deal. If she has the money to provide for the child, may be able to afford a nanny of other help...since someone at 50 isn't as energetic as a 20-something Mom.
'And when she's 90 and may need assistance in some way from her kids, the kid will be 40. It might come in handy to have a child who is still fairly young and energetic, to help deal with Mom's health issues.'
The 40 year might have young kids themselves at the rate things are going. not easy taking care of ailing parents when you have a baby or toddler.
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.
Has adoption just gone out the window? Does no one consider that anymore when they're 48 years old and wanting a child? It's just that easy to free eggs or do IVF I guess? It used to be that not every woman in the world gave birth but now that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. More Lesbian couples are having kids, more gay men are finding surrogates to have kids and more 50 year old women are giving birth because it's possible. Kind of makes one worry about overpopulation quite honestly.
This is, to me, the most important point of all, which I'm surprised nobody else has raised in this discussion.
I was born in 1987, and my mother conceived me naturally at the age of 44. I was born a month before her 45th birthday; I am the youngest of 6 children. My nearest sibling (by age) was born in 1970, 17 years before me, and my mother miscarried 4 times in between her birth and mine. My oldest sister, my mother's first child, was born in 1962, 25 years before me. (My father was 49 when I was born.)
Thankfully, my parents were able to attend my high school and college graduations, but it wasn't without a great deal of hardship, physically, for both of them. They now live in a retirement community in Florida, and my mother is not capable of getting on a plane. If I should ever get married, I have to accept the fact that my mother will not be able to attend unless I get married in Florida within a short drive of her residence. If I were to have children after that, I have to accept that the only way my children will ever be able to see their grandparents is if I take them to Florida; it will never even once be the other way around.
The alternative, though, is you never having been born at all.
I know of women who had accidental pregnancies at 42 or 43. Some happened recently some happened 50 years ago. I'm talking about the women are freezing eggs and/or having a baby over 45. This is not something that's been happening for long.
also see thread titled, Conceived from donated eggs-- would you tell your child?
Maybe some kids would be horrified by this.
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.
"
