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.
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.
That doesn't automatically mean all women in their 70s are this limited though. My mom is several years older than yours and she just got back from flying on her own to visit friends. She is widowed now and doesn't travel on her own to vacation because she's not interested in traveling alone in that manner, but she's perfectly fine to travel on her own to visit friends and family and if she had grandchildren who were a plane ride away, she'd have no problem traveling to them. As it is, she drives carpool on my behalf once a week for my teenage son!
None of us know what hand we will be deal, whether that comes to health or lifespan or fertility issues that could warrant the use of assisted reproductive technology at 25 or at 45. But it's no one's place to judge anyone for their choices because no one has to follow someone else's rules.
You are correct, but there's nothing in that link about early menopause being more common now than in years past.
Ms. Duckworth's body was obviously able to support two pregnancies, one in her 40s, and this one at 50. I'm happy for her.
I'm happy for anyone who has a baby as it's a gift, but as far as when to have one and at what age is up to each individual. Again, I had both of my kids in my mid 30's, had I waited any longer I might have been childless as I started perimenopause at 38. If someone is willing to wait till their 40's they might conceive with no problems or they might find out they're too late and won't be able to conceive at all.
I personally don't agree with someone having a child in their 50's, woman or man. Why? Because they might not be around in 20 years. I actually have a friend (male) who remarried and his new wife wanted a child and he agreed. He was 55 at the time and she was 40. He already had grown kids in their 30's. Anyway, he's now 65, too tired to do anything with his daughter, in poor health, can't retire because he has a 10 yr old and he'll be lucky to see her graduate high school, let alone college. I think it's selfish.
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.
It is extremely difficult to adopt an infant these days, has been for at least the last 40 years or so. And the rules are stringent, with age limitations.
also see thread titled, Conceived from donated eggs-- would you tell your child?
Maybe some kids would be horrified by this.
The alternative, to steal chicagoliz' line, is to never have been born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab
I'm happy for anyone who has a baby as it's a gift, but as far as when to have one and at what age is up to each individual. Again, I had both of my kids in my mid 30's, had I waited any longer I might have been childless as I started perimenopause at 38. If someone is willing to wait till their 40's they might conceive with no problems or they might find out they're too late and won't be able to conceive at all.
I personally don't agree with someone having a child in their 50's, woman or man. Why? Because they might not be around in 20 years. I actually have a friend (male) who remarried and his new wife wanted a child and he agreed. He was 55 at the time and she was 40. He already had grown kids in their 30's. Anyway, he's now 65, too tired to do anything with his daughter, in poor health, can't retire because he has a 10 yr old and he'll be lucky to see her graduate high school, let alone college. I think it's selfish.
I guess I have to repost this: "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"
As far as someone 65 being "too tired to do anything with his daughter, in poor health", that can happen at just about any age. So this 65 y.o. has a 10 year old. According to my link, he can expect to live 17.8 more years. The child will be 27-28 by then, old enough to have a PhD, let alone graduate from high school, which is about 8 years off. It's no more selfish than having a baby at 25. Anyone can get killed in a car accident today, get cancer (though the probability of that goes up with age), have some other kind of accident.
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.
The average age for mothers having their first child is going up. CDC data says women in their thirties are having more babies than women in their twenties. "Now, for the first time, women in their 30s are having more children than those in their 20s, according to preliminary 2016 data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday. . . The CDC data shows that the birth rate among women aged 30 to 34 last year just barely surpassed that of women aged 25 to 29, the demographic with the highest birth rate for more than three decades."
I think the culture in the United States and the West needs to reflect upon what the best ages are to start families. Speaking to the quote above, I think that in the United States, on average, we have delayed markers of adulthood for too long. The culture would be healthier if we followed our biology and started having children younger. While I don't think that teen pregnancy is the best idea, biology would indicate that having a child at peak fertility (21-25) is not a bad idea. I think younger motherhood is better for both the individual mother and for culture as a whole. The first kid around 24-28 seems to make a lot of sense on a lot of levels and being done with having children around 35 seems practical.
Some posters have talked about how men can have kids late in life. Biologically speaking, that's true but it ignores a simple, practical point. Most men who are 35 and 40 are going to struggle to attract women young enough for optimal child bearing. The majority of 35 year old single males don't have enough going for them to attract women 18-26. Even 27-30 can be a bit of a stretch. Let's take for instance a 35 year old man attracting a 31 year old woman, which seems reasonable. The 31 year old woman is feeling the ravages of a biological clock and might push the relationship forward faster than if they had started at 25 and 21. This does not set a good precedent for the course of the relationship. Additionally, a 40 year old male is hard pressed to attract women under 35, and especially under 30. For the older male, the threshold of demonstrated higher value he must show becomes higher and higher to attract women in their 20s.
i can only applaud women being careful when to have children.
a quote posted above:
"a 40 year old male is hard pressed to attract women under 35, and especially under 30. For the older male, the threshold of demonstrated higher value he must show becomes higher and higher to attract women in their 20s.
-seems this post puts a huge emphasis on physical attraction.
-lets face it most citizens have an office job, part of a team. Things are not that physically demanding in the 1st world.
My cousin and his wife just had their first baby - he is 49, she is 50. No medical intervention whatsoever; it just happened. What should they have done? Terminated the pregnancy?
It is extremely difficult to adopt an infant these days, has been for at least the last 40 years or so. And the rules are stringent, with age limitations.
The alternative, to steal chicagoliz' line, is to never have been born.
I guess I have to repost this: "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"
As far as someone 65 being "too tired to do anything with his daughter, in poor health", that can happen at just about any age. So this 65 y.o. has a 10 year old. According to my link, he can expect to live 17.8 more years. The child will be 27-28 by then, old enough to have a PhD, let alone graduate from high school, which is about 8 years off. It's no more selfish than having a baby at 25. Anyone can get killed in a car accident today, get cancer (though the probability of that goes up with age), have some other kind of accident.
Oh I apologize, you’re one of those posters who always has to prove their right instead of seeing everyone’s point of view. I understand your point and again congratulate anyone who has a baby as it’s a wonderful gift. However I also stick to my point that if someone purposely waits till they’re in their 40’s or 50’s to have a child then they might be disappointed and end up childless as not everyone can get pregnant that late in life.
Oh I apologize, you’re one of those posters who always has to prove their right instead of seeing everyone’s point of view. I understand your point and again congratulate anyone who has a baby as it’s a wonderful gift. However I also stick to my point that if someone purposely waits till they’re in their 40’s or 50’s to have a child then they might be disappointed and end up childless as not everyone can get pregnant that late in life.
So you quote a post of mine about the difficulty of adoption, my lack of concern about overpopulation being perpetrated by "older" women having babies (an age that seems to range from 30 on up on this thread), life expectancy at age 50, and at 65, the possibility of poor health at any age, as "always (having) to prove their right instead of seeing everyone’s point of view".
You're quite correct that I don't see the POV that a person who becomes a mom at 50 is likely to die before her child graduates from high school, ditto for a person who becomes a dad at 55; or that "older" women are contributing to "overpopulation" by a few of them having babies. And it's funny that you accuse me of not seeing everyone's point of view and then say "I also stick to my point. . . ".
It is true that one's fertility decreases with age, but when it hits absolute zero is different for every woman, and most men can father children right up until death.
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.
