Pregnancy later in life

[zakisrage]

I decided to make this topic in light of Janet Jackson announcing her pregnancy. She is going to be 50 soon and she is expecting her first child. Also, it's becoming more and more common for women in their forties to be having babies. I've known women over 45 who've gotten pregnant without IVF. I noticed that teen pregnancy is discussed a lot, but older pregnancies aren't discussed as much.

There's a lot of arguments for and against it. Quite often, older mothers are more likely to be financially secure and better-educated, but then studies have shown that the likeliness of having babies with certain disabilities (especially Down syndrome) increases with maternal age. Then there's the fear that the mother will be old and feeble while the kids are still young. Even without concerns like that, it could still be kinda awkward, like being mistaken for the grandmother instead of the mother or (if the mom has much older kids) having kids the same age as, or even younger than, their grandchildren.

Do you think it's right for women in their forties or even fifties to be having babies? Do you think there's an age when women should stop trying to conceive?

 

[Esper]

I think that the decision is something for the potential mother, her doctor, and (if she wishes) her family to decide.

I mean, yeah, it can be riskier and there are downsides, but if we were going to, I dunno, try to intervene or something where would we? What would be the age at which someone is "too old"?

 

[Lucid]

The odds of having kids into your late 40's and 50's naturally is pretty low for a reason, which is when woman are born, our bodies come pre-equipped with a certain number of eggs. As we get older in age, the eggs dwindle in number, causing irregular cycles. Fewer cycles mean fewer chances at getting pregnant, and when we finally run out, menopause begins. While yes, statistically women over 35 are scientifically more likely to have children with genetic conditions, the female body has a way of sometimes knowing when things aren't quite right with a developing egg sack, and a lot of those pregnancies result in miscarriage.

So yes, while these pregnancies are far more high risk for the mother and potential child, I don't think the risk is as high as people think, if they were more doctors would discourage pregnancy rather then just make the risks known like they do with everything else. Women after the age of 35 are encouraged to undergo genetic testing, but this is more for the sake of monitoring the pregnancy properly and being prepared of the child is born with any sort of disability. Family history regarding genetic disabilities plays a big role too, bigger then age.

I've known a bunch of women in their late 30's to have children, but not so much ones in their 40's and 50's. My mom was in her late 30's when I was born, and is 64 now, so I have older siblings just a couple of years younger then his parents, while my mother is only a couple of years younger then his grandparents, and honestly, it rarely comes up. Over all I don't think age inhibits one's involvement in their children's lives all that much. It's just a thing that is going to become more common as medicine evolves, and more women chose to wait to establish their careers and other aspects of their lives before starting a family. If you can still have children in your 40's and 50's, and your aware of the risks and accept them, then I don't see a problem.

As for Hollywood, a lot of these pregnancies involve medical intervention such as IVF, which is why twins seem to be so common. There's nothing wrong with that either, you know these women are financially stable, and they were probably discouraged from having children in their heydays, as it would of slowed down their careers.

 

[Her]

I knew this was about Janet before I clicked, lol. I'm happy for her!

It just comes down to whether the child can be provided for, simple as that. If the mother thinks she is capable of having a child later in life and raising it into her 60s and in Ms Jackson's case, 70s, then that's her business. I just think that as long as the child can be looked after and is loved, then that's the bottom line. Potential awkwardness and possible feebleness would have been taken into account when she was trying for pregnancy.

As Lucid said, the risks associated with later pregnancies aren't as common as people like to make them out to be. It depends on what you qualify as a risk - while it is reasonable to have doubts about raising a child with disabilities, if you think that you will love your child less because of their (potential) disability, or not be able to provide for them, perhaps you should not go down that path. Adopt. Maybe not have a child.

 

[gimmepie]

I mean, there's nothing we can do about it without stepping all over a person's rights. So I don't see much point in putting huge efforts into preventing it or whatever. Just make sure that people are educated about the potential problems that could arise from an older pregnancy so that prospective parents can make informed decisions.

 

[Pebbles]

it is their body so they can do whatever they want with it
wether it is the right choice to have a baby when you are 50+ ...
i don't know but i am leaving it up to women that age themselves, they old enough to know what they are doing right
but i do think it is less weird than a 15 year old getting a baby, so~_~​

 

[Elysieum]

I think Annie Leibovitz is another example of a late-in-life mother. She is an example of a completely successful case, no maladies.

Being sure of the potential medical implications aside, I see no problem. The age difference is immaterial, really. Human life expectancy has increased so drastically anyway that even a mid-life mother should be perfectly capable.

 

[pastelspectre]

I don't mind as long as they can properly care for it and treat it well, y'know? Age shouldn't matter as long as they can take care of it.

 

[Jetfire]

As long as they're able to care and provide for the child then it's all good.

 

[Somewhere_]

I know some people that got pregnant in their late thirties/early forties. I do not see what is wrong with it- unless the mother decides its not a good idea.

 

[RegalSin]

Your older does not make it easier then you was younger. My grandmother and her sister had kids at 12 and 14 ( back when things were normal ) and did that stop them from graduating early, or getting trained work, or owning houses, buying cars, or even living in a place worth $5000 a month? No it did not. That depends on the kind of upbringing you have had. Nowadays people are stupefied about birth giving and children because they lack mother and father in the home.

Look a baby could happen anytime at all. My sister who was 30+ was told ( by the medical doctors ) that if she had a baby when she was younger 15-25 then it would have came out of her more easy without problems. ( she had an hernia afterwards and had to take some pills ).

You see the doctors ( especially via the weekend ) might want to rush the baby out of the patient. So they will opt to "cut it out" of chest, rather then deliver the baby the normal way. Cuting the baby out of the lower area is usually resulted for problematic births. Like my mother had for my younger sibling had to come out the belly. My mother was like 25 or so. Again only if that is problems. Otherwise they might not even ask the mother ( because they become to dependent on the doctors ) and just cut it out.

Some doctors can get nuts. A doctor on the news signed his signature on the mothers body after delivering the baby. Again this is not allowed and is a sign the doctor is having some issues.

Also unlike a man, a woman have all of her eggs stored inside of her from day 1. This woman told me that her ovaries fell out of her/collapsed?? and she was only 25. My college professor ( who probably needs a man ) kept on mentioning how she can't make any eggs anymore/the waterworks are not flowing. A family friend/ex-wife of uncle who is 50+ mentioned her ovaries feel out of her.

Point being they say a woman who is 40+ is usually when they are in-heat the most as they have access to there savings and ability to retire. So a "young man" and "older woman" usually makes a funny combination. However bare in mind the human body is meant to last around 25 years on this planet and that is why people see this issue with the body. Again your body might be super-jumpy around 40+ because of your success and because your eggs might about to expire.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

All that post did was tell us that you have no idea how the female body works. Unless I am vastly misunderstanding what you're talking about.

 

[Fannie]

I've never heard/seen someone call someone menstruating 'in heat' before. Only animals.
_____________________

I think age isn't an issue on either end of the scale so long as the baby is looked after and provided for. I've known brilliant and crap parents of all ages. I often think if I change my mind about not wanting kids I might have them later on. Although I would prefer to adopt so my reproductive capabilities wouldn't matter as much.

 

[RegalSin]

People think that medical science is going to save the day. However nature works in other-ways. Women can lose there ability to give birth around the age of 25. This is why many women ( over the expiration date as shown in Logans run ) are scared of there health and visits the doctor often.

You think they are healthy and all but seriously those water works could go at anytime. Another womanist/non-heterosexual scam in order trick heterosexual people out of reproducing and marrying.

 

[Taemin]

^ So you're saying regardless of age there could be risks, and that's true. Still a bit safer when you're younger, though. Somewhere in your 20's is when your body is most fit for it.

Though, also, to answer the main post, I think that if someone is older and wants to have or adopt a child, that's their choice. I say good for Janet, but that's partially because she's in good health and can provide. In some cases, I think waiting that late to have a child could just be rough on the child. Your health could drop a lot between 50 and 70 and by that point your kid would barely be out of high school, and would have to deal with such a thing. Hopefully most people who decide to have a kid later in life take their health into consideration.

 

[Her]

Okay, this is getting into a bit of an echo chamber so I'm gonna ask something for you all:

Pretend you oppose the issue. If a 50 year old woman who does not have the fantastic wealth of Ms. Jackson If You Nasty wanted to give birth to her first child, what would you say? Let's assume she doesn't want to adopt at all and she wants to give birth to the child herself + she is physically able to do so.

 

[Jetfire]

Okay, this is getting into a bit of an echo chamber so I'm gonna ask something for you all:

Pretend you oppose the issue. If a 50 year old woman who does not have the fantastic wealth of Ms. Jackson If You Nasty wanted to give birth to her first child, what would you say? Let's assume she doesn't want to adopt at all and she wants to give birth to the child herself + she is physically able to do so.

Darn. That's tough. I suppose since I'm no where near that point in life, I'm somewhat speechless. I would recommend seeking professional and medical advice before continuing. Weigh out the potencial risks.

 

[zakisrage]

I think Annie Leibovitz is another example of a late-in-life mother. She is an example of a completely successful case, no maladies.

Being sure of the potential medical implications aside, I see no problem. The age difference is immaterial, really. Human life expectancy has increased so drastically anyway that even a mid-life mother should be perfectly capable.

Hollywood has quite a few other examples. Geena Davis, Beverly D'Angelo, Susan Sarandon, Halle Berry, and Adrienne Barbeau all had kids in their late forties (or in Barbeau's case, early fifties).

I agree with you on the life expectancy. People are living longer nowadays. I mean, when Janet's kid is 25, she will be 75. Janet's parents are both still alive (Joe's 88, Katherine's 86), so I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. I find it hypocritical that people think it's wrong for a woman to have a baby at 50, but it's okay for a man to become a father at 70.

I have a friend whose mother is 47 and she's currently pregnant with her sixth child. The first four have a different father from the fifth one and the one on the way. Her daughter (who is 24) is pregnant too.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

While I would not deny an older woman's ability to have children I don't see it as a good idea either. Geriatric pregnancy increases risks to mother and baby, getting worse with age. For example, the risk of Down's syndrome, according to age, is:

age 20: one in 1,500
age 30: one in 900
age 40: one in 100
age 45: one in 50 or greater.

To me that's a significant increase. Add to that increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and pre-eclampsia (both potentially fatal to mum) and placental abruption (potentially fatal to both mum and baby) and it really isn't looking good.

I think adequate education on the increased risk is important and the risks shouldn't be downplayed. I don't think it benefits anyone to let women live in the delusion that they can just put off starting a family almost indefinitely and that it's all still going to be just as easy as younger women.