Older Moms. Your views?

[BlakeS5678]

I wasn't sure if this would go in the Off Topic Discussion or the Debate Room so I finally decided to put it here.

The other day me and my friends were discussing older mothers. One of those friends mother had them when she was 45. And, another when their mother was 43.

So, what I ask of you is what are your views on older mothers.

-Note: I have no current stance on this debate. I'm Switzerland, if you will

[paksetti]

...One of those friends mother had them when she was 45. And, another when their mother was 43.

...virtually ensuring that their child will have down syndrome.


So, your friends have downs?

[BlakeS5678]

No, but her brother has something close to it. Not sure specifically.

I'm not saying that there's a 100% chance of Down Syndrome. Just that some people say that there's a higher chance for it. That's all.

Remember I'm neutral. I was seeing if another person saw it as such.

[whiterider]

"Virtually ensuring their child will have Down Syndrome"? According to Wikipedia, "above age 45 the probability [of the child having Down Syndrome] is one in 19.", which works out to about 5.3%. It's an increased risk, but I would hardly called it "virtually ensured".

As for the main question, yes, parents have the right to have a baby knowing that there is an increased chance that that baby will be born with an illness or disability; as long as they understand the burden it could place on them, and justifiably feel they can shoulder that burden. No child, after all, loses out by being born.
There can be an argument with some very, very severe congenital defects that the child's quality of life would be so low as to be intolerable; but such severe problems are very very rare, and I can't think of a learning disability which would, in its normal manifestation, qualify.

I should point out here that I think adoption is a wonderful thing, and should be considered much more immediately as a realistic option when a couple (or an individual) wants kids. That, however, should be because adoption is seen as a positive choice, not because conception is seen as a negative one.
I'm also not impartial here. My Mum was 39 when I was born, and I was her first and only child: a few years later she had an ectopic pregnancy, and was told by the doctors that it would be dangerous to try again. I was born perfectly healthy, and haven't suffered at all for being a late baby: in fact, the majority of my health issues are caused by genetically influenced problems which I would have inherited whether my Mum had been 21 or 50. I wasn't even really aware that my parents were older than most while growing up. It does make a difference to my life: the older generations of my family are dying while I am still relatively young, and we're dealing with things like inheritance and powers of attorney (due to an unfortunate predisposition towards dementia on my mother's side of the family) much earlier in my life than most children do. But, at the end of the day... life is different for everyone. The timelines don't always work out as we expect, different people and different families face different challenges. Some face challenges like Downs. Some face challenges like alcoholism or unexpected deaths. C'est la vie.

Also, I'm very glad that my parents decided to have me despite being "older".

[BlakeS5678]

Meh. 39 isn't THAT old. But, Whiterider, if you don't mind me asking, where do you draw the line on age, concerning having a baby.

Personally, I'd say mid to late 40's, after that, I would consider adopting instead.

[whiterider]

I don't know. I don't have the scientific data showing the precise increased risks of all the various defects, in all their forms, as they relate to maternal age. I also think t depends a great deal on the financial status and health of the parents - while reasonable well-off, healthy older parents can provide very well for a child with a disability, a family in which the parents suffer ill-health or have financial difficulties will be a less positive environment for that child. I don't think maternal age can ever be the sole, or even primary, deciding factor.

[maxon]

It's an increased risk not a certainty for heavens sake. There are plenty of mothers who have healthy children in their forties. Women have been known to have children 'naturally' right up until their sixties. Healthy ones at that. I'm not saying it's not a risk but that kind of statement is, well, ignorant.

[iCad]

Why should it matter, so long as the mom (and dad!) in question is willing to shoulder the possibility (NOT certainty) of a birth defect? Really, birth defects of any sort, including Down's Syndrome, can happen in ANY pregnancy. It's just that the older the mom is, the higher the chance is that the egg will have issues, since its genetic material has been sitting around for a while. (Females are born with all the eggs they'll ever have. They're in an undeveloped state, most of them never develop, only one -- sometimes two or three, but usually just one -- maturing each month. But all the genetic material is already there. That's why there's an increased risk (but not a certainty) of abnormality with increasing maternal age. Whereas sexually-mature males are constantly producing new sperm every day. It don't work that way for us womenfolk. :) ) Anyway, if a woman is informed, I don't see why there should be any limit. (Outside of the natural biological limit, i.e. menopause, of course.)

Personally, I wouldn't WANT to be raising a baby/toddler in my 40s. (I'm 48 now. And I'm in menopause, so it's a moot point for me.) I had my last kid when I was 33, and that was late enough for me. But if someone wants to have a late-in-life baby, I don't see why they should be discouraged from doing so. There could certainly be some advantages. For instance, middle-aged people are generally more secure, financially and emotionally, than the average twentysomething. That can be helpful for child-raising purposes, to be sure! :lol:

It should be said that older expectant moms, those who are 35+, generally have an amniocentesis during their pregnancy, generally around the 18th week or so. This means that the genome of the child can be seen, so if Down's syndrome (or other genetic anomalies) is present, the parents will know and then they can decide what they want to do. So, most parents who have proper prenatal care aren't surprised when they have a Down's child.

All of this isn't to say that I'm against people adopting. I'm not. But I certainly don't think it should be encouraged as "the way to do it" for women who've hit their 40th birthday but haven't yet hit menopause. *shrugs*

[joandsarah77]

virtually ensuring that their child will have down syndrome

You can't really make statements like that and then say you are neutral.

Dr's consider anyone over the age of 35 an 'older mother'. My own mum is one (38) and I am one myself (35 and 38) and the main draw back is as Whiterider said is as everyone is that family members are dying and getting quite old. I'm an only child as my mother lost one very prematurely before me and couldn't have any more. She had to have weekly injections just to be able to carry me to term as well.

As for Down syndrome. my husband’s nephew has severe Down syndrome and autism and my sil was only 38. Yet I know a couple of older mothers who had their children at 40+ and their children are all fine. The risk over 40 really isn't as great as some may think. My sil has also mentioned before how many of the mothers at the Down syndrome meetings are quite young. So having children young does not preclude you from having a DS child, just as having your children when older isn't ensuring it.

If a couple are older and want children and can do so then that is their right. You can't start policing pregnancy age. How would you even be able to do that? Forced birth control? Only in a dictatorship.
If older parents want science to help then yes there should be a cut off. I don't think it's right for mothers of 65 to be having babies. That to me is very selfish as they could be dead of old age before the child is of age, or need care themselves or simply not be fit enough to run after a child. I'm 45 and I'll be looking after my friends 2 year old the whole day on Tuesday and i know I'll be exhausted at the end of it! I can’t imagine doing that at 65+

Editing to add: generally have an amniocentesis during their pregnancy, generally around the 18th week or so.
You are offered but don't have to have it. I never had one as the test carries the risk of miscarriage so people should think carefully before having it.

[BlakeS5678]

If older parents want science to help then yes there should be a cut off. I don't think it's right for mothers of 65 to be having babies. That to me is very selfish as they could be dead of old age before the child is of age, or need care themselves or simply not be fit enough to run after a child. I'm 45 and I'll be looking after my friends 2 year old the whole day on Tuesday and i know I'll be exhausted at the end of it! I can’t imagine doing that at 65+


Thank you, that was all I was asking.

You can't really make statements like that and then say you are neutral.

I'm very sorry to confuse you. I terribly misworded. Forgive me.

That's not my opinion I just know that some people do have that opinion. I was just asking if any out there had that opinion or knows someone that does. Hence I ended the sentence with a ? mark.

Again, I apologize.

[crocobaura]

So, what I ask of you is what are your views on older mothers. Do you think they have the rite to have kids or should they just go through the adoption route instead of virtually ensuring that their child will have down syndrome.

Everyone has the right to have kids and if an older couple wishes to become pregnant I'm sure they are aware of the risks involved and will consider their options, especially when there are many other things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. That is if they can get pregnant in the first place. Adoption is a great alternative for people who can't or don't want to be pregnant, but it should be just that, an alternative.

[leo06girl]

Did anyone see the special on television "Pregnant at 70"? The youngest woman on there was pregnant at 53, the oldest was pregnant at 70. They all used some form of in vitro. IMO, that's too old. One woman on there couldn't properly care for her children and her husband was pretty much raising them himself while the kids' mother was just there (not able to be a Mommy).

[SimsLover50]

I am an adult child of an older parent. I am the youngest of 5. Here are some issues I have faced. I am not stating all children/parents would have this issue or stating people with non-elderly parents don't have the same issues or worse- just stating things that I've had happen to me, partially as a result of age.

1. Father is older. Has trouble relating to many things. He has dementia now. we are taking care of him.
2. Parents approaching retirement years when college comes around.
3. Mother expressed distress when trying to befriend my friends parents she was ostracized because she was the 'older mom'
4. My sister and I support both my parents financially and with housing.
5. I must deal with the fact that I will be losing my parents to age much sooner than most. This makes me sad.
6. My parents were far active and social when younger.
7. No living grandparents.

I am glad I was born, and am not whining or anything... Just that... . I do wish I was born to younger parents because I would like to spend more time with my mother. We enjoy eachothers company and I worry about her health a lot. I do wish she were younger and so does she, so we might have time to do more things together, but we relish the time we have, nonetheless.

[maxon]

My mum was quite old when I was born too SimsLover - can't say I share your concerns though. You are right though to spend time with your mum. I really miss mine.

I want to ask this: why is this question (OP) being asked about only mothers?

[joandsarah77]

As am I Simslover -see my post above. I'm 45 and my parents are 83 and 84. I also have the disadvantage of being an only child as my mother could have no more children. At least you have siblings.

I think these days point three would be about gone as older motherhood is on the increase.
Point four would be different for everyone. Many people wait so they will be financially stable. My own parents have helped us out a lot.

[Phoeberg]

I would be more concerned with the parents' mortality, as Simslover said. There's been a woman who's been in the newspapers over the past few years who had a daughter at (I think) 57. The daughter is now about four and her mtoher has admitted that she now feels selfish in having had her, because she was thinking of herself, not her daughter. Obviously she still loves her daughter immensely, but she's had some health issues recently and she's now worried about her own mortality. There's a good chance that she'll die when her daughter's only just reached her 20s and that must be horrible for her daughter (although she's probably not aware of it yet). I'm in my early 20s and I hate the thought of my mother dying. She was 35 when she had me, so hopefully that time is a way off yet, but I still think about it happening one day. I do have quite a few friends who have lost their mothers already, so I know nothing's guaranteed, but having a child at nearly 60 means that it's very likely that you won't be around for long, and worse, you and your child know that your time is extremely limited.

So I don't think your early to mid 40s is so bad...assuming life expectancy is around 80, you hopefully still have a good 40 years barring any unforseen medical problems. I read something recently about there being advantages to being the child of 'older' parents; apparently they tend to do better in school than the children of younger parents. Plus, as iCad said, they're likely to be financially and emotionally more stable. My parents had been married for almost 13 years before they had me (I'm the firstborn) - as I said, my mother was 35, but my father was already in his 40s when I was born. They could have had a child when they first got married, but they chose to wait until they felt financially able and settled. They had my brother 17 years after they first got married.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I don't think maternal age can ever be the sole, or even primary, deciding factor.

you just said everything i had come here to say.

personally, my biggest complaint about having been born to older parents is that since they were older, they didnt have enough energy to really keep me stimulated. we didnt go out and do fun stuff as a family, mostly, because they were too tired/stressed and just plain couldnt keep up.
i like to think, however, that what they lacked in energy they made up for with patience and wisdom.

[StardustX]

I'm also an adult child of older parents. My mom was 40 when she had me, I think my dad was about 44 or so. My dad died when I was only 10. It was mainly due to health problems but his age had a factor also. My mom is almost 60 now and has a lot of problems too. She can barely walk even with a cane (she needs hip surgery), she stumbles and falls a lot, she has trouble hearing, and has a horrible memory. I have to do more and more for her everyday and it gets really stressful. I know it's only a matter of time before she'll need me to move back in with her (I live in NJ, she lives in WV) to help take care of her.
Not that I don't love her, because I do, but I would have been happier if she'd had me younger. She had my brothers when she was 17 and sometime in her late 20's. It's really weird having a brother that's over 40 years old.. But anyways.

I don't have Downs but I do have other mental problems. OCD, depression, bi-polar disorder and social anxiety just to name a few. Though she's never told me it's the case, I'm sure I'm like this because she had to have treatments to have me, because she wanted a girl and also because it was a "high risk" pregnancy or something.
I don't like knowing that my mom is almost 60, that we really don't have a whole lot of time together left. She's always been too busy with work and other things, by the time she gets done she'll be exhausted and not have time for me, so we've never really "bonded" much.
It also made me uncomfortable growing up, having a mom that was twice the age of my friends' moms. A few people actually made fun of me for it.

I think once you hit 40 you should consider adoption. The chance of your child having ANY mental disability is raised and it's also harder on the mother's body.
Of course, people have the right to do what they want.

[VerDeTerre]

People age very differently. I know plenty of people in their 60s and 70s that are active and healthy and I know a few younger folk, who are only in their 30s, who act and think like they were dottering into old age. Genetics, lifestyle, habits and attitudes, and the roll of the dice all play a role.

40, to me, is getting up there but still isn't too late for conception and the possibility of a nurturing a child well into the offspring's adulthood. But it's close to the edge. I would recommend to those who are older, consider adopting an older child that is in keeping with one's age as if one had conceived the child naturally at the age of 25 to 35.

And, frankly, for those who have the urge to nurture, there are so many options and they just never expire. There are tons of kids out there who could use the attention of interested older adults as either advocates or friends. There's no reason not to connect with younger generations just because of age or infertility.

[~Dee~]

People age very differently. I know plenty of people in their 60s and 70s that are active and healthy and I know a few younger folk, who are only in their 30s, who act and think like they were dottering into old age. Genetics, lifestyle, habits and attitudes, and the roll of the dice all play a role.



I totally agree with that, my mother was 38 and my father was 28 when I was born... yes, my mum looked a lot younger than her age.

I never ever had any health problems,I think it comes down to genes, since my parents were always very healthy.

I'm older now, but I don't look my age and people don't think of me as old.
That might be because I don't feel old or act it.

I have no problems with my mother having me at that age and my grandma was around until I was 33, she died age 92.

My parents are gone now, my mum died age 86 and my dad at 81.

But I have known people whose parents died age 42, I think it's defiantly a genes thing.

[Yazoo]

Psssh! A 70 year old Indian woman gave birth to a baby girl in 2008. So, there you have it, she has to be the oldest woman to have a kid. And she didn't mind it, I think the daughter might later on. But still. It shouldn't matter about age of a woman or man. As long as that child is raised in a loving home. Honestly, here is the truth. I rather have a mother in her 50's and love me, and take care of me then a mother in her 30's abusing me. (Though some abuse. Just stating) Its not about age, it should be how the mother raises and treats her kids.

70 Year Old Gives Birth To A Baby Girl (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/12/09/mother.html) <---There you go :D

[ScentedCandles]

My mother gave birth to me when she was 42 and gave birth to my little sister when she was 45. We're both completely fine.

[Spitfire Mouse]

It should be said that older expectant moms, those who are 35+, generally have an amniocentesis during their pregnancy, generally around the 18th week or so. This means that the genome of the child can be seen, so if Down's syndrome (or other genetic anomalies) is present, the parents will know and then they can decide what they want to do. So, most parents who have proper prenatal care aren't surprised when they have a Down's child.



Depending on where you live and how up-to-date the medical group/Dr/facility is that you go to, amniocentesis is not the first line of testing for Down syndrome anymore which is great news for older or high risk moms. I am very fortunate to be a patient at a great medical group where I live in CO. Because I'm 38 I don't necessarily fall into the traditional high risk category (though it's close), but age is a factor for abnormalities. We were told about two options for early genetic testing, CVS or a new blood test. Both could be done as early as 10 weeks, however CVS carries a risk of miscarriage higher than that of amnio.

At 11 weeks, we opted for the blood test which is completely noninvasive and not only tests for trisomy 21 (Down), but for 18 and 13, too. Insurance companies aren't up to speed on the coverage for the test and it's not cheap, but we agreed that it was a small price to pay to know if there was anything wrong without putting the baby at risk. Thankfully, my results came back negative. If there had been any sort of anomaly detected, a second blood screening could be done or amnio would have been recommended, but we would have had to wait and wait for the amnio. We also found out I was the first patient in their practice to have the test done. I'm happy to have my stats contributed to the ongoing data collection. Hopefully, if the test gets FDA approval, it'll become the standard in early testing.



As to the actual topic at hand, I agree that if you're able and know the risks, you should have kids at whatever age suits your lifestyle. I know a lady who had her two girls at 40 and 43 and both are perfectly healthy.

[PhenethyaSim]

I personally have relativity young parents my mom was 24 when I was born however my Aunt was 38 with her first child 42 with her second. The older one is 99% normal as far as children only notable thing was she had some speech trouble. the second isn't actually the best example because he was adopted as an embryo. but either way I see nothing wrong with being an older mother.

I see plenty who are get a lot crap for it but I can't see why. My aunt is an wonderful mother plus because she waited till she was older she has a good job and more income than younger parents. So clearly there can be benefits to being older parents.

[maxon]

the second isn't actually the best example because he was adopted as an embryo.
The only thing relevant in this case is the age of the egg donor so, no, it isn't a good example.

The thing to say is that the older a mother is, the higher the risk of abnormality in their off-spring because of the age of their eggs. However, whatever age she is, the MAJORITY of children born to older mothers are healthy and just fine. There are even studies that (apparently) show that children of older mothers do better than average in life - higher IQs are observed and better social adjustment and educational achievement (I can find the references if anyone is interested). However, as with all research of this type, correlation is not causation and it is just as likely older mothers do better because they make, on the whole, a more active decision to have a child when they want one, because older people generally are better off financially, because older mothers tend to be middle class and well-educated and etc. etc. on any number of possible linked factors.

[VerDeTerre]

Depending on where you live and how up-to-date the medical group/Dr/facility is that you go to, amniocentesis is not the first line of testing for Down syndrome anymore which is great news for older or high risk moms. We were told about two options for early genetic testing, CVS or a new blood test. Both could be done as early as 10 weeks, however CVS carries a risk of miscarriage higher than that of amnio.

At 11 weeks, we opted for the blood test which is completely noninvasive and not only tests for trisomy 21 (Down), but for 18 and 13, too. If there had been any sort of anomaly detected, a second blood screening could be done or amnio would have been recommended, but we would have had to wait and wait for the amnio. We also found out I was the first patient in their practice to have the test done. I'm happy to have my stats contributed to the ongoing data collection. Hopefully, if the test gets FDA approval, it'll become the standard in early testing.

How reliable are the results? I've forgotten which test it was now, but I remember being faced with a non-invasive test a couple of months into pregnancy that was standard and indicated possible abnormalities. I remember the sense of stress I felt as this test approached and agonizing over the possibilities. The test was not all that reliable; it indicated a possible problem at best. For that reason and for all the worry it caused, I always wondered why doctors pushed it. It's great to make an informed decision, but what if you become one of those people who end a viable pregnancy of a healthy fetus based on a test that was just plain wrong? I supposed that test would have lead to more tests, but I wasn't thrilled with the idea of amnio either.

[whiterider]

I guess it depends on the precise inaccuracy risks of the test. If it's prone to false negatives, that'd be a serious problem. However, if it's prone to false positives but not to false negatives, I would certainly want to have it: if it's negative, that's fine, peace of mind, no more tests etc.; if it's positive, all it's saying is that you should have the more risky test which you would have had anyway had the blood test not been available.

[VerDeTerre]

False positives have led to terminations of pregnancy. When I was pregnant, I didn't know if I'd ever have another child. For all I knew, that was my one shot. It seemed like it had taken so long (it really hadn't, but it seemed like it had) to happen and, as it turned out, it was the only time I was able to conceive and carry a child. Dealing with the anguish of the question was so not worth it for me. In a case like considering a child that might suffer (spina bifida), I understand why it's done and that was one thing they were screening for. But Downs? Yes, Downs children are a lifetime of challenge but they are also a lifetime of reward. I'm trying to remember....I think the test could go either way but was more likely to give false positives than false negatives. Personally, I think it was a waste of time and it did more harm in the amount of worry and angst that it created. I'm sure the test doesn't cause as much concern for those who can afford to be cavalier with their pregnancies, the way doctors often seem to be ("Well...if you lose this baby"...Screw you, Doc! Your talking about my ONE and ONLY!!!!), but not for me. I'm not sure I would have had the riskier test either. I thought about it a lot and tried to frame a response in the even that it was recommended to me. I think that test just didn't do enough, which is why I asked about the accuracy of the newer one.

[whiterider]

If the test is known to give false positives, though, why would a termination be carried out without first doing one of the more accurate tests? Unless the other test(s) also gave a false positive, of course.

I do understand. And perhaps if your attitude was that you wouldn't terminate no matter what, then the test wasn't particularly useful. I'd say most mothers are in a quite different situation, though, where this test would be a useful tool.

[Spitfire Mouse]

How reliable are the results? I've forgotten which test it was now, but I remember being faced with a non-invasive test a couple of months into pregnancy that was standard and indicated possible abnormalities. I remember the sense of stress I felt as this test approached and agonizing over the possibilities. The test was not all that reliable; it indicated a possible problem at best. For that reason and for all the worry it caused, I always wondered why doctors pushed it. It's great to make an informed decision, but what if you become one of those people who end a viable pregnancy of a healthy fetus based on a test that was just plain wrong? I supposed that test would have lead to more tests, but I wasn't thrilled with the idea of amnio either.



My understanding of how the blood test works, as well as the other forms of testing (CVS and amnio) is that it's not a clear cut positive or negative. You're given a ratio of likelihood that your baby will have Down or the other Trisomies (eg. 1 in 30 is a low ratio meaning higher risk). For all intents and purposes, I was told my results were negative. However, I have my follow up appt. with my genetic counselor/perinatologist this week for my 18 week "marker" ultrasound (and to hopefully find out the sex of the baby!) and will get more detailed information about the blood test results.

The test I had was MaterniT21 Plus which from my understanding is as accurate as an amnio. Taking into consideration that not even amnios are 100% accurate and there is a possibility for false negatives AND false positives, we opted for the blood test simply because it was noninvasive and if results were unclear or gave me a low ratio there would still be plenty of time for further testing before any final decisions were made. I was almost a complete wreck waiting for the results to come back, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I think if there are any questions about the results of any test (blood, CVS, amnio or ultrasound) a good doctor will offer other testing options for clarification. But, parents have to keep in mind that no test is 100% accurate and won't pick up every possible variation of abnormalities. I'm a natural worrier, so even with everything going normally to this point, I worry every single day. Not to mention I'm waiting for my spina bifida results to come back and still have my "marker" ultrasound coming up. But, I feel very confident about the two Dr groups I'm with and that helps some with the worry. :)

I know there's another lab company out now (can't remember the name) that are offering the same kind of test as the MaterniT21 Plus (by Sequenom) which started last year. They're offering it at a lower price, but I'm sure that's marketing. Still, if these blood tests continue to prove to be as accurate as the more invasive tests, the hope is that they will become the standard first line test and be covered by insurance companies.

[VerDeTerre]

Spitfire, you're expecting now? Congratulations! You're in for a world of fun!

If those blood tests could replace the amnio with similar results it would be a great thing. While the odds are in your favor that it won't do any harm, it's pretty uncomfortable to feel that you may have put your baby at risk. I don't know. I was worried anyway throughout my pregnancy because I was told I had a high risk pregnancy. It turned out to be nothing and I had a healthy baby one week past my due date. Of course, I wanted as much information as seemed reasonable and safe prior to my baby's birth, but I think that one test was really just a source of fear and stress for me and didn't inform me at all. The blood test sounds better.

[Spitfire Mouse]

Spitfire, you're expecting now? Congratulations! You're in for a world of fun!

If those blood tests could replace the amnio with similar results it would be a great thing. While the odds are in your favor that it won't do any harm, it's pretty uncomfortable to feel that you may have put your baby at risk. I don't know. I was worried anyway throughout my pregnancy because I was told I had a high risk pregnancy. It turned out to be nothing and I had a healthy baby one week past my due date. Of course, I wanted as much information as seemed reasonable and safe prior to my baby's birth, but I think that one test was really just a source of fear and stress for me and didn't inform me at all. The blood test sounds better.

It's too bad your test caused you so much unnecessary worry. :( At least your baby was fine despite it all! And that's the real hope with these new tests on the market, to offer a noninvasive screening earlier so parents have more time to make decisions they feel necessary.

Yep, pregnant with my first and most likely my only. :) 18 weeks this week and so far all I can say is I'm overwhelmed on a regular basis with trying to get as much information about EVERYTHING! :lol: I knew I was going to have to have an amnio before I made my first Dr appointment simply because of my age. But, at that appt. when my Dr told me about the blood test and to schedule a counseling appointment just to hear all my options, I thought, blood test hands down. The idea of having the amnio didn't freak me out too much because I've know several women, my aunt included, who have had them and had no issues. But, as I've said, the waiting to be able to do the amnio I just couldn't handle and the blood test offered the same information much, much earlier with the possibility of not even needing the amnio later depending on the results. Definitely a win-win situation.

Knowing I have an elevated risk because of age makes me look at everything with a more critical eye. I'm looking into all kinds of organic and all natural products just to lower the risk of anything going wrong now and once the baby is born.

Then the rational side of my brain kicks in and says "You're nuts! Thousands of women in your shoes have healthy babies all the time and don't go overboard with this stuff." :rofl:

I do think if I were to have gotten pregnant even 5 years ago, I wouldn't be as anxious. But, these are the cards I was dealt so I'm playing them. I have to say it does put a major crimp in all our future travel plans. lol

[gulhare]

I think once you hit 40 you should consider adoption. The chance of your child having ANY mental disability is raised and it's also harder on the mother's body.
Of course, people have the right to do what they want.

Weeell, that is a fine sentiment if you live in a country that allows adoptions if either one of the parents are above 40. And there are plenty of children to adopt.
In sweden you cant. And there arent.

If its about the childs possible health issues, there are plenty of young mothers that should not be allowed to breed. If its about the possible death of a parent, then how do you prevent young parents from dying?

My fathers family carries Aspberger, Dyslexia, Multiple Sclerosis (yes I know its not "hereditary" in a medical sense, but you cant look at the numbers in my grandmothers family backward - forward and say it has nothing to do with genes). Yet both my grandfather and my grandmother were young parents.

Age has only a small inpact on what you get landed with. And today I read in the paper that older fathers equals longer lifespan in the child, especially if your grandfather also was older (and then a note that "older = 30-45" years of age), so maybe there are hidden benefits with older mothers as well. Who can tell?

To opt for only perfect parents to have children breathes very much of the days of Hitler. He didnt start his killing with disabled people for nothing.
Sweden had a "racial hygiene institute" at that time, we performed sterilizations on both "difficult" young women and on disabled men and women. That is not a good society.

[BlakeS5678]

Age has only a small inpact on what you get landed with. And today I read in the paper that older fathers equals longer lifespan in the child, especially if your grandfather also was older (and then a note that "older = 30-45" years of age), so maybe there are hidden benefits with older mothers as well. Who can tell?


It seems odd that being an older parent has benefits that younger parents don't, especially when everyone seems to think a "young parent" is the natural thing. After all, 14 and pregnant was a social norm for dozens of centuries before society started.

[iCad]

That's true, but the social norm is not necessarily indicative of what's best biologically speaking. Plus, it's a matter of perspective. At the time when 14-year-olds commonly married/reproduced, people generally didn't live much past their mid-40s or less, especially not if you weren't nobility with better nutrition and such. People were grandparents in their 30s. 65 was considered positively ancient, the way we look at 100-year-olds today. God only knows what people thought of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who died in her 80s in the early 1200s. People already thought she was of the devil, and I'm sure her extreme longevity for the time didn't help with THOSE rumors. So, if you can reasonably expect to die in your 40s (A concept we modern folk can't really wrap our heads around), of course you have to reproduce young.

But times have changed. Lifespans have changed. Nutrition levels have changed. Medicine has changed. Women stay fertile longer than they used to. In the developed world, the average person dies at about 72 now, last I heard. (Well, women, anyway. Men still don't live as long, thanks to y'all's lack of estrogen. ;) ) So, there's simply no need to be in a rush anymore, and society has changed to reflect that. And in the process, we've found that there are some drawbacks but also some benefits to later parenthood. Because we've had the opportunity to discover them. People even just 100 or 150 years ago just didn't have that opportunity.

[Saturnfly]

I see nothing wrong with older women having children. At least when they are 40+ they will be aware of any medical conditions that could be passed down to their children. Hopefully at that age they would also be financially secure, which is better for children. Of course, not if the child is going to be handed over to some nanny for the entirety of it's childhood.

I have two aunties (twins) who are only 7 years old and are both incredibly intelligent for their age. Of course my Grandad (their father) is nearing his 70's and has recently overcome several different cancers, so I think that would have been hard on them seeing him go through chemo and such.

Every side has its up & downs I guess.

[live2draw]

I wasn't sure if this would go in the Off Topic Discussion or the Debate Room so I finally decided to put it here.

The other day me and my friends were discussing older mothers. One of those friends mother had them when she was 45. And, another when their mother was 43.

So, what I ask of you is what are your views on older mothers.

-Note: I have no current stance on this debate. I'm Switzerland, if you will

My mom had me when she was 41, so I know a bit about older moms.

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all that I have an older mom. Actually my mom and I are very close, closer than some of my friends and their moms, who are closer in age than we are. (I'm 19, and my mom's 60 now) Most of my friends are jealous of our relationship, I can tell my mom anything, and we can have a in depth discussion, she listens to my opinions, and has no problem with me going places. I have no problems going out with my mom, she's actually kinda surprised that my friends and I enjoy being with her so much....yeah I love my mom :D
but the point I guess I'm tryna make is, it really doesn't matter the age difference between you and your mom, because it is possible to be really close with them despite the age gap. I know some people whose moms are close with them in age, but they're really awkward with each other. I guess it's just how you build the relationship....

[gulhare]

It seems odd that being an older parent has benefits that younger parents don't, especially when everyone seems to think a "young parent" is the natural thing. After all, 14 and pregnant was a social norm for dozens of centuries before society started.

-The father part (aparently published in "Proceedings of the national academy of sciences" whatever that is):
Telomers (?) in our DNA get shorter as we get older. With (according to this study) the exception of sperm. There it get longer with age instead, and then the child get longer telomers from the beginning. Longer telomers give longer "bodydecayprotection". And I didnt remember correctly, their notion of old was 30-54.

-14 and pregnant.
Im not so sure of that. Usually when they bring up the subject of sexual maturity (and how puberty hits younger and younger blah blah) they also tend to quote some german 1800-ish "maids in the countryside mature at around 19" stuff.
Maturity in women do have connection to how well fed they are, and Im sure there are other influences as well. Consider the amass of synthetic hormones we are exposed to these days. In plastic, in cosmetics, in furniture and in food among others.

I agree somewhat though, at 20 a woman in the stoneage probably had had a couple of children. Just as menopause happened around the same time as these days, so the woman of 45 could just as well still have her own infant in her lap as a grandchild :D
Western-european(/usa)-are-the-norm-persons think of family as just the 2 parents and their children, history and other cultures says otherwise. Stoneage cannot have been much different, particularly since 2 adults and a bunch of children is a tough survival feat when you have nothing but what you can make yourself.

To be an older single mother in our society, with no other family is probably not a good idea if you have health issues. Then again not very many resent being alive.

[M.M.A.A.]

I am glad I was born, and am not whining or anything... Just that... . I do wish I was born to younger parents because I would like to spend more time with my mother. We enjoy eachothers company and I worry about her health a lot. I do wish she were younger and so does she, so we might have time to do more things together, but we relish the time we have, nonetheless.

Me too. You see, I am the youngest-male-only- child. I have three sisters. My mom had me when she was 38. According to her, a woman cannot get pregnant after her early forties. The reasons why I wanted to be born for younger parents are so that:

a) I could have had a brother. I always wanted one. :cry:

b) I'm 17 and my parents are in their mid-50's, so, (apparently,) they could miss alot from my life. :cry:

My eldest sister is in her early 30's so my calculations should be correct. She had her first daughter at 25-26 yrs old. She's now probably 30-31 and is pregnant with triplets. (Hopefully they will be 2 males and 1 female, to balance the ratio!)

[agentclone]

My thoughts on this are that you probably shouldn't be having kids after about 45 due to the age you would be at when the child is just starting off their individual lives. I am the product of of older parents personally, and I can see them getting older now, and they are reasonably healthy for their age in my opinion.

I also don't think that methods of conception after the age of 40 should be anything other than natural, i.e. I don't believe in IVF for extending the potential fertility time for older parents. This would stop issues such as 55/70 year olds having children. Essentially having children at such an advanced age can be detrimental to the child as there is a high chance of illness/death prior to the child's age of independence.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

the way i see it is, physically, older mothers get the short end of the stick. but its in your later years that you really have patience, wisdom, and perspective in balance. old people dont rush a lot, and i think thats actually quite beneficial to a child, since while children like to bounce around a lot, they shouldnt be rushed to grow up. younger parents may be on a physically more capable level, but theyre still figuring themselves out, still learning to balance all the things they want to do with their lives and their children, and its tougher to raise another person along with developing and figuring out who you are. older parents already know who they are and have experience with situations that would scare the crap out of a younger parent, and can navigate such situations with minimal trauma to the child. older parents also know more about how they want to parent; they can look back on how their parents parented them, and pick and choose what they do and dont want to pass along. younger parents tend to panic more and automatically fall back on what their parents used to do, which may not be what they wanted to do at the time.
my mother is relatively healthy, but i live with her to help her out with the things shes having too much difficulty doing in her later years. as long as im alive, she will never be in a nursing home.
we're very close. we talk about anything and everything, and its a very good feeling to know that your mom understands you...really understands you. we talk about philosophy all the time, and i think because ive come to know and value her as a person aside from her just being my mother, it will be easier to let her go when her time comes.

i think, ideally, young adults would have children, but the elders of the family would raise them. that way the kid could have the best of both worlds; prime genetic material, and an optimal rearing environment.

[BlakeS5678]

I think, ideally, young adults would have children, but the elders of the family would raise them. That way the kid could have the best of both worlds; prime genetic material, and an optimal rearing environment.

Quite honestly, that's what happened to me. Due to extra "complications" of my parents' divorce I ended up living with my grandparents longer than expected, 13 YEARS longer to be exact. So, all in all, I would consider myself raised by my grandparents. I completely agree with you on that statement, I feel that if my mother was my grandmothers age I would have some complications that wouldn't be necessary. Not to say I'd rather not been born, but, there are risks for complications. I got all the intellectual side, and wisdom from my grandparents, and all the energy and spirit from my parents. I would visit my dad on weekends and my mom once a week. On the weekend I remember going hiking, fishing, swimming, you name it. All of these were semi rigorous activities I couldn't imagine my grandparents doing, (The're not crippled, just slower in their advanced age.) So, yeah, I would say I got the best of both worlds.

And, countries that make it a norm to live with both your parents and grandparents, I can honestly say they might be on to something.

[SimMegaptera]

One thing that sorta kinda hasn't been addressed yet, although someone touched on it earlier, is that bringing a kid with Down syndrome into the world isn't a tragedy! Congrats, you've got a kid and you love him. He'll need a little extra help in his upbringing and maybe his independence when he gets older, and he could have heart problems and a shortened lifespan. He could also be the awesomest kid who was ever born, and I hope anyone having a kid considers when they do the deed that their kid might not be 'perfect' or 'low maintenance' even without an identified disorder or abnormality.

[TheSimaniac]

There are many issues that can result from someone having and raising a child later in life, but then again there are an unfathomable number of other situations which will be just as difficult or even worse to have a child in. Economic situation, young age, being a carrier or sufferer of a genetic disease, and so on. I don't mean to say that things like this shouldn't be discussed when there are separate issues to be talked about instead. What I'm saying is that they're not separate issues. There are many things to consider when talking about whether or not a person 'should' be having children (such as if we can even say such a thing about others), age is just one of them and it can't be considered independently of the context. I'm sure most people would agree that after a certain point having children becomes more and more of a problem than it would be in otherwise identical circumstances, but it's how this weighs with/against other factors that determines if it's a good idea or not.

[gulhare]

i think, ideally, young adults would have children, but the elders of the family would raise them. that way the kid could have the best of both worlds; prime genetic material, and an optimal rearing environment.

You have no guarantee for "prime genetic material" just because you have young parents. You have better odds for not getting downs syndrome, true. But something like 70 or 80 % of all born with downs syndrome have mothers that are young. Because so far most people are young when they have children.

Making babies is very much a gamble. You might get lucky, you might not. Some things are affected by age, but maybe that egg is absolutely perfect even if the mother is 45! And there goes the one absolutely perfect sperm from a 45 year old father. Woohoo :giggler:

SimMegaptera
I know and I agree.

[ella_in_wonderland]

My mum had me at 37, and my brother at 40 and she does often talk to me about how she wants me to "have babies early" (her favorite speech besides "marry a rich man!") because she says she's always tired and is too old etc. etc. (She's almost 54 now - which isn't actuallt that old, Mum). But she's the best mom ever and works extremely hard for us :) I can understand how having a baby later in life could have a few negative impacts, however I believe it is every woman's right to have a baby at whatever age she wants, and as long as she's a good person she'll be a wonderful mother

[M.M.A.A.]

First of all, the topic of this thread should be changed to 'older parents' rather than moms, because, look at me, from my father's side, most of my uncles and aunts are dead already (rest their souls). I only have two uncles alive, one who never got married and the other only has two kids, which are way older than me. My aunt, passed away, had children of her own and are already older than me. In conclusion, I am 17 and am the youngest grandchild to my father's parents!

However, my father can't seem to remember what happened to the rest of my uncles or aunts, except for one, other than my aunt mentioned above, who passed away before I was born.

My problem here is that, its not that my parents were planning on having children at a later date, it is that I was born at a later date (my mom was 38 then), since my eldest sister was born when my parents where probably in their mid 20's, late 20's.

[picass0blue]

To be honest, I don't think there's any strong reasoning not to have kids while you're still biologically capable of producing them. My parents were older when they had me and my brother. I can't recall exactly how old, because I've never really kept track of their age (it's of no symbolic importance in our family, but for the sake of argument I'm now 19, and my bro's 15; my father would be in his early sixties now - my mother's in her fifties). We benefited from the extra maturity of our parents, who had been planning/trying to have kids for seven years before I was born - they'd also been married for ages beforehand. Growing up, we lived far from most of our relatives (on my mum's side - Dad's side had been pretty bare his whole life), but we were not disadvantaged by age. We saw a lot of my nan (who was young when she had my mother) as she travelled to see us every year, and occasionally my uncles (who are six and twelve years younger than my mum). I only have one cousin, and he's my age so it all worked out fine. Personally I'm glad I was born when I was - if I hadn't been, I wouldn't have had any cousins my age and I might've been a lot older than my brother because my parents had trouble conceiving. Admittedly, my father passed away two years ago, but it was due to an accident and therefore does not prove that things would've been different had we been older - likewise, my nan has been suffering the effects of old age over the past year or so, but up until then was very healthy (she's in her early eighties!), and her sister is older still and quite healthy. I don't think it's the age - it's the people. I can understand genetic history and personality characteristics having an effect on the age people choose to have kids, but other people's judgement isn't relevant here. Me and my brother are equally healthy compared to our one cousin, in fact, very similar people, and his parents are well over a decade younger than ours.

[M.M.A.A.]

There is one possible reason/advantage as to why some parents tend to have (more) children at a later age, and I'm not saying that your parents did so for the reason I will be stating now.

Some couples face problems where their love is no longer as strong as it used to be. Having a another child together can be one way of strengthening the relationship. Each one of the parents sees the other being/trying to be a good parent to this new child, which gives a better image of the parent. as seen by each other. Happiness is the key here.

I also read an article about Hallie Barry. She's pregnant and i close to 50, but she said getting pregnant and having children at a late age was because she felt more experienced in life.

[crocobaura]

Sometimes people just realize that when they were young they did not have time to really enjoy being parents so, once they reach their 40s, they have more kids. I know a lot of couples like this, it's like they make sure the house won't be empty once the older kid/s go away to college or move out on their own.

[GabyBee]

I don't have a problem with it in terms of increased risk of _________ or whatever. Every pregnancy has an inherent risk for some type of genetic defect, no matter what age.

The only "problem" I would possibly have with people having kids older in life is that when their children are in their teenage years the parents may not be able to keep up with them either mentally or physically. I had a friend in high school whose parents had him when they were in their 50s. It wasn't a planned pregnancy. They already had two kids, who were in their 30s by the time he was a teenager. I remember meeting them and they seemed more like grandparents than parents when we were in high school. They were perfectly nice and all that, and wonderful people, but I always got the impression that they really struggled to deal with raising a teenager when they were in their 70s, perhaps significantly more so than a parent in their 40s or 50s.

Obviously it is always up to the parents at what age they decide to start a family, but as with raising any child there's always the collateral issues to think about that have way more to do with a barely higher rate of genetic defects. I guess it comes down to a list of pros and cons and seeing which side wins out.

[Spitfire Mouse]

a barely higher rate of genetic defects.

While you are correct that every pregnancy has a risk of genetic defects, you are completely wrong about a "barely higher rate" in terms of maternal age.

By the time a woman hits 35, the chances of possible genetic defects goes up considerably. After that the numbers start to increase rapidly and not just for Down syndrome. And I believe that once a woman hits 45, the chances of Down syndrome increases to more than a 50% possibility.

It's definitely something to consider if a woman is wanting to become pregnant at a later age. It shouldn't discourage anyone though. ;)

[maxon]

By the time a woman hits 35, the chances of possible genetic defects goes up considerably. After that the numbers start to increase rapidly and not just for Downs syndrome. And I believe that once a woman hits 45, the chances of Down syndrome increases to more than a 50% possibility.
This is incorrect - at the age of 35 the chance of Downs is not agreed, of course, but seems to be about 1 in 350-90 in the papers I have looked at. At 45, it seems to be about 1 in 30. Considerably higher, of course, but not 50-50.

[GabyBee]

My younger brother has Down's Syndrome and my mother is a doctor. I can't quote you hard numbers, but trust me... the topic is not at all unfamiliar to me.

[Spitfire Mouse]

I'm simply stating what I've read as well as what my perinatologist went over with us. There is higher risk as the mother's age increases, though there are a lot of factors that have to be looked at as well.

The numbers may vary from study to study and year to year, but I'm not going to sit and say that my Drs are wrong.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, plenty of us know of women who have had perfectly healthy babies past what would be considered the "standard" age of motherhood.

[Roseblossom90]

As many have said, it should be whether or not the parent(s) of the child are able and willing to deal the potential health and/mental problems as well as everyday the everyday struggles of raising a child.

All of the children born in the last three generations of my family were born to young parents, my sister having one child at 18 and ready to go into labor any day at the age of 20 and myself having my first child at 21 and being pregnant with my second which will be born while I am 22. My mother had me at 19 and my sister at 21 as well as a stillborn son at 23. The reason I am telling you this is because, even though my mother was young, there was a 50/50 risk of passing on a genetic defect (Marfan Syndrome) to each of her children. I inherited it but my sister did not. I have the same risk of passing it down to my children. But we knew the risks, both to ourselves and our children and knew that we would be able to handle the physical as well as mental responsibilities associated with having children with this syndrome. In the end the stress placed on her heart from the pregnancies cost my mother her life but she knew that her family would take care of my sister and me, the same as I know if something should happen to me, my family would care for my two children. After this child is born, if the doctors say that it is unwise to have another child due to my personal health, then there will be no more biological children. The fact that Marfan Syndrome could be passed down to my children didn't hinder me having children because in the end they are children and a blessing no matter if they are deemed 'imperfect' by the world.

As far as unplanned pregnancies in older mothers, if they decide to keep the children I think that it is great. Sure there is the increased risk of health issues in the child, and as Phoeberg said, the mortality of the parents that would come into question, there is still a child that (hopefully) will be loved and cherished the same as if the parents were in the early thirties. I think the child would be better off with loving parents for a short while instead of not being born at all. Or, as some have mentioned, there is adoption, not only being adopted into the older mother's home, but being adopted out into a home with younger parents. As long as the child is loved and taken care of to the best of the parents' ability I don't see the problem with it.

Besides, there are a lot worse things that a mother could do to their child, born or unborn, than being of 'advanced maternal age'. In the world that we live in today I think being a little older when a woman has a baby is the least of our worries.