Is becoming a mother when you're 50 such a bad thing?

emmabrighton

3 babies a week in the UK are born to women in their 50s

Lifted straight from a Daily Fail article but I am not sure it is as horrendous as it sounds. My mother was 40 when she had me 30 years ago. My sister is 46 having her second child and there is absolutely no comparison between her ability to provide her her children and my ability.

I am still renting, she no longer has a mortgage.

I have to work 5 days a week, she is working part time 3 days per week.

Her son attends creche 2 days per week, goes to 3 different types of classes the days she is at home and is fed only the best that can be bought. She can afford to bring her son on foreign holidays and no doubt will carry on in the same vein with the next miracle.

She worked diligently for 30 years, saved and now gets to reap the rewards. She has plenty of time to lavish on her son and give him one on one special care and attention. She did not return to work at 6 months but stayed home with her little one for 11 months.

Her little fella is the picture of perfection, no developmental issues having been born to an older mother...

In contrast, people my age and younger are away much of the day working to provide for their children so do not get the same time to bond. So, I wonder, is it such a bad thing having children later in life and having your life in order before introducing a new life into the world?

What do you reckon?

Aongus Von Bismarck

I think having a child in your 50s is lunacy. Its a selfish move also.

By the time the child is doing their leaving cert you'd be a geriatric. There's a good chance you won't be around for their wedding day, the birth of their children etc.

Ihatecuddles

Is this about older mothers or working mothers??

Gatling

Certainly not in favor of women in there 50's having assisted pregnancies ,
Another fashion fad I believe ,ohh look this celeb is having a ivf baby quick everyone over 50 get to a clinic

anncoates

Wouldn't begrudge anybody having a child as it's their business and I know how important it is to people but any trend toward far later births is a bit risky. There's a far higher chance of birth defects and a higher chance of you passing away when your kids are young, albeit adults, but still quite young.

Assisted pregnancies that late just to get a nest egg put away or your mortgage paid off sounds like something some of the crackpots in here (with their youthful insistence that they'll never have a kid until they have guaranteed 30 years high future income) would come out with.

ameee

Dont think its a bad thing as such if you still have the energy. Realistically the statistics show the older you are giving birth the higher the risks of the baby having problems but then again your never guaranteed all will be well with a pregnancy at any age.

I think the one bad thing is your much less likely to be around for your child for as long as say someone in their twenties or thirtys and that is sad but again tomorrow is promised to nobody. There are pros and cons I dont think people should purposefully wait that long but if thats the way things work out and you only meet 'the one' later in life why should you be denied the chance of being a parent.

dodderangler

People still have sex in their 50s??
Jayzuz heard it all now.

josip

It's each individual's choice at the end of the day.
I would have preferred to have kids at 25 rather than 35.
I definitely wouldn't relish the idea of having kids at 50.
But I would prefer to have kids at 50 than not having them at all.

everdead.ie

Don't see the problem other than isn't it supposed to be more common to have issues during pregnancy as you get older?

emmabrighton

Well, my thinking is that people live longer now than they did 100 years ago, even 50 years ago

*quick google search*

1960 - life expectancy was 71
2012 - life expectancy was 83

So having a child later does not necessarily mean that you will be dead by the time they graduate college

Also, no guarantees that if you have a child at 25 you won't have an aneurysm when they're 10.

As for the working mothers thing... I am making 2 assumptions:
1) most mothers need to work full time these days
2) the older you are, the more time you will have been working and the more savings you will have..

rainbow kirby

My worries in that kind of case would be regarding Downs and other issues for the baby (very high risk after 45!), and whether the mother has the energy to cope with a small child at that age!

Even given all the mitigating financial circumstances of having them later, I would still rather have my future children in my 30s than wait until much later. That would be my choice though, I'm not the Reproductive Police.

seamus

It's definitely a much bigger deal than having kids in your 20s or 30s, but it's all about whether you can care for the child. A physically able and financially stable 50 year old is better placed to have a child than an unemployed 20 year old.

If the person in their 50s believes that they have the capacity to do it, then off you go.

The whole death question exists, but most people now don't even need a hint of extra care until they're well into their seventies. Yes, there's an increased chance that you will die and leave a child needing care, but every parent regardless of age should make plans for this possibility.

Don't forget that plenty of grandparents step into the primary carer role in their 60s or even 70s because their grandchild's parent has died or become a junkie or whatever. The age of the primary carer is largely irrelevant to the child's outcome. The stability and love they have is key. All parents die eventually, and practically all parents want to die before their children. While it's tougher on a younger adult to suddenly lose that parental figure when they may not have stability yet themselves, they're still an adult and it's not emotionally easier to lose your parent at 28 than it is at 18.

Micky Dolenz

See no issue with it personally.

The kid would be in their 20's when the Mum is in her 70's.

Alf. A. Male

Some young parents are useless, some older parents are too. Some parents die young, some older ones live to see their kids grown, some don't. And yadda yadda. Leave 'em all to it and good luck to them.

josip

emmabrighton wrote: »

Well, my thinking is that people live longer now than they did 100 years ago, even 50 years ago

*quick google search*

1960 - life expectancy was 71
2012 - life expectancy was 83

...

Are life expectancy figures usually quoted for a person born in that year or are they the average age of all the people who died in that year?

I always understood it to be the former.

ncmc

I think socially it’s less of an issue than it was say 50 years ago, life expectancy is longer and also quality of life is better for longer than it would have been 50 years ago so most of us would hope and expect to be fit and healthy well into our 70’s and even 80’s.

However, you can’t argue with biology and the fact is that pregnancy is much higher risk the older the woman gets – both for the mother and the baby. There is a much higher chance of birth defects or abnormalities, all the money or security in the world won’t change that fact.

But at the end of the day, I’m sure most older parents are only too aware of this fact and I’m sure it’s not a decision that is entered into lightly. I wouldn’t agree with someone deliberately putting off having a child at that age, but sometimes circumstances conspire against a person and they aren’t in a position to have children earlier.

Akrasia

josip wrote: »

Are life expectancy figures usually quoted for a person born in that year or are they the average age of all the people who died in that year?

I always understood it to be the former.

It's a bit complicated because infant mortality statistics complicate things.
If infant mortality is high, everyone who lives past early childhood is statistically likely to outlive the average life expectancy for their region because they've already survived risky part of life that would have significantly dragged the average down.

If infant mortality is low, then the effect is not so noticable. I suspect that between the 60s and 2012, infant mortality statistics improved very significantly, so people born in 1960 who are still alive today, are likely to outlive the life expectancy of that time.

Akrasia

Regarding women having children in their 50s. My biggest objection is that they might not have the energy to deal with a newborn and a toddler at 50, and are going to struggle with a teenager when they're in their 60s.

Gran Hermano

Kid's 40th Birthday party will be worth looking forward to.
The crack would be 90

ncmc

Akrasia wrote: »

Regarding women having children in their 50s. My biggest objection is that they might not have the energy to deal with a newborn and a toddler at 50, and are going to struggle with a teenager when they're in their 60s.

Again though, this very much comes down to each set of parents, I know some very fit, healthy people in their 50’s and 60’s who wouldn’t have too much hassle running after kids and likewise some fat lazy lumps in their 20’s who would be out of breath after walking up the stairs. Youth is definitely no guarantee of health or fitness.

eviltwin

There is a reason why women go through the menopause in their 40's/50's, its not so much the impact of an older mother but for each of those women who have a baby how many more go through the trauma of a miscarriage or stillbirth?

If it happens naturally, which would be rare, then they should get all the help they need but I don't agree with older parents of either gender being offered IVF or adoption of young children.

anncoates

ncmc wrote: »

Again though, this very much comes down to each set of parents, I know some very fit, healthy people in their 50’s and 60’s who wouldn’t have too much hassle running after kids and likewise some fat lazy lumps in their 20’s who would be out of breath after walking up the stairs. Youth is definitely no guarantee of health or fitness.

To be fair, most people don't fall into the very fit category so it's not useful predicating on that. I had my kids in my late 30s and I'm not that bad fitness wise - still play football and am active with the kids- but I still have far less energy than I did even 10 years ago.

ncmc

anncoates wrote: »

To be fair, most people don't fall into the very fit category so it's not useful predicating on that. I had my kids in my late 30s and I'm not that bad fitness wise - still play football and am active with the kids- but I still have far less energy than I did even 10 years ago.

I didn't mean the superfit 50/60 year olds, I more meant with the growing levels of obesity, it's reckoned that for the first time, life expectancy could actually start to decrease. I wouldn't think it's a big stretch to say that there are a lot of 50/60 year olds that have the same or more energy than the current crop of people in their late teens/early 20's.

Adamantium

I'm not addressing the argument, but going off on a tangent

But I live in a rural location, where practically everyone (my age) in their early 20's is having a child, who didn't go to college (This is my pure ancedotal evidence, but it is very noticeable)

And there the least likely people who probably should be parents, I've no problem with somebody who tried and tried and really wanted a child, but couldn't do so for years, as they're likely to be wiser and more worldly, and the child would be delighted to have those people as parents, even though they might be older.

My brother and I are those children. My Mum was nearing 40, for both of us

The father is equal a parent as well you know

Sleepy

As long as they're not expecting the state to support their lifestyle choices I've no issues with it.

Gatling

Sleepy wrote: »

As long as they're not expecting the state to support their lifestyle choices I've no issues with it.

They could be asking the state to fund fertility treatments on a medical card

Teyla Emmagan

This'll be me, the rate I'm going at.

Honestly though, if you're healthy I see no issue. Older mums have time on their hands, are settled in their lives/careers, have more financial security, know what they want (i.e. are more likely to VERY much want this child), and are very focused on their parenting approach. There's studies that show that they're more likely to be more intelligent than younger mothers as well, from I can remember.

Personally, the idea of having a child at 50 would fill me with horror.
Horror I tells yiz.

Id prefer grandchildren. That way I can hand them back

Sleepy

Gatling wrote: »

They could be asking the state to fund fertility treatments on a medical card

And that's exactly the point at which I object to it...

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

And that's exactly the point at which I object to it...

Neh....I'm on the fence about that bit. The main issue for me is that you couldn't discriminate. So if a fit and healthy 50 year old woman can get state-funded fertility treatment, then you'd have to provide the same funding to the 30-fags-a-day, wheezing and obese 50-year-old who can barely look after her own daily needs, never mind a child's. I don't object to the former, I do object to the latter. But legally you wouldn't be allowed discriminate.

I would like to see adoption opened up to parents up to 55 though. Because then you can discriminate and only allow strong and healthy older people to adopt.

Or perhaps some kind of sliding age scale. So up to age 45 you can adopt newborns. 45-50 you can adopt any child older than 4 (i.e. school-going age) and from 50-55 you can only adopt a child over 12 (i.e. secondary school-going age). Or something like that.

Ablehnen

My first child wad born when I was 25 and the second at 29 a few months ago. There is no way in hell I would want to be having more at 50. If I have another kid the very oldest I'd have it would be 33 or 34. No way do I want more kids after that.

131spanner

It's obviously a persons own choice, and if that's what you want then best of luck with it.

In my own opinion, I wouldn't really like the idea of it. I'm almost 21 and my parents are 49 and 50. I've a lot in common with them and I share a lot of interests with the auld fella, a lot of which we wouldn't be able to do together if he was 70 or older.

BetterThanThou

I think the main issue with having children that age is not being able to guarantee good health to look after them until they're able to look after themselves. My grandmother is 68 years old, and recently went into a nursing home. When she was 50, she was in pretty much perfect health, other than having asthma, which she'd suffered from since she was a child. Her health started declining probably around 7 years ago, and she's been unable to look after herself the last 5 years or so. Had she had a child when she was 50, that child likely would have had to go live with someone else, and wouldn't have a mother to support them through college. That said, I've seen some 68 year olds in great health, but it's not uncommon to see a 68 year old who's in terrible health. So for that reason, I think mid 40s should be the absolute latest that someone has a kid, and even that's too old if you ask me.

Tasden

I had a child when I was still in my teens and I hate when people make assumptions about my abilities as a parent based on my age so it would be hypocritical of me to do the same. However medically speaking the chances of difficulties with the pregnancy are higher as far as I know so it wouldn't exactly be ideal.

Ablehnen

Tasden wrote: »

I had a child when I was still in my teens and I hate when people make assumptions about my abilities as a parent based on my age so it would be hypocritical of me to do the same. However medically speaking the chances of difficulties with the pregnancy are higher as far as I know so it wouldn't exactly be ideal.

Having kids young tends to mature people faster as well I find.

Chucken

Jake1 wrote: »

Personally, the idea of having a child at 50 would fill me with horror.
Horror I tells yiz.

Id prefer grandchildren. That way I can hand them back

Same here! I had both my children by the time I was 21, we grew up together
I'll be 50 this year
Our little grandson is 16 months now and there is no way I'd have the energy to keep up with him 24/7.
Jeez, I haven't the energy to keep up with a kitten 24/7

My own opinion is that having a child at 50 is insanity.

My own Nana used to say about us grandkids : ' I love to see you all coming, but I love to see you all leaving ' .

Neyite

Gatling wrote: »

They could be asking the state to fund fertility treatments on a medical card

By the time you get to the top of the waiting list for FT on a medical card, you might be in your 50's with the waiting lists in the HSE.

I'm an older mum - had my son at 37 and now 39 hope to have one, maybe two more. I never chose to wait, it just so happened that by the time I met my partner, knew he was a keeper and that he felt the same, and we were secure enough to try for our family, I was 34. Then came a couple of years of infertilty, then a baby, and 2 years on from that, still trying. I think I'd stop trying in my early forties though. But that is me personally.

eviltwin

Think it depends on your current position, if you already have kids the idea of having to go through the whole thing again in your 50's is horrific. If you haven't been able to have any and its your dream to be a parent you'll probably be more inclined to try, you have nothing to compare it to. I feel too old now to have more kids and I'm "only" 37, I think if it happened I'd cope but I've changed enough nappies now at this stage. Time to start enjoying my life.

Graces7

son and daughter in law of a friend in the us were going to get the baby they found themselves expecting adopted out as she said that at 46 she was too old to start a family.

my friend said she would care for the baby so that is what she did. took the baby every day until the parents were home from work

child is 7 now and it has worked fine,,, extended family is great and far better than creche or other childcare... granny is nearly 70 now .

Chazz Michael Michaels

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I think having a child in your 50s is lunacy. Its a selfish move also.

By the time the child is doing their leaving cert you'd be a geriatric. There's a good chance you won't be around for their wedding day, the birth of their children etc.

Completely ignoring recent trends in life expectancy, quality of life improvements, predictions about future medical techniques, etc.

jester77

It wouldn't be for me. The thought of being a pensioner when kids are still in secondary school is not appealing at all. And if they then go to Uni, you would want to have a public service pension to fund the costs.

Birroc

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

See no issue with it personally.

The kid would be in their 20's when the Mum is in her 70's.

Isn't there a higher risk of pregnancy issues and health problems (for both) if the mother is over 40 never mind 50?

Akrasia

jester77 wrote: »

It wouldn't be for me. The thought of being a pensioner when kids are still in secondary school is not appealing at all. And if they then go to Uni, you would want to have a public service pension to fund the costs.

I wouldn't worry about being a pensioner at 68. They'll keep us working well into our 70s

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

Yes, there's an increased chance that you will die and leave a child needing care, but every parent regardless of age should make plans for this possibility.

Roll back the clock to before modern hygiene and medicine and mortality was pretty high. Lots of women died in childbirth too.

kowloon

Working couples are really common now, you could argue that having a child and not having a parent at home is less than ideal. By 50 there's a much greater chance of having the financial stability to have a parent at home. On the other hand, a friend of mine's girlfriend had an aged father who was confined to a chair and was asleep the majority of the time, it made for a pretty miserable home life. A 50 year old mother might be too old to see her grandchildren, even with increases in life expectancy. My folks had me pretty young, I got to meet all my grandparents, and my folks are still alive, I can't begin imagine how tough it would be to lose a parent as a child or to never meet your grandparents.

Sleepy

seamus wrote: »

Neh....I'm on the fence about that bit. The main issue for me is that you couldn't discriminate. So if a fit and healthy 50 year old woman can get state-funded fertility treatment, then you'd have to provide the same funding to the 30-fags-a-day, wheezing and obese 50-year-old who can barely look after her own daily needs, never mind a child's. I don't object to the former, I do object to the latter. But legally you wouldn't be allowed discriminate.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't agree with it being state-funded in either case.

Providing things like fertility treatment, cosmetic dental work etc. which are essentially lifestyle choices under the public system seems perverse to me when it can't currently cope with the medical problems of patients in a timely fashion.

Muise...

I think not even public sector workers, bankers, developers and politicians combined, are subject to such judgement as mothers. All mothers - young, old, single, married, breast-feeding, bottle-feeding, working, stay-at-home - just because everyone had a mother does not make everyone an expert. I haven't had children, for my own reasons which are my own business, but I'd imagine the crying and sleeplessness must be heaven compared to the whole world telling you you're doing it wrong.

ncmc

Muise... wrote: »

I think not even public sector workers, bankers, developers and politicians combined, are subject to such judgement as mothers. All mothers - young, old, single, married, breast-feeding, bottle-feeding, working, stay-at-home - just because everyone had a mother does not make everyone an expert. I haven't had children, for my own reasons which are my own business, but I'd imagine the crying and sleeplessness must be heaven compared to the whole world telling you you're doing it wrong.

Totally agree with this, I'm pregnant with my first at the age of 34 (we were married 10 years before becoming pregnant) and the amount of people that feel it's acceptable to question and badger you on your reproductive choices is incredible. Then when you are pregnant, it's open season, some people think they can say whatever they like to you (at what other time of your life would you have people coming up to you and saying "jesus you're huge") and are always on hand with an unasked for opinions. I can only imagine it will be ten times worse when the baby arrives and then I expect the "when are you going to give them a brother/sister" will start.

Here's an idea, how about everyone just minds their own business. I don't agree with it being funded by public health care when the system is in such disarray, but my attitude is if two consenting adults decide they want a child late in life, then it's no ones business but their own.