When is it too old to have a baby?

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Dolbert

I think it's naïve to place the responsibility squarely on women. Most women are acutely aware that fertility declines after 35. IME you're more likely to find 30-something men saying they'd like 3+ kids without considering that they'd need to be starting *now*, given their partner's age, time taken to conceive and spacing between pregnancies. Couples need to sit down and have these conversations about realistic timelines, unromantic as it may seem!

eviltwin

It doesn't matter when you have kids, people will always have something to say. You're too old, too young, not long enough together, not stable enough, don't have enough room, enough money, have too many kids.....

Do what's right for you and feck the begrudgers

Rubberlegs

I had my youngest a couple of months before turning 39, and with a considerable age gap between her and my last child. I do not regret her for one minute and am thoroughly enjoying getting to experience it all again. I'm back down at the school again after a long time of not having to walk a child to and from school, and I love it:). But , oh Jesus, I am permanently exhausted! Whereas my other kids ate well, slept well etc, this little one only started to sleep through at 3.5 yrs, and dinner time is a nightmare. I definitely have less energy than I did in my 20s, my sleep pattern is still messed up from all the broken nights sleep. Needless to say there are no more little Cats on the cards. However, I know if I hadn't had any children at all by my late 30s/early 40s, I would want them. I fully understand women of this age having their first child. If you are healthy, and this is what you want, go for it.

JupiterKid

With IVF and egg implantation technology a small number of women have been having babies in their 50s/60s? Is this right? Are there ethical issues involved?

I'm a 41 year old gay man so these issues are very unlikely to affect me directly and I have not completely ruled out adoption but I do think I'm getting a bit too old to raise small children. They take a lot of time, money and energy.

My cousin in the UK became a father at 48 and is over the moon but there does reach a point where you have to seriously question having children in middle age.

I really think there should be generous State supports (free child care) for younger couples who want children.

seenitall

JupiterKid wrote: »

With IVF and egg implantation technology a small number of women have been having babies in their 50s/60s? Is this right? Are there ethical issues involved?

I think you mean egg donation, not implantation.

It is no more or less right or ethical than men in their 50s or 60s having babies. Yet no one seems to care about that so much, do they ? The same way you often find Ulrika Jonsson or Sinead O'Connor being called 4-by-4s (well at least a friend of mind did, and he didn't lick it off a stone) but I have never heard or read of Rod Stewart or Mick Jagger being called 7-by-4 or 8-by-5 or whatever number they're on at this stage!

Attitudes to reproduction, same as ones to sex, are still riddled with double standards.

DSN

I had our 3rd after 7 year gap at age 43 (other half same) . She's 3 months and we all love her to pieces & really enjoying it! I Was dreading the sleepless nights & the feeding etc and yeh first few weeks were tough (no worse than the older two tho!) but she's a dream now. I know it's early days & yeh am conscious of being older. But I consider us so lucky to have our little surprise & we both so much more relaxed there was only 21 months between our first 2 - it was mad!!!
PS- I would have als said 40 was my cut off point before this!!!

JupiterKid

seenitall wrote: »

I think you mean egg donation, not implantation.

It is no more or less right or ethical than men in their 50s or 60s having babies. Yet no one seems to care about that so much, do they ? The same way you often find Ulrika Jonsson or Sinead O'Connor being called 4-by-4s (well at least a friend of mind did, and he didn't lick it off a stone) but I have never heard or read of Rod Stewart or Mick Jagger being called 7-by-4 or 8-by-5 or whatever number they're on at this stage!

Attitudes to reproduction, same as ones to sex, are still riddled with double standards.

True - I find the fact that older men like rock stars and business moguls fathering kids in their 60s and 70s to be just a little preposterous.

But each to their own I suppose. Would you consider 41 too old to father a child? Just wondering...

seenitall

JupiterKid wrote: »

Would you consider 41 too old to father a child? Just wondering...

No, I wouldn't. On the whole, people are living ever longer, and are leading ever healthier lives. I am 42 and if my life circumstances were in my favour (i.e. a stable relationship) I would have another child in a heartbeat. But they are not, so I am not going to.

Plus I don't feel it is my place to judge either Mick Jagger or Geri Halliwell or anyone who aspires to do what they are doing. As long as they can be reasonably confident (to the extent that anyone can be in this life!) that the child will be well loved and looked after.

wakka12

Whatever about naturally being able to have a baby I think having a child(adopted,IVF,surrogate whatever it be..) once you're over 50 is unfair to the child. By the time theyre just turning an adult you're the age of the average 18 year olds grand parents. You wont get to be around for a lot of big moments in their lives and they'll miss out on a lot of things than only young physically fit parents can give when the kids are very young, running around playing with them etc

seenitall

No, we are healthier and living longer than ever. For someone born in the first half of the 20th century, life expectancy was in their seventies. For people born in the second half of it, it is more like their eighties. I'll take that !

Atomicjuicer0

Heres the problem. I know for a fact that I couldn't deal with downs syndrome (I know a father who just left his wife when their child was born with it).

But I believe life starts at conception (the only scientific starting point regardless of political influence) and so scanning would be pointless because I believe it would be immoral to choose to end that life.

So for me, risking the health of a child is immoral and wikipedia shows the curve swooping up for downs syndrome from 36 onwards.

Having a first child after that is playing dice with people's lives and should be strongly discouraged.

It's sad I agree but people have to educate themselves on the limits of healthy human biology. Or be prepared to deal with increasingly likely hardships of a serious nature.

cbyrd

This is true of young people too. My Aunt died 3 years after her youngest was born, her eldest was 7, just before her communion ... If you look at any cancer treatment unit you'll find lots of younger patients too.
Disabled people can't run around with their kids either, or people with MS,
Being older, doesn't automatically mean your out of touch or going to die before they hit a lot of milestones.

I love this idyllic vision people have of sunny days in playgrounds or beaches or hiking that only younger parents can enjoy with their kids, the reality is more likely to be getting in from work, knackered get them fed and try to chat through homework while catching up on housework and trying not to fall asleep reading bedtime stories and huge sighs if relief when they're asleep.
There are active grandparents all over this country are bringing up their grandchildren as their minders. I know plenty of these people. They have no problem keeping up with the kids.
You make it sound like people in their 60's or 70's can't walk never mind parent a 20 or 30 year old.

My best friend is 63, she minds 4 of her grandchildren daily. 2 of them live with her (parents sold their house and are building next door, so moved in to help with the expense). Her husband has just retired, he's now looking after them full time cos she's jetted to Australia for 3 months to help her daughter who's pregnant with her second baby and suffers with hellp syndrome.

Wibbs

seenitall wrote: »

Attitudes to reproduction, same as ones to sex, are still riddled with double standards.

The main difference being - and this is inescapable - human gender biology is the arbiter. We can't just claim ownership of gender biology when it suits. The simple biological fact is men as a gender can and do naturally have children into old age*. This is Mother Nature's "double standard" I'm afraid. Just as it's Mother Nature's double standard that in the history of our species far fewer men reproduced than women(male genetic lines are much narrower than female). It might be very crudely put thusly; men are the more disposable gender(women and children first!), women are the more perishable.

One can also argue that the sexual double standard you mention also has or had a biological and evolutionary background too. We're standouts among the other great apes there also(QV * below). At some point in our history women evolved "hidden fertility". Other great apes positively display oestrus and have more set mating and fertility periods, we don't. While there are some fascinating suggestions that subconsciously men can spot such signals(EG women strippers tend to get more tips and requests if they're not on the pill), in general men can't tell if a woman is fertile or not(outside of obvious menses). Even women's breasts are outliers. A Page 3 photo(showing my age ) would turn a chimp right off as it would mean for them the woman is nursing and sub fertile. Flat chested and wizened would rev their engines. This guessing game from the point of view of men was clearly positively selected for. Indeed such mysteries of fertility are found among some of the earliest/more "primitive" religions and that the keepers of such mysteries are women. Primarily male focused religions come later(and still have echoes. Virgin Mary anyone?). In essence a man until modern science nailed it down could never be sure he was the father, a woman may not know exactly who the father was, but is never in doubt that she's the mother. This made women who were virgins or less (publicly)promiscuous the better male bet genetically speaking. It also made her less likely to suffer from STD's as the male female transmission vector is stronger. Obviously it's more nuanced than that over times and cultures, but that would be the gneral gist of things.

Which begs another question… Medical science and contraception has rendered much of the paternity fear null and void. Our attitudes may have to catch up, but human culture is nothing if not flexible and that goes double for our dating/mating habits so it is already shifting, at least in the West. Medical science is also at the stage where older, even geriatric pregnancies and births are possible, so will society slowly shift to that too? I'd not be surprised if it did. It'll have to down the line when rather than if we overcome the biological engineering of human longevity and people routinely live to the century mark and not just as addled near cripples(I suspect myself going much beyond the 100-110 age will involve more radical changes and technology).

No, we are healthier and living longer than ever.

We are and we're not. As Ted Romero notes childhood mortality rates have dropped off a cliff and this has massively impacted the overall stats. At the end of life, yes there are more living beyond 70, more of us are getting an extra decade of life, but with that the rates of dementia et al are majorly on the rise. I'll lay bets now that this will become an ever increasing problem down the line. In many ways those 80 year olds living today were healthier than many younger people today. When said 80 odd year olds were 40 type 2 diabetes would have been a very much minority condition. As would obesity. As would allergies etc. On sperm counts alone, as one Lancet article title on the matter went half in jest; "you're half the man your grandfather was". Going further back your average CroMagnon "caveman" at fifty had better bone density than your average westerner at 20(the modern equivalents are Olympic level athletes). And more musculature and better teeth and better cardiovascular health and a better insulin response.





*This was positively selected for by evolution, just as menopause was. Indeed humans differ in this from our closest relative the chimp. In the case of chimps while their fertility declines with age just like humans their females keep reproducing into old age. Basically they often die before they stop being fertile(and interestingly older females are often more fought over than younger). Women on the other hand spend roughly a third of their lives post fertility. How and why this came about is up for debate as it is quite the outlier in mammals. All sorts of theories are out there. For me the simplest answer may be that we just started to live longer(around 50,000 years ago for some reason old humans begin to show up. Not just us moderns either. One Neandertal woman Gibraltar 1 showed evidence of menopause). Again going back to chimps they experience menopause at around the same age, 45ish. So maybe we selected for longevity, but fertility never caught up as it wasn't positively selected for enough? Evolution can be haphazard that way.

silverharp

^^^
there was a study done on the size of gifts given to Jewish boys at their Bar mitzva and it showed that maternal grandmothers gave the bigger gift on average , all subconscious I'm sure

andekwarhola

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This thread is hitting on a sensitive issue, already has produced some potentially really hurtful stuff and is not appropriate to the normal waffle seen in after hours.

There's nothing on earth more judgmental and idealistic than people yet to have (or try to have) kids discussing parenting.

And when they do, they just change insufferable soapbox.

eviltwin

andekwarhola wrote: »

There's nothing on earth more judgmental and idealistic than people yet to have (or try to have) kids discussing parenting.

And when they do, they just change insufferable soapbox.

There's no greater expert on parenting than someone who doesn't have any kids

Wibbs

cbyrd wrote: »

This is true of young people too. My Aunt died 3 years after her youngest was born, her eldest was 7, just before her communion ... If you look at any cancer treatment unit you'll find lots of younger patients too.
Disabled people can't run around with their kids either, or people with MS,
Being older, doesn't automatically mean your out of touch or going to die before they hit a lot of milestones.

Exactly. None of us know what life has in store for us. Of course a 25 year old parent has less risk compared to a 45 year old parent, but individuals can differ quite a bit.

You make it sound like people in their 60's or 70's can't walk never mind parent a 20 or 30 year old.

I have first hand experience of this. The men in my family for some reason generally tend to have kids later. My dad was fifty odd when I showed up. Looking back I truly didn't notice anything. It was only much later on I realised that he was the outlier. The joke being that at school sports days he won more medals in the fathers events than I did in the kids. I would have been around 14 before I could out sprint the bastard. The shame. It's only latterly it occurred to me that he had two decades on most of the other dads. He pegged it when I was in my thirties(and did so earlier them most of my family) and of course it was an terrible emotional wrench, as such events are, but I certainly didn't miss out, nor did he. He particularly enjoyed my teen years, as he reckoned he got a new lease of life by proxy through me. Though my maternal grandfather took that a stage further. He got into "rock music" in his seventies, by mistake. He pre ordered an album called Daybreak by some James Last type artist, but instead got "Jailbreak" by Thin Lizzy in some clerical error. Slapped it on the turntable for sport and decided he liked it. A lot. It's an odd experience as a sixteen year old to find your late seventies grandad beside you leafing through the "metal" section upstairs in Freebird records shop. Really showing my age here.

My best friend is 63, she minds 4 of her grandchildren daily. 2 of them live with her (parents sold their house and are building next door, so moved in to help with the expense). Her husband has just retired, he's now looking after them full time cos she's jetted to Australia for 3 months to help her daughter who's pregnant with her second baby and suffers with hellp syndrome.

That's actually one theory why humans started to live longer C; the grandparent factor. The theory goes that grandparents accumulated knowledge and general skills and indeed child minding helped humans to expand and conquer this planet, by freeing up the younger members of the group to do it. The "me ma and da looking after the childer, so let's go over there and see what's what. They have memories and stories that say that it might be worthwhile" effect. I have noted even with older folks with dementia, their short term memories my be kaput, but they can often have microscopic detail of their long term memories. Because that shít was important.

Surreptitious

You're too old when your body can't produce kids anymore. Hardly anyone has the luck to be able to plan out their 2.4 kids and perfect picket fence lifestyle. As long as you have love and a home to offer, you should not be judged.

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

There's no greater expert on parenting than someone who doesn't have any kids

True dat. Hell, I have a soapbox permanently attached to the soles of my feet, but no way in hell would I presume to call on the parenting thing, unless in obvious extremis, where even the dogs on the street would ask WTF.

rainbow kirby

We'd like to be completely done by 35. We want 2, have 1 little boy already and are both 32 now.

Each to their own though - we just don't want to leave it late and run unnecessary risks as a result.

seenitall

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past. It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

After 20 years together, my wife and I had our first at the tender age of 40.

Obviously she's spoiled rotten. As is baby! As the youngest of 7 myself, with nieces and nephews in their 30s, she was a surprise for all!

Our experience was incredibly positive but, as obviously it's the only experience I know, I'd be slow to dole out advice on the whole young v old parents thing.

Wibbs

seenitall wrote: »

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

Which doesn't negate my previous position. Yes we are getting extra years at the end of life and the elderly population beyond 70 is growing but the major leap in overall longevity was the massive drop in childhood mortality. From the article itself: Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan[emphasis mine].

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past.

Ah here invoking rape as an argument is more than a little hysterical and deflective. And again doesn't negate those pesky facts. Nor does it negate my point seemingly ignored that as science and tech has advanced things change and we adapt(to some degree). As for it possibly being an "acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past", that's unlikely. In general terms anyway. In some rare scenarios it does become "acceptable", or at least blind eyes may be turned. IE in times of war, where invaders can turn to it. Whether it's a reproductive strategy or simply an animalistic extension of war itself is another debate. Even so throughout recorded history even in a human extreme like war it's more often proscribed for troops than not.

It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

Nope, there are things called facts, which I'm afraid is only a "cop out" if it suits your argument. Hypocrisy may tag along on the coattails of same, but the facts remain. The fact and something we haven't "moved on from" is that as an average man and barring illness I can successfully and naturally father children into my dotage, as an average woman you can't and are "on the clock" far earlier. QV sperm donation. The age limit for that has been revised upwards towards age 50. Good luck in finding any woman with harvestable eggs at 50. In egg donation sub 30 is the general limit and the average runs more like 20-25. As an average woman you are likely to live longer and more healthily and far less likely to die in an accident or by your own hand than the average man. These are also facts and I don't see them as cop puts, or hypocritical just because it doesn't suit me as a man.

The flying mouse

A Spanish doctor has shrugged off widespread national criticism and given birth to a healthy child at age 62.

The mother-of-three, from Lugo in north-west Spain, began the menopause 20 years ago but underwent fertility treatment to have more babies.

A series of gynecologists also said a successful pregnancy would be nigh on impossible and refused to help her.

Her healthy daughter weighed 5.2lbs.

“I’m the happiest person on the planet, everything went perfectly,” she said.

When she is 30, I’ll be 90. She’ll have been raised and life expectancy for women is growing all the time.

Ms Alvarez had her second child, Sam, at the age of 52 after her IVF treatment.

The world’s oldest person to give birth is thought to be Daljinder Kaur, from India, who believes she is around 70 years old, and who had her first child earlier this year

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYmMHd8dnPAhUIaRQKHbdoBOEQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fspanish-doctor-gives-birth-third-child-baby-62-ivf-a7358366.html&usg=AFQjCNGQzqRmL_f4OJ1ruEpk9lw9h8Jm8w

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

Which doesn't negate my previous position. Yes we are getting extra years at the end of life and the elderly population beyond 70 is growing but the major leap in overall longevity was the massive drop in childhood mortality. From the article itself: Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan[emphasis mine].

Ah here invoking rape as an argument is more than a little hysterical and deflective. And again doesn't negate those pesky facts. Nor does it negate my point seemingly ignored that as science and tech has advanced things change and we adapt(to some degree). As for it possibly being an "acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past", that's unlikely. In general terms anyway. In some rare scenarios it does become "acceptable", or at least blind eyes may be turned. IE in times of war, where invaders can turn to it. Whether it's a reproductive strategy or simply an animalistic extension of war itself is another debate. Even so throughout recorded history even in a human extreme like war it's more often proscribed for troops than not.

Nope, there are things called facts, which I'm afraid is only a "cop out" if it suits your argument. Hypocrisy may tag along on the coattails of same, but the facts remain. The fact and something we haven't "moved on from" is that as an average man and barring illness I can successfully and naturally father children into my dotage, as an average woman you can't and are "on the clock" far earlier. QV sperm donation. The age limit for that has been revised upwards towards age 50. Good luck in finding any woman with harvestable eggs at 50. In egg donation sub 30 is the general limit and the average runs more like 20-25. As an average woman you are likely to live longer and more healthily and far less likely to die in an accident or by your own hand than the average man. These are also facts and I don't see them as cop puts, or hypocritical just because it doesn't suit me as a man.

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with. Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society. Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me. It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

But there is no arguing with how your body works. Women's bodies "age" much faster in that department. They're not on a level playing field with men. Nowhere near it.

seenitall

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But there is no arguing with how your body works. Women's bodies "age" much faster in that department. They're not on a level playing field with men. Nowhere near it.

I don't know if that is addressed to me, but as I said already, I have no bone to pick with biology.

suicide_circus

We'd like to have kids by now but modern society and economics are against us at every turn. We both need to work full time to pay rent while saving for a deposit, childcare costs would equal another rent/mortgage so one of us would be working purely to pay some stranger to raise our kids. I know back in the day things were backward or whatever but this really dosnt feel like progress to me.

silverharp

seenitall wrote: »

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with. Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society. Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me. It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

everyone gets judged, men need to "man up" if they don't want a wife or kids, they are "deadbeat" dads if they cant financially provide or loser men if they have low financial status.
I havnt read all the thread but I didn't pick up the tone that anyone was judging anyone for having a baby at "40" the decision is still to go for it and nobody will give you strange looks in the street.

seenitall

silverharp wrote: »

everyone gets judged, men need to "man up" if they don't want a wife or kids, they are "deadbeat" dads if they cant financially provide or loser men if they have low financial status.
I havnt read all the thread but I didn't pick up the tone that anyone was judging anyone for having a baby at "40" the decision is still to go for it and nobody will give you strange looks in the street.

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

PandaPoo

We have 2 at the moment, hoping to have another 3 before I'm 30. My husband is 10 years older than me but he says the age thing doesn't bother him, we both had older parents and both sets are still alive and going strong.
They weren't fun though, we never did anything and they never played with us so I like that I'm still young and fun!

Wibbs

seenitall wrote: »

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I can't help if your understanding of population longevity is based on a commonly held belief rather than a more rounded grasp. The plain facts are - and any population statistician will agree with me - childhood mortality has up to this point had a larger effect on overall longevity of the human population than extension of life at old age. EG hunter gatherers have a raw data longevity of about 30. However if they make it to 20 their average longevity is over double that. Ancient Rome and classical Greece follows the same pattern. For fun and frolics look up the ages of some of the famous Greek scholars. Hell, Alexander the great was seen back then as an amazing man who accomplished much at such a young age. An image of a gilded youth in triumph who died 2 years beyond the average lifespan according to raw data. Plato made it to 80. Archimedes beyond 70. Pythagoras ditto. Aristotle in fairness only got to his mid 60's. Socrates got to 70, but was poisoned so… The Sermon on the Mount familiar to most westerners with even a passing sniff of the underlying Christian culture notes "the days of our years are three score and ten and by reason of strength they may be four score" and this was aimed at an audience of peasants and the wider classical world two thousand years ago. No commentator then or since questioned the veracity of the longevity measured out in that passage.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with.

The former tend to inform the latter. It's the way of things. It's by first acknowledging the whys that we may change the responses.

Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society.

Of course there are reasons and I have outlined some of them. I can't help if you are taking the more emotive position regarding said reasons.

Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me.

Oh heaven forfend that we bring in actual biological reality to bear on the matter.

It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

Life isn't fair. That's the reality. As a species we have tried to overcome unfairness, biological and other and we have done a damned fine job over time and as a general trend. And sure we are on that continuing road, but we can only truly make things fair by first examining and acknowledging the objective realities behind the lack of fairness. Not by polarising stamping of feet, just because it may strike a personal nerve.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

Currently and maybe down the line, but as history has shown attitudes can rebound too. And as night follows day if they do rebound they tend to do so as a reflection of underlying principles and underlying unfairness. If anything we are seeing some whiffs of that today, post the sexual revolution. We could just as easily go more towards "old fashioned" restrictive mores, or at least it's not beyond the bounds of imagining. EG look at how polarised the whole gender thing has become in some quarters in the US. China is seen as a culture on the rise and in that culture an unmarried and childless woman of 30 is seen as a "leftover woman". Now they may as a culture take on the mantle of western attitudes in such things, but they don't at the moment and it's just as likely they won't. India would have similar attitudes as would much of culture of the Middle East.

silverharp

seenitall wrote: »

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

oftentimes its women doing the judging . I would take individual cut offs as being for them alone, all kinds of factors come into play so I don't see it as an issue to "take personally"

smeal

I think late 20s/early 30s is an ideal time to start a family and I would like to have my children around those ages however practically with women being more career focused than 30/40 years ago its realistically around the early 30s that women are comfortable to start a family.

For example, I'm 23 and I was young finishing my degree 2 years ago, however by the time I get all my professional qualifications in my career and start earning a decent income, I'll probably be 27 at which point (hopefully) it'll be time to think about a home and a mortgage. In a lot of women's situations, early 30s is probably the time that women are just about settled in their careers and in a position to start a family.

OldNotWIse

seenitall wrote: »

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

I agree with you. It's largely women who are obsessed with whether other women are procreating.

I set my "cut off" at 35, but it's looking like that might be pushed to 37 :P

My cutoff is for me only - its not my business if someone else wants to have a kid later. We can do more to help children who already need our help than tie ourselves in knots worrying about what will happen to the hypothetical children that will be born to parents who can't run around the park with them and then croak :P

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

I can't help if your understanding of population longevity is based on a commonly held belief rather than a more rounded grasp. The plain facts are - and any population statistician will agree with me - childhood mortality has up to this point had a larger effect on overall longevity of the human population than extension of life at old age. EG hunter gatherers have a raw data longevity of about 30. However if they make it to 20 their average longevity is over double that. Ancient Rome and classical Greece follows the same pattern. For fun and frolics look up the ages of some of the famous Greek scholars. Hell, Alexander the great was seen back then as an amazing man who accomplished much at such a young age. An image of a gilded youth in triumph who died 2 years beyond the average lifespan according to raw data. Plato made it to 80. Archimedes beyond 70. Pythagoras ditto. Aristotle in fairness only got to his mid 60's. Socrates got to 70, but was poisoned so… The Sermon on the Mount familiar to most westerners with even a passing sniff of the underlying Christian culture notes "the days of our years are three score and ten and by reason of strength they may be four score" and this was aimed at an audience of peasants and the wider classical world two thousand years ago. No commentator then or since questioned the veracity of the longevity measured out in that passage.

The former tend to inform the latter. It's the way of things. It's by first acknowledging the whys that we may change the responses. Of course there are reasons and I have outlined some of them. I can't help if you are taking the more emotive position regarding said reasons. Oh heaven forfend that we bring in actual biological reality to bear on the matter. Life isn't fair. That's the reality. As a species we have tried to overcome unfairness, biological and other and we have done a damned fine job over time and as a general trend. And sure we are on that continuing road, but we can only truly make things fair by first examining and acknowledging the objective realities behind the lack of fairness. Not by polarising stamping of feet, just because it may strike a personal nerve.

Lol. A personal nerve. When out of a good argument, make it personal. Going by the above, it seems that the topic is striking much more of a personal nerve with you, actually.

Life isn't fair but we as a society should be and should be striving towards it, not explaining away unfair or sexist attitudes with "it's only biology, you know". It means minimising them, letting them slide. We are meant to be rational brings, not let biology dictate our behaviours or attitudes to fellow human beings as a matter of unconsidered course.

As for childhood mortality, up to the twentieth century it had a huge bearing on the overall life expectancy. In the last century things changed for the better, so that now, it is just one of several factors to be considered.

OldNotWIse

I don't know where this argument about deference to biology is coming from. Many things we do defy (or at least rage against) biology. Not to trivialise the issue of childbearing, but simple antibiotics for example. The contraceptive pill. The morning after pill. Vaccinations. Every minute of every day of our lives we are defying biology on some level (or finding ways to use it to suit ourselves), and why not? It makes life better! People of "childbearing years" might need to use assisted reproduction to have a much longed for child - what's wrong with that? I've seen the joy that IVF babies have brought to close friends who yearned for children. Should they be slaves to biology too and say, "oh well, mother nature doesn't see babies in my life". To heck with that :P Biology might be the driving force behind our lives, but it doesn't mean we cant develop ways and means of outsmarting it for a time, to improve our lives.

seenitall

I'd be of the same view, ONW. Each to their own. Have a cut off point for yourself, or don't. Go with IVF, or don't. Just try and not judge other people on their choices.

Wibbs

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't know where this argument about deference to biology is coming from. Many things we do defy (or at least rage against) biology. Not to trivialise the issue of childbearing, but simple antibiotics for example. The contraceptive pill. The morning after pill. Vaccinations. Every minute of every day of our lives we are defying biology on some level (or finding ways to use it to suit ourselves), and why not? It makes life better! People of "childbearing years" might need to use assisted reproduction to have a much longed for child - what's wrong with that? I've seen the joy that IVF babies have brought to close friends who yearned for children. Should they be slaves to biology too and say, "oh well, mother nature doesn't see babies in my life". To heck with that :P Biology might be the driving force behind our lives, but it doesn't mean we cant develop ways and means of outsmarting it for a time, to improve our lives.

Oh I almost* entirely agree. I am merely pointing out some of the reasoning behind the naysayer positions and the double standards that can come into it. Hell, that stuff can get to daft proportions with some people refusing vaccines and antibiotics as "unnatural".

seenitall wrote: »

Lol. A personal nerve. When out of a good argument, make it personal. Going by the above, it seems that the topic is striking much more of a personal nerve with you, actually.

Your debate tactic isn't exactly snowy white. Cura te ipsum as it were. I find getting snippy, responding with a broad "you're wrong" rather than coming back with an actual rebuttal and finishing with the flourish of "No, you smell!!" are debate tactics best left in the schoolyard and far more indicative of axes grinding and personal nerves than relaying biological facts and why these may and usually do inform wider opinion.

Full disclosure; I've never wanted kids, nor want them now, so it's not something of much personal interest to me beyond the curiosity as an "outside observer". And as well as late fathers, many of the women in my family also had kids "late". My mum was well in her thirties and my paternal grandmother had her last at 41, my maternal grandmother had her last in her mid forties, all in the days before IVF with it. Geriatric mothers the lot of them. If anything later life parenthood is what I grew up with and came to see as "natural".




*where I would be reticent to go in with unwavering support is in the grey areas of how these changes may affect society and any children born of such autumnal couplings. Mick Jagger or lately Janet Jackson having kids later in life is all very well. For them, as extremely wealthy individuals with all the assets, support and medical science at their disposal. It's a different kettle of fish for average Sean and Siobhan O'Citizen having kids at 50 plus. That's before the potential health of the kids involved and the risks with older eggs, sperm and wombs. Will we increase the burden on society because of the selfish, if completely understandable and heartfelt need to reproduce beyond the "ideal" years? That may turn out to be a red herring of course. Advances now and in the future with medical science will likely filter many of those potential issues out.

seenitall

Apologies if I got snippy with you, Wibbs

(I actually don't think I did and cannot recognise any of the other stuff you imply I did in the course of our exchange, but happy to leave it all to the judgment of anyone reading the thread!)

Personal disclosure: I am already late for the library duty at my daughter's school. Catch you later, Wibbs, debater!

charlie_says

Wibbs wrote: »

average Sean and Siobhan O'Citizen

Ha ha that's great. Totally using that in the future.

Shinbin223

I'm late 20s and would always have hoped to be in the stage of life now where I'd have a partner and we'd be thinking about starting a family in the next few years but I couldn't be further away from that at the moment.
If I happened to meet someone in my early to mid 30s and the time was right to start a family with them I would definitely try. However I think there has to be a point where you have to think realistically and practically. Maybe anywhere after early 40s is verging on the side of being too old. My parents are in their 70s and I have noticed a decline in their general busyness and ability to go places in the last year or two. They aren't able for foreign holidays anymore or wouldn't drive long distances. I often think if I am lucky enough to have children I won't be able to rely on them for babysitting although that said, lack of grandparents to help with babysitting probably wouldn't be a significant factor for someone who really wanted kids.
I always felt growing up that my parents were older than everyone else and they would be quite old fashioned in their thinking and views which contradicts my opinions at times but I don't resent them in anyway for being older. But if someone has always wanted kids and meets someone in their 30s or early 40s its very hard to say you're too old to have a baby. If the desire is very strong in someone it's very hard for age to over-ride it. A loving home and family and secure environment is the most important thing to consider and if a couple have that and are reasonably fit and healthy, they will most likely make great parents, irrespective of age.

minikin

If the child comes out wearing a Victorian bonnet - you've left it too late.

ambro25

dfeo wrote: »

I think in Ireland if a woman has a baby over 35, it's considered a geriatric pregnancy. Christ :P

It is (or at least was, in 2004) younger still in the UK.
Mrs ambro25 was officially classed a 'geriatric mother' at 33.

Olishi4

One of my grannies was 42 on her last child which I knew but I only recently worked out that she had her first at 28 which means that she had 10 children in 14 years!

Not sure how old my granda was but he died when the youngest was about 20. She died at 72 but she was quite active up until that time. The youngest was 30 and he was fairly close to her but independent enough at that stage.

Elliott S

Wibbs wrote: »

Mick Jagger's soon to born latest kid with a woman in her 30's(a dancer IIRC so fit as fook) will have a dad in his 70's, but said dad is a fit as a butchers dog and with more cash than Croesus. Their kid has essentially won the life lottery.

Mick Jagger looks terrible! I wouldn't think by looking at him that he is healthy. Maybe he is, but his appearance wouldn't indicate that.

Elliott S

seamus wrote: »

That's the thing.

You can "offset" the stiffer joints and diminished fitness of a 45-year-old with maturity and wealth that a 20 year old doesn't have.

But there's no "offsetting" the age-related genetic risk factors. You could be in the shape of your life at 45, a marathon every month, but a 20-year-old fatso will still have a lower risk of foetal defects and FFAs than you will.

No amount of anecdotes or "but an older parent can..."'s, can change the simple statistics.

Yeah, agreed. Fitness doesn't change the fact the genetic errors are more likely to happen in an older body than a younger one. The likelihood of genetic errors increases with age no matter the health of the individual.

Sure, an obese 20 year old might struggle more with the physical strain of carrying a child than a lithe 40 year old. But that obese 20 year old would be an outlier. In general, a 20 year old will handle the pregnancy much better than the 40 year old. And I believe I read in a college textbook that a 20 something is more likely to miscarry than an older expectant mother because the younger body is possibly better at detecting defects in the growing foetus.

Fitness doesn't counteract that genetics becomes more error-prone as one ages. Which is why so many fit older people still get cancer.

Elliott S

seenitall wrote: »

It is no more or less right or ethical than men in their 50s or 60s having babies. Yet no one seems to care about that so much, do they ? The same way you often find Ulrika Jonsson or Sinead O'Connor being called 4-by-4s (well at least a friend of mind did, and he didn't lick it off a stone) but I have never heard or read of Rod Stewart or Mick Jagger being called 7-by-4 or 8-by-5 or whatever number they're on at this stage!

I think one reason why it's more frowned upon for women is because even today, children are usually with their mother most of time. If a mother has four children by four different fathers, that's four different babydaddies calling to the house to bring their kid off for the weekend of whatever. Must be quite confusing for children. Whereas if you have four children by four different mothers and the kids are more than likely living with the mother, you are going to four different households to see your kids. It's not a great reason why women are more judged in this situation but I think it goes some way to explaining why some people frown on it more in women.

seenitall wrote: »

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past. It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

It doesn't necessarily follow that because people are living longer, their genes will follow suit and slow their tendancy to become more error-prone as the body ages.

MRnotlob606

My mother left me before I was born