Forum Index
»
Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
When am i too old for more kids?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
When we were growing up (I am 41), I knew tons of Catholic families and Mormon families who had large families, including the youngest kids born when the mothers were in their early forties. No one blinked an eye. Were they being "selfish"?
|
Anonymous
Absolutely |
Anonymous
It's actually 1 in 16 for a 43 y/o. No, it's 1 in 50. |
Anonymous
|
"So what??? Really, you would take the chance of your child suffering because you were selfish and wanted to have a baby at an older age??? Wow."
No matter when you have a baby, it's a selfish act. And, there are all kinds of reasons to criticize the reason to do so. Like, maybe people should not have had babies after 9/11 because of the awful changes in our world that resulted from the terrorist attacks. Or maybe women who are predisposed to a high risk of breast cancer should not have children because they might die before they can finish raising their kids. Maybe people with a family risk of substance abuse should not have kids because we know that is hereditary and it could certainly cause their kids to suffer. My point is not that people should not continue to have kids or that they should feel guilty in any way for their decision. What I am saying is that each time someone decides to have a baby, someone can find a reason that it might not be in the best interest of the child IF things go wrong. We all have risk factors. We are not bringing children into a perfect world. There will be some degree of suffering for every child that is born. But despite this, most people choose to procreate and I don't know too many people who don't celebrate the birth of a child. |
Anonymous
True...there are always risks, but those risks significantly increase the older we get. To be honest with you, I did take 9/11 into consideration when I decided to have my baby. My point is, why would you take the chance if the risks are heavy? |
Anonymous
Wise words. |
Anonymous
| I have three adopted children. I am 38 years older than the oldest and 47 years older than the youngest, whom I adopted when she was less than a year old. |
Anonymous
Wasn't clear whether "absolutely" meant "absolutely, they were being selfish," or "Absolutely, I agree with you." Just curious: if the former, then do you think they should have refrained from having sex with their husbands from age 40 until menopause? Serious question--I just can't see how you can reconcile your comment. |
Anonymous
This is kind of like saying why bother to put your kid in a carseat because no one used to, or why bother not smoking if you could get hit by a truck tomorrow. It's about *minimizing* risk. And of course that means something different to everyone as we all make the best choices we can. I don't think having a baby at 40 is selfish. I DO think the attitude of "sure it's risky, but who cares!" is selfish. At least give lip service to the fact that you are taking these risks on behalf of a child who can't yet choose for him/herself. |
Anonymous
Absolutely they were being selfish...but being as this was probably 20-30 years ago, I can't really blame them for their actions due to the lack of educational information that was available to them at the time. Today, 2008 almost 2009, there is more than enough information that is provided for all of us to make informed, educated decisions. Oh, and there is a such thing as Natural Family Planning, which enables married couples to have sex and not produce a child. |
Anonymous
I'm not the "absolutely" poster but come on, don't Catholics and Mormons have "natural" birth control methods down pat if they choose not to use any kind of actual contraceptive? Isn't the rhythm method or whatever supposed to be REALLY effective if actually used correctly? You can't say that someone - OOPS! - had 16 accidental children. |
Anonymous
Well, everyone is entitled to her own opinion; it is a free country. 
|
Anonymous
| I can't even believe special needs children is coming up here. There is always a risk of developmental problems or other illness, or delivery complications any time you have a baby. My daughter is one of 500 children in the world to have a syndrome that amnio never would have picked up. There have been times that being a parent of a special needs child have been hellish. So, to the person who said "so what?" well,... ha. You obviously have never been there. That being said, I would do it again and despite her suffering, she is better now and one of the happiest children in the world, her parents are bruised and battered, but much better parents than we ever would have been before, and we are contemplating a third at 40. why? Because i know my age has nothing to do with what God will decide to send me this time -- all children are gifts. |
Anonymous
Mormons don't technically prohibit birth control but it is discouraged. For both, yes they can use "natural family planning," but the point is that many of them choose not to because they do not mind if they get pregnant, so why refrain from sex if you are fine with getting pregnant? My point to the earlier poster was that don't think they were being "selfish" to have regular marital sex (i.e., choose not to use the rhythm method) just because they may have been forty or over. |
Anonymous
|
1 in 16, wow. That is unbelievable. This whole threads makes me so sad because I want a third child (I'm 40). The reason I got started so late is because of six lonely years of Infertility.
I'm just not sure if I can go through nine months of worrying if my third child would be healthy - not with those odds. And I already feel so lucky with two healthy children. I worry that I'm pushing my luck too much with a third. Does anyone else feel this way? |