Pregnant and 55

[pinklightbulb]

Oh good heavens above, absolutely not. No way. The menopause is there for a reason.

 

[Sarahkka]

Sarahkk, I understand your point, but you can't stop time and older people naturally aren't as physically able as younger people, no matter how fit or active they appear to be. My parents are mid 60s and have been active all their lives, but even they are now staring to admit there are physical limitations to what they can do. The fittest pensioner will still find they aren't as capable of things they could do in their 20s

The older folks may not be/feel as fit as they used to be, but many would score a great deal higher on your average fitness test than many of today's 20-somethings. So if you are comparing a fit person in their 20s and a fit person in their 60s, I agree with you. But we simply cannot use the number of years to generate an automatic idea of someone's fitness. Lifestyle has come to have a far far greater impact on that. Just look at the increase in obesity in our generation and the massive health effects that has had. If the test is being able to run after a toddler who is heading towards a busy street, I think I would be pretty confident that the fit 60+yr old will get there before the overweight 20-yr old. So while age does slow you down, it is hugely relative. And if this feels like I am comparing apples to oranges, that is also kind of my point. Age alone cannot be used to determine who should be a parent.

 

[JASMAK]

You can have a fit person, sure, but other diseases catch up with you, regardless....cancer (more common the older you are) degenerative diseases such as alzheimers and arthritis, heart disease and strokes are a hidden disease. Fit people have heart attacks all the time.

 

[Brookey]

I think its selfish.

I totally understand that it must be heartbreaking to never have a child but, sometimes you have to think outside the box.

My dad passed away 4 years ago, aged 60. I was 21. He had no apparent health problems, didnt smoke, didnt drink a lot, ate very healthily...was perfect in every way actually.

The point im making is that he was only 60 and obviously thought he had a good few years left, as we all did. But what we didnt know was that his arteries in his heart were slowly closing and on a flight back from India he had a heart attack and passed away.

It can happen to anyone at any time, but if you have your children before the age of 40, for example at least you can confident that you have enough time to raise your children.

A 55 year old should not be having a baby.

 

[Brookey]

Also can I add that its not just death, its other illnesses such as strokes or Alzheimers. That dont necessarily end a life but change it.

My grandad had alzheimers and my mother and auntie cared for him. They were grown women in their 50s and found it devastating. How would a teenager cope looking after a parent that has suffered a stroke or doesn't remember who they are?

(I know i sound really depressing from these two posts! But im really fun irl honestly haha!)

 

[indy and lara]

I understand the health posts but if you take this train of thought further, should people who have health conditions/ genetic timebombs like the breast cancer gene/ who are obese and have multiple health problems as a result also not have children? We have no guarantee when we have a child that we will be with them. People die regardless of age. There are many 50 year olds who are considerable fitter than those who are in their 20s.

When you are looking 40 in the eye, 55 doesn't seem so old. I guess that is very different to when you are 20!

 

[vintage67]

I always thought 50 sounded old! Now, not so much!!!!

 

[indy and lara]

I always thought 50 sounded old! Now, not so much!!!!

Hubby read something in the Times last week that classed middle aged as 34- 45. It totally freaked him out as that means your are officially old at 46

 

[vintage67]

Well, I plan to always be young and vibrant for my kids where it counts; in my heart and mind. The body may age and have some problems, but I will do my best. I want them to see me as seasoned and wise, not a fuddy duddy.

 

[JASMAK]

I understand the health posts but if you take this train of thought further, should people who have health conditions/ genetic timebombs like the breast cancer gene/ who are obese and have multiple health problems as a result also not have children? We have no guarantee when we have a child that we will be with them. People die regardless of age. There are many 50 year olds who are considerable fitter than those who are in their 20s.

When you are looking 40 in the eye, 55 doesn't seem so old. I guess that is very different to when you are 20!

Well yes, I do think all health risks should be carefully evaluated! Nothing is 100%, no...but, it should be considered. In fact, I WAS obese, and made the choice to lose weight (now in my healthy normal weight on the BMI scale). I did this for me, but, also, very much for my children. One child of mine wont ever live on her own, and the longer I can be there for her, the better. It breaks my heart sh may one day be on her own. If people have children later in life, dissabilities in their children are more likely...and it could be their children need longer parenting and more care.

I am looking 40 square in the eye (38 soon) and I def think 55 is too old.

 

[Sarahkka]

I understand the health posts but if you take this train of thought further, should people who have health conditions/ genetic timebombs like the breast cancer gene/ who are obese and have multiple health problems as a result also not have children? We have no guarantee when we have a child that we will be with them. People die regardless of age. There are many 50 year olds who are considerable fitter than those who are in their 20s.

When you are looking 40 in the eye, 55 doesn't seem so old. I guess that is very different to when you are 20!

This.
Exactly.
At what point do you draw the line? Once we start defining who is fit to be a parent in terms of health risks, are we now in the territory of getting SS to intervene in households where parents smoke or are overweight or who have some sort of genetic predisposition to something? It is a very slippery slope once you start down that path.
Jasmak, smokers or overweight people have far higher risks of cancers, strokes, etc than fit people. Age is only one factor. It does not define health and should not be used as a reason to deny someone the right to parent. Because by your argument, we should be denying fertility access to anyone who does lies outside the "norm" of risk. For anything. And that quickly gets into the absurd.

 

[JASMAK]

I understand the health posts but if you take this train of thought further, should people who have health conditions/ genetic timebombs like the breast cancer gene/ who are obese and have multiple health problems as a result also not have children? We have no guarantee when we have a child that we will be with them. People die regardless of age. There are many 50 year olds who are considerable fitter than those who are in their 20s.

When you are looking 40 in the eye, 55 doesn't seem so old. I guess that is very different to when you are 20!

This.
Exactly.
At what point do you draw the line? Once we start defining who is fit to be a parent in terms of health risks, are we now in the territory of getting SS to intervene in households where parents smoke or are overweight or who have some sort of genetic predisposition to something? It is a very slippery slope once you start down that path.
Jasmak, smokers or overweight people have far higher risks of cancers, strokes, etc than fit people. Age is only one factor. It does not define health and should not be used as a reason to deny someone the right to parent. Because by your argument, we should be denying fertility access to anyone who does lies outside the "norm" of risk. For anything. And that quickly gets into the absurd.

Whaaaaaat?!! I never once said 'deny' anything!! I said, I think it should be taken into consideration. I think its responsible to consider those things....that was the extent of my arguement. They do deny some fertility treatments to overweight people. Even I was told to lose weight before MY fertility treatments, but please dont put words in my mouth!! All I said was those things should be considered and YOU are bringng up denying rights and fertility treatments. Talk about taking my statement and running wild!! I would NEVER say what you just said, so very offended here. I don't want to be associated with that. That was very unfair of you.

For the record, I would never say to anyone you should NOT have a kd because of age. That was not even the debate. It was if they were too old, which, I am of the opinion it is. I would never deny anybody the right to a child. Thats DISGUSTING, and I do NOT want to be associated with what the above poster wrote.

 

[MikaylasMummy]

Although I do not really agree with having a baby at that age,due to declining health that is inevitable as you get older.i also think it is a person human right to do so of their body is still able.if a 55 year old was to get pregnant naturally then that is their choice.however I disagree with using fertility treatments to become pregnant at this age.personally I would not want a baby in my 40's.but that is my personal feeling as I enjoy being a young mum(26) and don't feel I would have the energy for a toddler at that age.also I want to enjoy my retirement relaxing and having a teenager is definatley not going to be relaxing

 

[Sarahkka]

I understand the health posts but if you take this train of thought further, should people who have health conditions/ genetic timebombs like the breast cancer gene/ who are obese and have multiple health problems as a result also not have children? We have no guarantee when we have a child that we will be with them. People die regardless of age. There are many 50 year olds who are considerable fitter than those who are in their 20s.

When you are looking 40 in the eye, 55 doesn't seem so old. I guess that is very different to when you are 20!

This.
Exactly.
At what point do you draw the line? Once we start defining who is fit to be a parent in terms of health risks, are we now in the territory of getting SS to intervene in households where parents smoke or are overweight or who have some sort of genetic predisposition to something? It is a very slippery slope once you start down that path.
Jasmak, smokers or overweight people have far higher risks of cancers, strokes, etc than fit people. Age is only one factor. It does not define health and should not be used as a reason to deny someone the right to parent. Because by your argument, we should be denying fertility access to anyone who does lies outside the "norm" of risk. For anything. And that quickly gets into the absurd.

Whaaaaaat?!! I never once said 'deny' anything!! I said, I think it should be taken into consideration. I think its responsible to consider those things....that was the extent of my arguement. They do deny some fertility treatments to overweight people. Even I was told to lose weight before MY fertility treatments, but please dont put words in my mouth!! All I said was those things should be considered and YOU are bringng up denying rights and fertility treatments. Talk about taking my statement and running wild!! I would NEVER say what you just said, so very offended here. I don't want to be associated with that. That was very unfair of you.

For the record, I would never say to anyone you should NOT have a kd because of age. That was not even the debate. It was if they were too old, which, I am of the opinion it is. I would never deny anybody the right to a child. Thats DISGUSTING, and I do NOT want to be associated with what the above poster wrote.

Wait a second here - this is supposed to be a debate, not a place where people feel attacked! In that spirit, please let me say:
Jasmak, I like you and respect you and truly did not mean to offend you. I meant to debate your argument that age comes with increased risks. I did not mean to imply what you took out of my argument. I certainly did not intend to upset you in this way. I am very sorry if I did so. I thought you were making quite a decent rebuttal to my own points and was arguing from a point of logic, not intending at all to personally attack you or put words into your mouth. Please accept my apology if I came across as such.

 

[Tasha]

I dont see it as a big issue. Lots of people are phyisically fit for a greater period of time now, infact my aunt was 65 when she died and they wouldnt let her on to the ward for older people as she was too young.

My Mum could very well be someone who had a child around this age (not that she is planning to), she is 53 and not menopausal yet. She is in a physically demanding job as a nurse, and does twelve and a half hour shifts, three - five times a week. I imagine she will continue this until she retires when she is 65 or 68 (whatever it is then) and in doing so she remains physically fit. Probably more than me (I am 27). She has no problem chasing around after my children and isnt tired after it. I really do feel this is an individual thing. Also all the females in my Mum's family, aside from my aunt (and she died due to abuse) have lived into their 90's, of course that doesnt mean she will.

I dont think I can say I would never have a child in my 50's, I dont think I would plan one but life has a funny way of not listening when you decide things. I never wanted children past 25 (I had them at 18, 20, 22, 22, 25), I know that will seem silly to some but I wanted my children all close together whilst I was under twenty-five (personal decision and as you can see from above not what I think for everyone at all) and yet if this one is sticky I will be approaching 28, far from old but the point is my plans were just ideas of what I wanted and life didnt happen that way, so my 'plans' change and adapt. Who knows which of our plans might change and adapt to include a baby in our 50's? Or even a happy surprise.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I know it's O/T, but congrats Tasha sticky

 

[Andypanda6570]

Oh Tasha, congrats!! I am SO happy for you!!

 

[mumoffive]

Well i had children young, when i was in my late teens and early twenties. I have also had them older..having my last baby when i was 43. I am now 44. I have had great pregnancies and there are a lot of positives for having a baby older. Saying that i wouldnt want to have any more now because i dont personally think its fair to risk not to be around for them. It worries me lots even just now! If a person can fall pregnant naturally at that age then fine. If it needs intervention then no, i dont think so as biologically your body has said that the time for babies is over.

 

[babyjan]

I think that's way too old, can the body of a 55 year old even bear a pregnancy?

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Obviously it can. There are cases of even older women giving birth.