The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should older women have children?

Now common sense would tell you about the greater risk of health complications that the child could inherit, and therefore I am against it.
By older women I mean 45+
My rule is if you cannot conceive a healthy and natural birth, then you should not give birth.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Blue_Mason
Blue_Mason
OP
10
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Wtf. Who made you the ruler of all wombs?

piss off.



So you rather risk the child and the mothers health?
What kind of person are you?
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Wtf. Who made you the ruler of all wombs?

piss off.


He does have a point.
Stupid thread.

/thread.
Original post by Blue_Mason
So you rather risk the child and the mothers health?
What kind of person are you?


Errm science/medical help and guidance is very advanced now a' days....if you haven't noticed!

Original post by Tiger Rag
He does have a point.


Meh not really, my mum had me from IVF after 2 failed attempts, and she was 38. Then she had my brother at 42. We turned out fine! My aunty 46 is pregnant at the moment, and the baby is healthy and fine. So no, he doesn't have a point really.
(edited 8 years ago)
It's better than very young women who get pregnant unplanned. You should try to be financially secure enough to support a child before you have one, if possible
Reply 6
Avatar for mkap
mkap
20
lol they know the risks and its their choice,
Original post by Blue_Mason
Now common sense would tell you about the greater risk of health complications that the child could inherit, and therefore I am against it.
By older women I mean 45+
My rule is if you cannot conceive a healthy and natural birth, then you should not give birth.


Any woman at any age can have a child with health complications. There's no way you can be certain that your child has a condition until your pregnancy has developed and some women are against abortion, that is their right.
Even if their kid did have a condition, what business of yours is it?
I think it's so much better than having one at 45 than having one at under 18 IMO.
Reply 9
Avatar for Blue_Mason
Blue_Mason
OP
10
Original post by cherryred90s
Any woman at any age can have a child with health complications. There's no way you can be certain that your child has a condition until your pregnancy has developed and some women are against abortion, that is their right.

Even if their kid did have a condition, what business of yours is it?



It is simple, as the world does not need another child with health conditions putting a strain on our health services.
You cannot compare the reproductive state of a woman in her twenties to a women in her fifties, I mean keep up ,dear.
Women biologically age at quicker rate
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Wtf. Who made you the ruler of all wombs?

piss off.


first reply in the thread and someone's already been triggered :lol:

OP, agree that it is irresponsible to have children when you know there will be a high chance of them being defective, but take the view that if you're ok with that risk and willing and able to cater for your defective child then that's your choice to make.

Though the problem arises when the rest of society has to pay for your poor choices, e.g. should mothers who smoke really be getting disability allowance when their kids are born and turn out to be disabled? (and it can be proven the disability is linked to her smoking). The same logic applies to women who choose to have kids at an age when chances of them being defective are much higher.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Errm science/medical help and guidance is very advanced now a' days....if you haven't noticed!



Meh not really, my mum had me from IVF after 2 failed attempts, and she was 38. Then she had my brother at 42. We turned out fine! My aunty 46 is pregnant at the moment, and the baby is healthy and fine. So no, he doesn't have a point really.


I have a friend whose child was born when the mother was 43. The child has Down Syndrome, which you're more likely to get if your mum is over 35. There's a reason why once we reach a certain age, we can't have children naturally.
Original post by Death Grips
first reply in the thread and someone's already been triggered :lol:

OP, agree that it is irresponsible to have children when you know there will be a high chance of them being defective, but take the view that if you're ok with that risk and willing and able to cater for your defective child then that's your choice to make.

Though the problem arises when the rest of society has to pay for your poor choices, e.g. should mothers who smoke really be getting disability allowance when their kids are born and turn out to be disabled? (and it can be proven the disability is linked to her smoking)

Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not triggered :colonhash: it's just irritating to hear someone express a ridiculous and ignorant opinion.

"My rule is if you cannot conceive a healthy and natural birth, then you should not give birth."

And why not? Should people not invest in IVF if need be?

I wouldn't really exist if it wasn't for IVF, therefore I find his opinion even more ridiculous. :colonhash:
Original post by Blue_Mason
It is simple, as the world does not need another child with health conditions putting a strain on our health services.

If you're gonna go down that route, the world doesn't 'need' any more children in general, so I suppose everyone of child bearing age should be sterilised against their will and forced to adopt..
You cannot compare the reproductive state of a woman in her twenties to a women in her fifties, I mean keep up ,dear.

Yes you can. A woman in her 20s with a history of health conditions and illnesses in her family has more of an increased risk of conceiving a child with health complications compared to a woman in her 40s (women in their 50s would likely be experiencing the change if they haven't already) Does this mean that the 20yr old shouldn't be allowed to conceive?
Women biologically age at quicker rate

I didn't say otherwise..
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Tiger Rag
I have a friend whose child was born when the mother was 43. The child has Down Syndrome, which you're more likely to get if your mum is over 35. There's a reason why once we reach a certain age, we can't have children naturally.


Over 35 risks are "exaggerated" , 39+there are certain risks, but there are risks with any pregnancy anyway. So why shouldn't someone conceive at that age? Especially with the resources we have these days to help pregnant women and their babies.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Over 35 risks are "exaggerated" 39+, there are certain risks, but there are risks with any pregnancy anyway. So why shouldn't someone conceive at that age? Especially with the resources we have these days to help pregnant women and their babies.


How are they exaggerated?
Original post by Tiger Rag
How are they exaggerated?


They just are, if you're a healthy woman at 35 it's likely you will have a healthy baby.
Original post by cherryred90s
Any woman at any age can have a child with health complications. There's no way you can be certain that your child has a condition until your pregnancy has developed and some women are against abortion, that is their right.
Even if their kid did have a condition, what business of yours is it?


You seem to be missing the point here. Ofc babies can have health complications at any age of the mother, but the point is that once the mother reaches a certain age the chance of health complications become significantly higher, such that having a child beyond that age could be deemed as irresponsible.

The reason people making choices that result in them having defective children is a problem is because the taxpayer has to pick up the bill afterwards. As a taxpayer myself, I cant say I am particularly enthused about the prospect of funding other people's poor choices.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cherryred90s
If you're gonna go down that route, the world doesn't 'need' any more children in general, so I suppose everyone of child bearing age should be sterilised under their will and forced to adopt..

Yes you can. A woman in her 20s with a history of health conditions and illnesses in her family has more of an increased risk of conceiving a child with health complications compared to a woman in her 40s (women in their 50s would likely be experiencing the change if they haven't already) Does this mean that the 20yr old shouldn't be allowed to conceive?

I didn't say otherwise..



I believe that a percentage of the population do need to be sterilized, but I will leave that for another day.
Yes, if you cannot naturally conceive then you must consider adoption.
I should have been more clear but a healthy woman in her twenties vs a healthy woman in her fifties
Reply 19
Avatar for Racoon
Racoon
19
Original post by Blue_Mason
Now common sense would tell you about the greater risk of health complications that the child could inherit, and therefore I am against it.
By older women I mean 45+
My rule is if you cannot conceive a healthy and natural birth, then you should not give birth.



I tend to agree. I think you always need to think of the child. You can have a healthy baby naturally at 45, it happens but I think its too old.

Its not fair for a 5 year old to have a 50 year old mum, 15 year old child to have its 60 year old parent come to parents evening etc. If the mum is 60 how old would the dad be. Most fathers are older than their wives so he could be 65+.

But I wouldn't like it to be a rule or forced.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you