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

Should older women have children?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Death Grips
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


Not really...I can think of many things that can be "deemed irresponsible" than conceiving in your 40's, for example smoking/ drinking whilst pregnant, not having a planned pregnancy so not being able to take proper care of yourself, obesity etc etc.
Original post by Death Grips
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.

I'm not missing the point at all. OP is arguing that anyone with an increased risk of having a child with complications shouldn't be allowed to conceive, and he only targeted older women when this risk can be significantly increased in a woman of any age.
It's irresponsible to wait until you have a career and a home? It's irresponsible to wait until you're financially independent before having a child? It's irresponsible to wait until you're in a committed relationship/married? Having a child at any age can be deemed as 'irresponsible' but waiting until your ready is the most responsible of all.

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


How is it a poor choice? You make it seem as though this is set in stone, there are plenty of older women who conceive perfectly healthy children and they shouldn't be denied the right of parenthood on something that is merely a possibility.
You have no idea how long an older women may have been trying to conceive. Some women start early but it may not happen for them until they're older. Some women are told that they are infertile and will never carry a child, so to fall pregnant (at any age) can be a wonderful thing for them and because of this, they're more likely to ignore or not care if their kid has a condition. These women are likely also paying taxes (probably more than what you pay, might I add) and have probably contributed to the funding of your education. Get off your high horse.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Blue_Mason
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


You missed my point, these people are able to conceive naturally but you're wanting to deny that right because of a possibility.

I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is that an increased risk is possible in any woman so by your logic, not only should all women over 35 be sterilised but so should any woman of any age with a family history of illness.
I don't think it's the best idea in the world, put it that way.
A woman over 40 has something like 500 times the chance of delivering a baby with down's syndrome than a woman at 20- and I assume this is the same for other conditions.

It's not healthy at all, 40 should be the ABSOLUTE limit, but ideally much younger.
Having a child at 40+ is utterly ridiculous. The health complications that can arise are just no worth it. It shouldn't be made illegal, but it is immoral and as bad as smoking or taking drugs during pregnancy.

I can however totally understand why people do choose to do this, since women nowadays have to put their careers in front of having a child.

If you want a child, it would be a better choice to adopt one!
Reply 26
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
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.


Was your mother really old?
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.
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


Their ability to conceive and have a baby does. But men still do this as well. The quality of your sperm goes down as you get older.
Why is everyone so concerned with other people's choices? There are always going to be people out there who don't agree with parenting choices of other mother's (or father's). One day someone won't agree with how you bring your kids up or the lifestyle choices you make for them! My personal opinion is that a woman should live her life before having kids, get a career, see the world. Have a bit of life experience to pass on to a kid. Be able to bring a child up themselves, pay for their own lifestyle choices, instead of relying solely on the taxpayer. However that's just my own personal standards, I realise that not everyone will have the same priorities and that's absolutely fine. As long as the baby is loved and cared for and happy then what's the problem?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by theconfusedman
Having a child at 40+ is utterly ridiculous. The health complications that can arise are just no worth it. It shouldn't be made illegal, but it is immoral and as bad as smoking or taking drugs during pregnancy.
not worth it for who? Who are you to dictate what is 'worth it'? You have no idea what some women have gone through to ensure they become mothers.

I can however totally understand why people do choose to do this, since women nowadays have to put their careers in front of having a child.
This is the issue right here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If you want a child, it would be a better choice to adopt one!

Some women want to carry a child and have it be biologically theirs, rightfully so.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
not worth it for who? Who are you to dictate what is 'worth it'? You have no idea what some women have gone through to ensure they become mothers.

This is the issue right here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Some women want to carry a child and have it be biologically theirs, rightfully so.


I can understand why people do have children at an older age, but its not worth it for the unborn child who has a high chance of some kind of defect. The unborn child may (god forbid) be born with down's syndrome and live a very limiting life, but have no say.

People who want biological children should strive to have the child earlier.

I guess i was being vague. What im really trying to say is that if a woman wants a child at an older age, they should really consider everything before going through with it and be prepared for the potential consequences, which in my opinion is just not worth it.
Reply 31
Avatar for difeo
difeo
18
Yes, the vast majority of downs babies are aborted, so if there's a health problem it will probably be sorted out
Original post by theconfusedman
I can understand why people do have children at an older age, but its not worth it for the unborn child who has a high chance of some kind of defect. The unborn child may (god forbid) be born with down's syndrome and live a very limiting life, but have no say.

So what should she do if her child has Down's syndrome? Be forced to abort?

People who want biological children should strive to have the child earlier.

Naive statement.
Has it ever occurred to you that some women have been trying since they were in their 20s but for whatever reason, it didn't happen for them? Or perhaps they were told by doctors that they are infertile and will never conceive a child? So when they do fall pregnant at whatever age, of course they'd be more inclined to keep it regardless of disability.

I guess i was being vague. What im really trying to say is that if a woman wants a child at an older age, they should really consider everything before going through with it and be prepared for the potential consequences, which in my opinion is just not worth it.

I'm sure all older women are aware of the increased risk. Their pregnancies are monitored a lot more frequently than a pregnant women in her 20s. These older women are therefore willing to take that risk so it is worth it to them.
Original post by cherryred90s
So what should she do if her child has Down's syndrome? Be forced to abort?


Naive statement.
Has it ever occurred to you that some women have been trying since they were in their 20s but for whatever reason, it didn't happen for them? Or perhaps they were told by doctors that they are infertile and will never conceive a child? So when they do fall pregnant at whatever age, of course they'd be more inclined to keep it regardless of disability.


I'm sure all older women are aware of the increased risk. Their pregnancies are monitored a lot more frequently than a pregnant women in her 20s. These older women are therefore willing to take that risk so it is worth it to them.


No, no one should ever be forced to abort. But if the child does have down syndrome, it probably is the best choice for the unborn child.

Its not a naive statement, since i said 'strive' to have a child in their 20s. If they cant due to exceptional circumstances but really want a child, i have nothing against that. You misinterpreted what i said.

As i said, my opinion is that its not worth it, but it does vary from person to person and with advancements in medicine, i may change my opinion :smile:
Original post by loveleest
I think it's so much better than having one at 45 than having one at under 18 IMO.


Why exactly?

As someone with a mother who had me far closer to 18 than 45, I think it was beneficial for me. There was a lot of stuff my parents could do with me when I was young that I doubt they'd have the energy for at 55.

If you have children that old as well, it also increases the likelihood that they will not have long with their grandparents and even less time with their great-grandparents.
Original post by theconfusedman
No, no one should ever be forced to abort. But if the child does have down syndrome, it probably is the best choice for the unborn child.

Its not a naive statement, since i said 'strive' to have a child in their 20s. If they cant due to exceptional circumstances but really want a child, i have nothing against that. You misinterpreted what i said.

As i said, my opinion is that its not worth it, but it does vary from person to person and with advancements in medicine, i may change my opinion :smile:


You don't know what's best though. Some Down's syndrome people are living very happy lives, sure, they may need extra help but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been born.

It is a naive statement, because a lot of women do 'strive' but it takes them longer to conceive. I doubt women would purposely wait until they're 45 to have a child.

You have no basis to say it's not worth it though. Everyone has an opinion, but not every opinion is to be valued.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
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.


Actually he does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3487880/Older-women-IVF-abroad-birth-UK-placing-NHS-huge-stress-complicated-pregnancies.html
Original post by Blue_Mason

Women biologically age at quicker rate
women biologically age at a normal rate
Original post by Dinasaurus
Why exactly?

As someone with a mother who had me far closer to 18 than 45, I think it was beneficial for me. There was a lot of stuff my parents could do with me when I was young that I doubt they'd have the energy for at 55.

If you have children that old as well, it also increases the likelihood that they will not have long with their grandparents and even less time with their great-grandparents.


I said under 18. I think you missed the point what I said. I said that it it would be better for a 45 year old to have a baby rather than, for example- A 17 year old, that is still in full time education...

Yeah, I agree. 45 may not be the "best age" but it isn't old and they shouldn't be stopped having any children.

I am not close with any of my grandparents or great-grandparents and I am completely fine with that. There are other family that they could be close to, that they could do things with.
Original post by cherryred90s
You don't know what's best though. Some Down's syndrome people are living very happy lives, sure, they may need extra help but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been born.

It is a naive statement, because a lot of women do 'strive' but it takes them longer to conceive. I doubt women would purposely wait until they're 45 to have a child.

You have no basis to say it's not worth it though. Everyone has an opinion, but not every opinion is to be valued.


Yes people with downs syndrome can be happy, but its a very limited life.

You're being incredibly ignorant, I did say that if they 'strive' to have a child but did not work then i have nothing against them trying for a child in later life. You're not looking at the bigger picture.

My basis for my opinion is that the unborn childs possible defects need to be considered in the decision. My opinion is perfectly valid and if you dont value it then idrc. I did acknowledge the possible advancement in technology that can decrease the risk but it is still very high at this point.

I dont see why you need to attack me like this, i can only assume that you are emotionally associated with this issue.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you