Should older women have children?

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.

Although my mother had me over 18, I still think I could've turned out ok if she had me at 17.

There are family members yes but having more options is good, it is a good position to be in to have so many living relatives that you can choose who do things with. A lot of people I know seem to have almost no contact with 2nd cousins or family that is further away.

Because of the fact we were all linked by our great-grandparent or whatever they were to them, I was able to keep in contact with these more distant relatives and actually see them quite often.

Actually he does.

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

1st) Daily mail link

2nd) I care because? If a woman wants IVF then she should get it, some places are better than others. England certainly isn't great, so why shouldn't she go abroad for it? My mum did and she paid for it herself.

It is incredibly difficult for a 17 year old have a kid at that age. - It is better to have a child after 25 in my opinion- At that age, you are more financial stable, not really in full time education etc...
They don't need to be in contact with every distant relative. They would be fine not being in contact with their great-grandparents.

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.

The source it still credible.

Even if they are financially burdening the already strained NHS?

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.

Perhaps, but if the woman wants to keep her child, that would be her right entirely. If they are told that their child will have Down's syndrome, they are given a lot of information about how to handle the condition and help that would be available to them, so they'd be well informed of the facts before they make a decision.


I'm ignorant? I'm not looking at the bigger picture? You are the epitome of ignorant. Most women who have a child at 45 have probably been trying for a number of years. This accounts for the majority of women who have a child that late in life. So what exactly are you arguing if you have no problem with this situation? As long as they intended to have a child younger, you suddenly welcome disabled children?

I don't know if you're actually reading my replies or if you're just reading to respond. I said that all older women are aware of the increased risks and defects, yet they deem the benefit of becoming a mother to outweigh the possibility of having a child with a disability. It's not as if they are unbeknown to it.


No, not at all. Your comments lacked some depth and understanding which is why I responded.
How am I attacking you?

I love how you're arguing with me when im agreeing with you. Im just saying the unborn child's life and future has to be considered.

'You are the epitome of ignorance' contradicts 'How am I attacking you?'

Clearly you have some kind of emotional connection to this topic, thats why you are trying to defend yourself even though i agree with you.

The unborn child's life is considered, that's the first thing I said to you when you were arguing that it's immoral to have a disabled child.

That sounds a bit Nazi-like..