STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Karina · Chanel

What are your thoughts on this?

Lilykind · Hermes

My mother gave birth to my older brother at 41 and me at 42, so I'm typically a bit sensitive about this. I used to get into massive arguments with people at school over the fact that my mom was compartively an "old bag". However, in both cases we were conceived naturally and my mom was in perfect health throughout the pregnanacy. The only abnormal part is that the doctor forced her to have cesareans both times because of her age, despite the fact that my brother and I were both lying very well and normal.

But my mom was nowhere near menopause and didn't have procedures up the wazoo to try and correct that before becoming artificially inseminated.

I can defintely understand why this woman would want to have a child of her own, but my thinking is that if you can't become pregnant for some reason (yes that includes if you've gone through menopause and want to have children again...), there are plenty of children growing up without parents who should have the opportunity to become part of a family.

It's a free world, though, so while I hold the personal belief that the mother should not have been allowed to go through fertility treatments, I'm not going to call for a law to stop her from it.

RyanJ · Coach

I think that 66 is a bit too old for her to be having children. That women is going to be 84 when the kids graduates from high school. She maybe in great health to, but what about in 20 years? I think the women is being a bit selfish. I can't imagine my grandmother actually being my mother. She is just too old to handle all the things that come with being a mom.

-- Edited by RyanJ at 15:37, 2005-01-17

JoceyBaby23 · Gucci

Women over 50 should not be having children for soooo many reasons... This article annoys me!

Karina · Chanel

In hopes of not offending anyone, I have to state my opinion - I don't think it is right for a mother over the age of 35 or under the age of 20 to consciously decide to have children. This is nothing against any of you, or any of your mothers/friends/others. I understand that a lot of women have careers and their own life to think about before having children, but putting yourself, but most IMPORTANTLY your child in danger because you decided to have children at a "high risk" age is wrong to me.

I am in my mid 20s and I have had TWO pregnancies that have had the potential of carrying a child with down syndrome - and with my 1st one not only did we have the Down's Syndrome scare, but preterm labor and possible cardiac defects on the baby. These risks are higher the older you are and not only do you face possible genetic defects, but difficulty conceiving, preterm labor, high blood pressure, diabetes, stillbirths and probably a bunch of other problems.

I didn't mean to go on a soapbox rant here but I guess I just wanted to voice my opinion.

honey · Gucci

karina -- i understand your point very well. but i always get a little antsy when people try to limit what others should do with their bodies. (outside of certain circumstances) the same argument could be made for having a baby when you're not emotionally or financially ready, but people would be extremely hesitant to say these women can't have babies.

also from a personal perspective, it's likely that if i decide to have children i might be over the age of 35. and this is due to circumstances beyond my control, not simply b/c i want to wait until i've established a career before i have a baby. it seems unfair to say that it would somehow be irresponsible for me to have a baby. if i can conceive, carry a child to term, and provide the child with a loving nurturning environment, don't i have the same right to a child as someone who is younger than me? i don't want to harp on you, but you are extremely fortunate to have found someone to have start a family with at a relatively young age. if a 33 year old woman, hasn't found that person why should she be denied the joy of motherhood simply b/c fate (for lack of a better word) dealt her a different hand in life.

additionally do you feel the same way about people who are prone to certain genetic conditions. if there's a 1 in 4 chance that your baby will have sickle cell (first thing that came to mind) are you then irresponsible for deciding to have a baby?

just some things to think about.

Mia · Kate Spade

Yeah that age argument leads to a very slippery slope. If women shouldn't be conceiving babies before and after certain ages for health reasons (for the baby) - what about - well, what about poor women in third world countries who do not have access to our healthcare/nutrition during pregnancy? Should these women not get pregnant because of potential harm to the baby? What about the fact that many women over the age of 35 (as honey said) are in a much better financial and emotional position to raise children than a woman of 21? What about women with eating disorders or mental illness (and even mild depression is classified, technically, as 'mental illness')? Should they be stopped from getting pregnant as well? There are so many variable situations which could be vaguley described as potentially harmful to a fetus that any rule re: who should have babies and who shouldn't is really kind of unworkable. Recent research suggests a stressed out mom (during pregnancy) is more likely to deliver a low birth weight or premature baby, and is more at risk for pre-eclampsia. All risks for the baby. Should they be weeded out? And if so, how?

Anyway, I balk strongly at most suggestions re: who should and should not be having babies. There's a difference between a 17 year old crackhead schizo and a 36 year old, financially secure, emotionally healthy woman with access to good healthcare.

Karina · Chanel

you both bring up some very good issues... i agree that a 35 yr old woman might be more financially and mentally secure to have/raise a baby as opposed to a 21 yr old woman, but when it comes to factors in your body that might cause problems to your baby, as i have mentioned in my first post, or any ones that you ladies have mentioned - sickle cell, mental illness, anorexia - i think the mother has to choose whether she believes its RIGHT for her to have that child .. and like i said, i didn't want to offend anyone, it is my decision to feel that it is wrong for someone over the age of 35 to have children or anyone with other health issues that might be passed on to the child.

as far as the 66yr old woman - it is wrong (TO ME) not only because of her age, but because she might not be alive to see her child grow.

Mia · Kate Spade

quote:
Originally posted by: Karina
"...as i have mentioned in my first post, or any ones that you ladies have mentioned - sickle cell, mental illness, anorexia - i think the mother has to choose whether she believes its RIGHT for her to have that child .. and like i said, i didn't want to offend anyone, it is my decision to feel that it is wrong for someone over the age of 35 to have children or anyone with other health issues that might be passed on to the child. as far as the 66yr old woman - it is wrong (TO ME) not only because of her age, but because she might not be alive to see her child grow. "

The human race would die out if we followed this rule, though. The vast majority of people are going to have *something* (physical, mental, behavioural etc.) that might be passed onto children. If none of those people had kids...there wouldn't be enough babies to keep the human beings around. Also, that 35 number is arbitrary - it's a scale - the risk of health problems for the baby increases after the early twenties and before the late teens - where are you willing to put the cut off? .01% risk of Down's? 1%? 5%? I am also assuming you and your husband have undergone genetic counseling to the full extent currently technologically possible, to make sure you do not have any faulty genes you did not know about? Also that you are existing completely on organic foods, not over-exerting yourself physically or mentally, wearing a face-mask whenever you leave the house (air pollution is potentially harmful), not using chemical cleaners or make-up or nail polish or hair dye etc. etc. etc. All of these things (and many, many more) have been linked, at some point, to increased risk to a fetus.

I'm not attacking you eprsonally, Karina, just your position here. You use the word "wrong" which means it's a moral issue and there are just so, so many other variables other than age that could affect a fetus. Variables that aren't even necessarily physical. Maybe I could have a baby right now at age 28, do everything within my power to ensure the physical safety of the fetus, and then raise the kid badly, fail to prepare them for life in any way, leave them with a lifetime of self-doubt and unhappiness. Perhaps my imaginary neighbour, who's 36 and fond of pop tarts for breakfast, lunch and dinner, also has a baby, perhaps s/he is born with low birth weight, some physical problems, but she raises him to be a happy, well-rounded person, surrounds him with love and acceptance and guides him on his way properly. Are you really saying she is "wrong" to have her baby and I am "right"?

As I said in my previous post, the age cutoff as a moral issue is not workable and doesn't stand up even under the most basic scrutiny.

Karina · Chanel

this is what i have found during my research on Down's Syndrome during pregnancy and it speaks a lot about over 35 yr old moms:
"What causes concern?

Compared to a younger woman, the woman over 35 may have problems affecting her fertility, her health during pregnancy, and the health of her baby.

Infertility

By the mid-thirties, a woman's fertility is significantly reduced. She may have no difficulty in becoming pregnant or she may need assistance with hormones or other techniques to enhance her fertility.

Risk of Birth Defects
The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance."

Chromosomal Birth Defects
One major reason for apprehension in a pregnancy after age 35 is increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities. Age-related chromosomal birth defects such as Down syndrome occur in only about 1 in 200 pregnancies for women aged 35. However, for women age 40 at the time of pregnancy, the risk rises to about 1-2 percent.

Age-related chromosomal problems typically originate at the time of meiosis, when the egg cell eliminates half of its 46 chromosomes to accommodate the male's genetic material. Tiny filaments called spindles, which appear to become detached from the chromosomes as women age, separate the chromosomes. This detachment can result in an abnormal number of chromosomes in the egg, a condition called aneuploidy. This occurs in about 33 percent of eggs at age 35 and 50 percent of eggs at age 40.

Pregnancy Complications

The risk for miscarriage, preterm labor and various obstetrical complications increases with the mother's age:

Stillbirth — delivery of a baby beyond 20 weeks' gestation that has died beforehand;
Prematurity — early delivery of a baby that is under-sized and has respiratory problems (more common particularly for women who smoke);
Placental complications — misplacement or premature delivery of the placenta which can complicate delivery or jeopardize the baby;
Surgical delivery — especially by cesarean section, requiring a longer hospital stay after delivery;
Multiple gestations — a higher incidence of twins, triplets, etc. Multiple gestations may contribute to complications such as low birth weight and prematurity.
Genetics and Malformations

For reasons not entirely understood, risk for delivery of a child with a chromosomal abnormality increases with maternal age. Congenital defects may manifest as mental retardation and/or physical deficiencies in the infant.

Down's syndrome, also known as mongolism, is a chromosomal defect characterized by mental retardation, facial irregularities and possibly other physical deformities.
Neural tube defects (NTDs) involve incomplete development or abnormalities of the infant's spine or skull. A woman's age at time of delivery is only somewhat related to this risk. "

I am not a doctor or a scientist - the evidence and studies are out there and there is a REASON why the age 35 has been made a cut off age.

sfclinevandy · Coach

I think this story is bizarre and her doctors should not have allowed her to go through with this. That being said, I am much more comfortable with the idea of women in their late 30s and early 40s having children rather than women in their teens and early 20s having children. Older women who make the decision to enter parenthood and are more likely to be able to support the child financially and emotionally vs. a younger women who may not have planned the pregnancy or have the tools and resources to handle parenthood.

lsubatgirl · Gucci

I don't mind the people in their early 40s having kids but when you are 60 that could be an issue. I mean what is going to happen to that baby if its mom dies at 68 or 70? I mean there is not way to determine how long you are going to live.

Ally S · Kate Spade

I have no problem with what nature gives to you, altering it is another story. I also can't see putting an age on when women can or should give birth. To me that is too close to telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

I think women can safely conceive at later ages, I had my daughter at 29 yrs old and had a reading of Down's Syndrome on my amnio, along with other problems yet she was born perfectly normal and today is bright, intelligent and the top of her class.

I think this thought disenfranchises so many females who may be able to give so much later in their life's. To have a baby into your later 30's or early 40's, or to have one artifically in your later 60's is two very different things.

-- Edited by Ally S at 08:58, 2005-01-19

Mia · Kate Spade

Karina, I was not disputing the fact that as age rises, so does risk to the fetus in the form of risks of defects/preterm labour etc. What I was saying is basically this: if you support the placing of age limits on when a woman can give birth, based upon statistical risk to the fetus, that principle (the principle of potential risk to the fetus) dictates that you either have to place limits on who can have a baby based on other forms of risk as well. It is also medically proven that the mother's stress levels increase the risk to a fetus. So do the mother's eating habits, if they are particularly bad. Hell, one study even found that babies born during the winter have a much higher risk of developing schizophrenia as adults. Based on the 'potential risk to the fetus argument' you must also support limiting the right to have a baby on very highly stressed women, women who eat badly and possibly even women who would give birth during the winter. Do you support this? And if not, what's the justification for limiting some types of risk factors (eg. age) and not others?

NOTE: I am talking about Karina's age 35 cut-off, and not the 61 year old woman.

Karina · Chanel

Mia, you have to understand that *I* am not setting a cut-off age here, this is what doctors and medical research have said ... my opinion is solely based on FACTS and EVIDENCE, which I presented above. I think a 35yr old woman is still young, but if it is PROVEN that a woman over 35 poses risks to her child and she is CONSCIOUSLY waiting until 35+ to have children -- that is wrong, to ME.

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

Luckily we live in a free country. I plan on waiting to have my children between 32 and 36 years of age. I think health is only a small part to consider when having a child. The ability to care for them is a bigger issue. And I think anyone who waits until they are in their 30's to have kids are the smartest people on the planet.They USUALLY have a better head on their shoulders, have more patience, and more resources to care for their children.

Tara · Dooney & Bourke

The medical community is not setting an age limit to having children at 35, they are simply stating that as the mother becomes older, the risk increases. As Mia has pointed out, there are many external environmental factors that can complicate pregnancies as well. Should we ban women from having children in LA because of the effects of smog? Setting an age limit on women's right to choose is stepping back 50 years.

I am certain that I will not have children until I am at least in my late 30s. My career is much too important to me. My b/f's older brother has down syndrome. My b/f and I often talk about this issue. We have decided that we do not want to live in GATTACA.

Mia · Kate Spade

But Karina it is you who is setting the cut-off. No one in the medical community has ever suggested that women over 35, or under 20, not give birth. You suggested that - you said it would be wrong of them to do so. No doctor has ever said that, and if s/he did, she'd be setting of a firestorm of controversy. Stating an increased risk and stating that no one should have babies over 35 because of that risk are two very, very different things.

In NO WAY am I disputing the medical facts you are referencing re: increased risk. All I am saying is that maternal age is one of *many* potential risk factors for a fetus and it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily be against one kind of risk and not others.

It is OK and understandable if you have made a personal decision not to have children past the age of 35, but once you step outside of that personal realm and say something like "it is wrong to have babies over 35, period" you then have to be able to support your argument with logic, and currently yours does not stand up (unless you do, in fact, support preventing women who live in smoggy cities or who eat badly or are stressed out etc. from having them as well).

alb · Marc Jacobs

Hmm. I didn't read all of the above posts in their entirety but I read enough to feel like I really needed to respond to this thread. I just have to say that Karina, your entitled to your own opinion of course, but the opinion you expressed in your first post seems extreme and misguided and I strongly disagree with it. The most obvious flaws in your argument IMO are that it is based on two assumptions that cannot possibly be true in every situation. First, it assumes that it is cruel or wrong to bring a child w/ developmental problems into this world, presumably b/c they can never have a happy or fulfilling life. Personally I don't know anyone who is mentally challenged, but I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that we know for sure that despite their hardships, none of their lives are worth living.

Second, your argument assumes that people who conceive or TTC over the age of 35 have chosen to do so out of laziness or due to selfish reasons such as their career, etc. What about, as someone mentioned above, those women who don't find the right guy until later in life? What about women who can't conceive, despite efforts to the contrary, until then? Should they not be allowed to start a family at all? Imagine the stress these women would be under if thyat were the case. What about women who simply are not ready to have children until age 35 or so?? Does that make them immoral people? I don't think so. As a parent, surely you agree that a woman must feel completely ready to accept the responsibility of raising a child before they try to conceive. Obviously, that readiness is going to happen at different ages for different people.

Under your analysis I will be one of those "wrong" people b/c I plan to have more than one child and I will turn 35 just 3 months after my first child is born. I didn't want to wait this long to start a family, but I didn't have a choice. My husband and I weren't ready until about 4 yrs ago, and then we had a lot of problems conceiving and a prior miscarriage. Getting pg is not that easy for everyone.

Finally, I don't mean to highjack this post but I am just curious as to whether you are in favor of abortion. I'm just wondering if you believe that a woman should be able to abort a fetus at any age but only give birth b/w the ages of 20-35.

nyc_shopgirl · Dooney & Bourke

66 is way too old. I think for women in their 40's or 50's it depends. My brother in laws parents were much older when they had him and he had no upbringing. His parents neglected him completely by spending most of their time on the tennis court and he is just learning social graces from my family. I think no matter what the age there has to be a commitment and a desire to raise a child.