| Author | |
MarilynW
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 28 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4275
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 8:41am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Hi everyone - my general reply to the question "so when are you going to be done" is to say that we will have as many children as God blesses us with. Recently I have had a lot of remarks about "surely you will stop at 40" You know I have never thought about it - I am 38 and it has not really crossed my mind. When people go on about having kids after 35 I usually use the quote from Large Family Logistics "Women should not have children after 35 - 35 kids is quite enough" But everyone seems so concerned about the age factor and the increase in risks to mother and child.
Does anyone have any opinions or views and the Catholic position.
Thanks
Marilyn
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
8kids4me
Forum Pro
Joined: May 03 2006
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 9:52am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I had my last baby at 41, my best friend had her last at 44. It was a little harder for me as I had placenta previa with the last two, which complicated the Csection. My friend had her last two babies in under a half hour, and no complications. I say it's worth it to put God in charge.
__________________
Cindy B, mama to 8 great kids, and 5 grandbabies!
http://www.magnolialane.wordpress.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 10:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It was interesting to me that when I was pregnant with #4 (5th pregnancy) at 35, the OB said that, due to my *age* he needed to let me know that he would do an amnio if I wanted it. Then he added, the risk of Down syndrome to a child born after the mother is 35 is(whatever it was), but the risk of miscarriage from amnio is 1 in 200 at any age. He continued, saying he would do the amnio if I wanted it, but that if I asked what he thought about doing it, he would say it was stupid. I loved that comment!
Actually, all of the babies I have known who were born with Down syndrome were born to mothers between 21 and 35. So it's not as if certain risks are only for the *senior* mothers.
I had #5 baby at 38, a miscarriage at 40, then #6 live birth a few weeks before turning 42. It was certainly more tiring being pregnant the older I got, but who knows whether that was based on *my age* or on the fact that I had more and more children to take care of (which is the world's BEST reason to be tired).
IMHO, all of that gloom and doom people try to put on having babies after a *certain age* is just nay-saying. The Lord ultimately controls the number of children you have, and who can have any better idea about anything than He?
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bridget
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 10:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MarilynW wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions or views and the Catholic position. |
|
|
I think the Catholic position is the same in all fertility situations: to be prayerfully discerned between the couple.
My personal conviction is to err on the side of generosity.
But really, most women's fertility is declining by then and most aren't in any 'danger' of having more than one in those years. I don't know stats, thats just my observation.
Among hollywood, it appears to be hip to have babies in the 40's and 50's, most with medical intervention. So having babies later makes you chic, if that holds any weight with critics.
I think most moms try hard to stay healthy and fit, partly for the sake of raising their children, so I'm not sure thats much of an issue.
There has got to be a list somewhere of great people who were born to women in their 40's.
Really by the time you have those later babies, you are so good at it and can enjoy it so much more! i doubt you could find many children of older parents who wish they had not been given life.
Life is always beautiful! 
__________________
God Bless,
Bridget, happily married to Kevin, mom to 8 on earth and a small army in heaven
Our Magnum Opus
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My youngest was conceived when I was almost 40. They showed me a chart that must have been subtitled "Genetic Risks for Complete Idiots of Advanced Maternal Age" -- a kind of pictorial step by step presentation of how the risks increase as you get older. I think they WAY oversimplify and lump first-time older moms in with moms of many, etc.
It was ironic because I was pregnant with a child who had a 90% risk of dying from iron storage overload (he beat the odds) One chance in a hundred, or whatever it was, of a comparatively mild birth defect looked pretty good to me statistically in comparison. Gave me perspective!  I loved my baby and wanted him to live! I think they recognized the incongruity because they rather apologized for putting on the presentation, it was just something they did with all the older moms.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dawnie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 30 2005
Location: Kansas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 3:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Marilyn,
I've struggled with this question, too. I'm only 29, and hopefully I have a lot of years of fertility left, but who knows? I could have only 5 years left, or maybe I have 15.
I think that the statistics that "show" that women over 35 have an increased risk of having children with birth defects are presented in a misleading way. Consider this:
In reference to Down's Syndrome,
At maternal age 30, 99.9% of babies do not have it.
At maternal age 36, 99.6% of babies do not have it.
At maternal age 40, 99.1% of babies do not have it.
(Wilke, Abortion Questions and Answers, 1988)
What many doctors tell women is that a woman over age 35 has a 4 times greater risk of having a baby with Down's Syndrome. Sounds scary, right? The truth is, that a woman UNDER age 35 has a .1% chance of having a baby with Down's Syndrome; a woman OVER age 35 has a .4% chance of having a baby with Down's Syndrome. .4% is 4 times greater than .1%, but the risk is still VERY small and your chances of having a healthy baby are MUCH greater than having a baby with Down's Syndrome.
On a side note, I know several families who have babies with Down's, and these are some of the sweetest children I know. One of the benefits is that these children stay babies longer, because of their developmental delays. One of my friends whose baby has Down's says that she is so glad that she really gets to savor and enjoy the time her daughter is a baby; it's like she's developing in slow motion. Down's Syndrome is not so scary to me now that I actually know kids who have it.
Dawn
__________________
Mom to Mary Beth (99), Anna (02), Lucia (04), Clara (06), and Adelaide Victoria (2/28/09)
Visit my blog!Water Into Wine:Vino Per Tutto!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 9:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh, my goodness ... if I'd stopped having children when I turned 35, I would have only one child .... 
I had miscarriages in my early 30's, then had children at ages 33 and 36, then more miscarriages and then another child at 42.
Now that I'm 46, we'll just see what God has in store for us. For an example of a beautiful child born to a mom who's about my age, visit Kathryn at the Bookworm!
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elena
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 13 2006
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 592
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 7:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I had my daughter at 40, I had a stillborn son at 42, and then I had my youngest child who is perfectly normal (except for that inherited Lithuanian temper) at 46.
__________________
Elena
Wife to Peter, mom of many!
My Domestic Church
One Day at a Time
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kathryn UK
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 924
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 7:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Karen E. wrote:
| Oh, my goodness ... if I'd stopped having children when I turned 35, I would have only one child .... |
|
|
Me too, Karen . My older two were born when I was 34 and 37 and on my 45th birthday I began to suspect I might be expecting number three . As others have said, the risk of Downs and other genetic defects is higher in your 40s than at say 25, but the chances are still massively in favour of a healthy baby. And a Downs baby would have been a joy to me anyway . The biggest downside of pregnancy after 40 is that the risk of miscarriage rises considerably. The statistics I saw for miscarriage at 45 varied between 40% and 65%. That bothered me far more than any other risk.
Pregnancy at 45 was definitely tougher, but I'm not sure how much that was down to age and how much to the fact that for me pregnancy triggers asthma. I was fine with dd1, suffered from mild asthma with dd2, and severely with dd3 - so maybe I was just more sensitised to whatever hormone my body doesn't like? Probably because of my poor health while pregnant Naomi had a low birthweight (5lb 7oz at 38 weeks) and was delivered by emergency c-section because she was in distress.
As for having a newborn in your mid-40s? Wonderful. I highly recommend it . I am not any more tired than I was in my thirties. The only downside is that I ache more  . I can't get away with lack of exercise the way I once could (a lesson I learned a while ago!), and 9 months of enforced inactivity during pregnancy has left me very unfit.
And just to prove that babies born to mothers over 40 are irresistable, here she is on her baptism day ...
__________________
Kathryn
Dh Michael,  Rachel(3/95) Hannah(8/98) Naomi(6/06)  (11/07)
The Bookworm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 7:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I had my last baby at 36. Then, there was a long pause (during which I totally panicked and despaired). Then, two days after my fortieth birthday, I learned I was pregnant . I've been really, really sick pretty much the whole nine months. Not sure how to explain it. But I'm very hopeful (due largely to Kathryn's example) that I will feel just fine as soon as I deliver. And, even though this has been a rough road, I'd do it again in a heartbeat!
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stacykay
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 08 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 7:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My 2yods was born when I was 41. So, now you can tell how old I am.
My mum had me when she was just shy of 41. So, I am very thankful she took the "40" plunge! She was my dearest friend.
Bridget pointed out the Catholic postion. As far as personal experience, during the pregnancy I was a bit more tired than with previous pregnancies, but maybe that was due to chasing after 5dss! And I wound up with a c-section, due to an extra-stretched out and roomy uterus that allowed ds to lay sideways!
As far as fertility goes, I got pregnant with #6 while nursing #5. That is the only time I ever got pregnant while nursing (which, depending on their passion for nursing, gave me some considerable gaps between a couple of them!)
My miscarriages occurred when I was 24 and 37 (also a possible one when I was 30, but never got to a dr. for confirmation- we were away and I didn't want to go to dr., but now regret not knowing for sure  ) Thankfully, none in my 40's, at this point.
I say, take it to God, with your dh, and you can't go wrong.
God Bless,
Stacy in MI
Mummy to Matt(18,) Mike(15,) Pete(11,) Mark(8,) Paul(4,) and John(2) and two with God.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 10:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I had a quite easy time conceiving and bearing my last dd at age 44. Before that I delivered a very healthy ds at age 40.
Remember, we're talking about a pervasive mentality in the science and medical fields that views abortion as normal and pregnancy as a disease. The logical outcome of this is an unfounded fear of giving life and a total disregard for the dangers and complications of life after an abortion (miscarriage, cancer, ectopic pregnancy, who knows what else?).
I actually have total strangers ask if we're done yet which mystifies me. How can people look at us and think that we would know that answer to that question? Sometimes it's just downright discouraging--I mean haven't we left the impression on anyone that God is in charge?
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 3:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My mother-in-law was 43 when my Down's sister-in-law was born. My mother had her last child at 46. My brother is not as easy going as my sister-in-law  , but he is not impared. He is a typical 16 year old who loves to hang out with my teens.
I will be 42 when our baby is born. As mentioned earlier, I have been very tired throughout this pregnancy, but then again 18 years ago, I wasn't doing 3 loads of laundry a day or cooking for 9 people.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
amyable
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3798
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 5:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Being 37, I don't have any personal experiences (yet) - but I for one am glad that there are people who have had babies over 40. My MIL was born when her mother was 48 (she was the youngest of 10 pregnancies, 6 children survived past childhood). Without her, I wouldn't have my wonderful dh (youngest of 4) or my great kids.
__________________
Amy
mom of 5, ages 6-16, and happy wife of 
The Highly Sensitive Homeschooler
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stefoodie
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8457
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 6:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
my mom married at 31 and had me at 33. before me she had a stillborn and after me a miscarriage. then she had my brother at 41 and our youngest brother at 44. the one who's next to me has ADD but then all of us (youngest brother, AND my mom included ) exhibit "ADD behavior" often, so it probably doesn't have anything to do with my mom's age when she had us.
__________________
stef
mom to five
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
teachingmom
Forum All-Star
Virginia Bluebells
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 9:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am expecting soon and I just turned 42 last month. I have to admit that this pregnancy has been harder on me in many ways. BUT, after bringing it up on this forum and hearing from other moms here and one other experience that I will describe below, I think that I was just extraordinarily blessed with easy pregnancies with my older 4 children. My pregnancy with my 5th dd was difficult, but I had real medical reasons for that. This time, I am blaming a combination of age, having many children to look after already, and some of the normal difficulties of pregnancy, which I avoided in the past.
As for the experience I mentioned above . . . a few months ago I met the wife of a friend whom dh has known for many years through his work. She was expecting her first child. She is much younger than I am. I'd guess somewhere between her mid-twenties to early thirties. She is very slim and seems in good shape and has not worked since moving here when she married less than a year ago. I was telling her how tired I had been this summer, when she replied with, "I know. There are some days when I wake up, do a few chores around the house, and just have to go back to bed for a nap before the middle of the day." Boy was that eye opening for me! She was completely exhausted by pregnancy alone . . . never mind the responsibilities of a household of 5 young children. It made me feel SO much more normal!
__________________
~Irene (Mom to 6 girls, ages 7-19)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 3:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
There have been two days this pregnancy when a friend or my husband took all the children under ten for a very long day (actually, one of those was overnight). It's amazing how much better I felt! I missed them by the end but it was a good experiment to test the "many children vs. age" hypothesis. I think it's more a factor of many children than age.
For instance, Katie and Nicholas both have croup. I was up with each of them twice last night. The last time was around two. Nick ended up in my bed where he was clearly making it tough for dh to sleep. So I got up--I wasn't sleeping anyway. I went down to sleep on the couch. Michael was there! Appparently the crickets in his basement bedroom were more than he could bear. I went down to sleep in his bed. The crickets didn't bother me at all but I was worried I would hear one of the little ones and they would wake Mike. So I just got up. Dh has an early flight and he needed me to wake him at 4:30 anyway. There you go--no sleep. And none of that had anything to do with age.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momtomany
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 8:35am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I had my Leah (9th baby) at age 41 and Joseph at age 44. We lost him at nine days old due to a cord prolapse during labor, but I was assured that cord accidents are not age related. Other than that, he would have been perfectly healthy. I was very tired during the last few pregnancies, but like many others, I'm pretty sure it had way more to do with the # of children to care for than my age.
__________________
Mary Ann in PA
wife to MIchael, mom to Elizabeth, Becca, Tim, Peter, Andrew, Sarah, Matthew, John, Leah and Joseph
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 10:24am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My awesome catholic ob says you are more likely to not get pregnant than to have a problem pregnancy if you do conceive. The only other thing is a slightly higher risk of a multiple birth. (due to the closer to menopause the less regular the cycle. sometimes there's no ovulation, sometimes there's multiple ovulation in a short time, etc..) If anything, she says the trend seems to be problem pregnancies in younger women because they take their health for granted and don't care for themselves as they should.
On a side note from the view of a couple that married young and "started" young and therefore already have 8 by age 33.
The notion that I will continue at this rate, unlikely though that is, through my early 40's is rather daunting. That could be anywhere from 4 to 7 MORE children. Yikes! Not that I wouldn't want and love every one of them, but it is rather nerve racking to contemplate a large family before you have one. I mean, let's see here.. that would be a total of at least 40 years raising children or a total of 9 years being pregnant or nearly 18 years of bf-ing and diapers.  So normally we don't give it a thought other than, "Well, another one on the way can't be that difficult to accomodate." Why borrow worries? Aren't the ones we already have enough?
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stacykay
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 08 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 10:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This discussion is reminding me- did anyone watch Discovery Health Channel (I think?) this past weekend? They were having an "updated" show on the Duggar family (I think they now have 16 children based on the show title.)
I saw the 14 and expecting show on the regular Discovery Channel a few years back. We no longer have cable, and even if we did, I don't think it carries the other channel, but, anyhoo, if anyone did see it, what did you think?
God Bless,
Stacy in MI
p.s. For anyone who may not be familiar with them, the Duggars live in ?Arkansas? and have homeschooled their children all along, the mom is very organized (she'd have to be!,) and they were building a large home by themselves. They are non-Catholic Christians.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Forum Locked) 
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: Children after 40
