The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
A Game of Thrones
A Game of Thrones
Amazon.co.uk Mass Market Paperback
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Tick Tock, Biological Clock


243 replies to this topic

#1 Mandy

Mandy

    POOR IMPULSE CONTROL

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,565 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

I realized this morning that, with my birthday coming up, I am getting closer and closer to the time when doctors generally don't think it's a good idea to try to have a baby. I already have three boys, so I'm not feeling extremely concerned, except that I am single and I wouldn't mind trying for a girl (and if I met someone I wouldn't mind having another baby with them. I feel like it's not an experience I would want to take away from someone else, and my last two boyfriends have been rather young.)

I believe most doctors require amniocentisis for women 35 and up, and I beleive 40 is the cutoff age for what doctors recommend, but of course women CAN have them afterwards. I know my ex-husband's mother was 43 when she had him, and one of the attorneys in my last lawfirm had twins at age 42 (though twins are more likely the closer you get to menopause because your eggs start dropping more than one at a time.)

I'm just curious if anyone else has anything to say on this subject, whether it be because you are in a similar situation to mine or because you absolutely never felt the desire to spawn /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Personally, eventhough I am really enjoying having "me" time, partying with my friends and even being able to enjoy myself at a pool because I'm not constantly worried about my children drowning (my 7 year old is an AWESOME swimmer and my friends and I watch him like a hawk), I still sometimes think about how much I LOVED having a little tiny baby around, and how they smell... and baby clothes... oh man. Girl stuff? I would LOVE to buy pretty little girl clothes for once. Thoughts?

Edited by Mandy, 11 December 2012 - 11:19 AM.


#2 MinDonner

MinDonner

    Social Justice Space Warlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,103 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:30 AM

As someone with no desire to spawn, as I approach that age where it becomes less and less likely, my thoughts are usually along the lines of THANK FUCK!! Not that I'm even particularly looking for a fella at the moment, but just knowing that Hypothetical Future BF would not be expecting me to mother any of his children is a great relief, as well as adding an extra safeguard into fallible birth control.

#3 Greywolf2375

Greywolf2375

    HIGHLY INTELLIGENT LIBRARIAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,724 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:41 AM

I still sometimes think about how much I LOVED having a little tiny baby around, and how they smell... and baby clothes... oh man. Girl stuff? I would LOVE to buy pretty little girl clothes for once. Thoughts?

Jack is 10 months old. He slept through the night. I have been up since 2. those are my thoughts.

No, seriously....my wife and I got pregnant when she was 40 and gave birth at 41. Our PCP had her first kids at 43 - which is basically what my wife will be if we have a 2nd. While it is still true that the older you get, the more dangers/precautions it isn't as precipitous as it had been.

If you do want another one, I hope you do find someone and have success, because even as tired as I am having that little guy curl up against me and fall asleep is a billion types of awesome.

#4 Ser Scot A Ellison

Ser Scot A Ellison

    My children's daddy and Social Justice Warrior!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,860 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

My parents were 23 and 24 respectively when I was born. I was 32 when my first child was born and 35 when my second child was born. I'm frequently jealous of my parents because they'll get to see their grandchildren for some time. I'm less likely to. If my kids wait till the same age I did when they have children I'll be 64 when they are born.

#5 MisterOJ

MisterOJ

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

Jack is 10 months old. He slept through the night. I have been up since 2. those are my thoughts.

No, seriously....my wife and I got pregnant when she was 40 and gave birth at 41. Our PCP had her first kids at 43 - which is basically what my wife will be if we have a 2nd. While it is still true that the older you get, the more dangers/precautions it isn't as precipitous as it had been.

If you do want another one, I hope you do find someone and have success, because even as tired as I am having that little guy curl up against me and fall asleep is a billion types of awesome.


Damn dude. Big ups.

My kids are 8 and 6 now. Had the first when the wife and I were in our late 20s. Can't imagine doing it again now that we're a few years shy of 40 - much less 4-5 years from now.

#6 Saint Arya

Saint Arya

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:08 PM

I would like to point out that women having children over the age of thirty-five have a significantly raised risk of developing breast cancer for up to five years after delivery. My step-mom had my sister and was diagnosed with Triple-negative breast cancer a month after Auttie turned two. She's cancer-free now /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> but it's something to add to your cons list...

And she was 37 when she delivered.

Edited by Saint Arya, 11 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.


#7 Mandy

Mandy

    POOR IMPULSE CONTROL

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,565 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

I would like to point out that women having children over the age of thirty-five have a significantly raised risk of developing breast cancer for up to five years after delivery. My step-mom had my sister and was diagnosed with Triple-negative breast cancer a month after Auttie turned two. She's cancer-free now /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> but it's something to add to your cons list...

And she was 37 when she delivered.


Interesting. I didn't know this.

#8 Social Justice Darkstar

Social Justice Darkstar

    I am of the social justice night

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,616 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:34 PM

I wouldn't recommend having kids that late if you've already had them. Having kids when you're almost 40 is a lot more draining than having kids when you're 25.

#9 Skunkbelly

Skunkbelly

    Oh brother, buy me one more drink

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,055 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

Damn dude. Big ups.

My kids are 8 and 6 now. Had the first when the wife and I were in our late 20s. Can't imagine doing it again now that we're a few years shy of 40 - much less 4-5 years from now.


Mine are the same age. Except I was 5 or so years older when I had them. I was two months shy of 33 and nearly 35 when I had them. I can't imagine having kids any earlier than that!


Mandy: I don't think that 40 is a hard and fast cut-off for kids any more. A good friend of mine just had #3 at age 41. As for requiring an amnio, I don't think that a doctor can require anything. When I got pregnant with Delia, the OB office saw that I was to due a three months before my 35th birthday and wanted to schedule an amnio. I declined unless there were other markers that suggested I needed one, and that was fine with them. I was considered high risk for other reasons, and was getting ultrasounds every 4 weeks (they were every two weeks in the third trimester), so I figured that anything suspicious would crop up in the scans. If there had been any soft markers for disabilities, I would have opted for the amnio. but I didn't see the need to have one just because I had reached a magic age.

Arya; Women who breastfeed have significantly lower risk for breast cancer no matter what age.

As for more children. Nope. No how, no way. I love the two I have beyond measure, but no, no, no and NO.

Edited by Skunkbelly, 11 December 2012 - 12:37 PM.


#10 Opisthokont

Opisthokont

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

Being a man this is less of an issue, and since I have no plan to ever have children its a complete non-issue. What does worry me though is that as my old friends abandon me for bottom-wiping and breast-feeding and other child-rearing duties, I have to find new ones - and at some point, I anticipate, it's going to get increasingly more difficult to find new friends who do not have children. But maybe, at that point, my old friends will be jaded parents of teenagers who only see their kids a couple of minutes per day. That's what I'm hoping for.

#11 Kay Fury

Kay Fury

    Like a knife fight in a phone booth

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,899 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

Children born to older mothers have a much greater risk of autism, as well. I'm also someone who believes that overpopulation is a huge, huge problem and it's probably a little irresponsible for the future of the earth to have more than 2 children. But, if you decide you want a girl someday, why not adopt?

#12 Aoife

Aoife

    explosion of pedigreed bunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,539 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:50 PM

So many thoughts that they won't even fit in a LiveJournal post.

#13 Yana

Yana

    Dot Lady

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

There are always risks and no guarantees, regardless of the age. But I support the idea of adoption, especially if the age concerns are all about potential damage to the child or the mother.

#14 Skunkbelly

Skunkbelly

    Oh brother, buy me one more drink

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,055 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

There are always risks and no guarantees, regardless of the age. But I support the idea of adoption, especially if the age concerns are all about potential damage to the child or the mother.


Just as an aside, adoption is a very difficult and expensive process.

#15 MrsManderly

MrsManderly

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:14 PM

Being almost 9 months pregnant and 40, I feel I must add my two cents to this discussion:

It is true that pregnancy at a later age carries some health risks, from it being more difficult to conceive to possible genetic issues with the baby, such as down syndrome. However, in this day and age, those problems can often - though not always - be overcome. I had my son 18 months ago when I was 39 and am expecting a baby girl in January. Both were conceived without difficulties (in fact this second one came around rather more precipitously than was planned /blushing.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blushing:' /> ). They do routine screenings for birth defects and genetic issues and you can also have tests like the CVS or amnio which give you pretty much 100% reliable screening so you can have peace of mind (these are mandatory in the US, where I live they are elective).

As I didn't have kids earlier, I can't compare my energy levels for running after them and coping with the whole delightful experience to those of a 25 year old. It is probably true that my partner (he's 46) and I are less fit, need more sleep and generally not as physically robust as younger parents. On the plus side, I have years of sleep deprivation training working as a lawyer in a large international law firm, which is very handy! Joking aside, I am more conscious of my health now and hoping I can keep fit and healthy enough to see my little ones at least into their early '20s - again a concern that a younger parent probably doesn't have.

Having kids older though has some important advantages too: I am much more financially settled than I was in my '20s and can afford excellent childcare + someone to clean my house which helps; I have had a longer time to enjoy the carefree single life, travel, party, "sow wild oats", whatever so I don't feel like I'm sacrificing much when I stay home on a Saturday night or don't go to that exciting trip or whatever; I had devoted my 100% to my career for the past 15 years or so, so now I feel like I am entitled to take it a bit slower and have a decent amount of "good will" accumulated at work so that I don't need to be embarassed about taking 2 maternity leaves in as many years; also, by the time I finally got them, I was also 100% sure that I did want kids and maybe apperciated the experience more than a younger parent.

That said, Mandy, I am most definitely stopping at 2 and can't even imagine contemplating a 4th!

Edited by MrsManderly, 11 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.


#16 Kay Fury

Kay Fury

    Like a knife fight in a phone booth

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,899 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

Just as an aside, adoption is a very difficult and expensive process.

And pregnancy isn't?

#17 Nukelavee

Nukelavee

    Kissing temptation under the veil

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

Being a man this is less of an issue, and since I have no plan to ever have children its a complete non-issue. What does worry me though is that as my old friends abandon me for bottom-wiping and breast-feeding and other child-rearing duties, I have to find new ones - and at some point, I anticipate, it's going to get increasingly more difficult to find new friends who do not have children. But maybe, at that point, my old friends will be jaded parents of teenagers who only see their kids a couple of minutes per day. That's what I'm hoping for.


I dunno, I don't think I've noticed having to find new people to replace those sidelined by breeding...

What I have noticed is, despite not having offspring and not being capable of fathering them, I really enjoy seeing my friends with their children. And I really enjoy when those children see me as a friend of theirs, as well.

On the whole biological clock and rest of the topic...I got nothing.

#18 Social Justice Bass

Social Justice Bass

    Aquatic Social Justice Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,512 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:34 PM

The "autism and potential birth defects" is on the male side of things too, for men who become fathers later in life. I've been thinking about freezing some sperm, just in case I become a parent much farther down the road (my parents didn't have me until both were in their mid-thirties).

#19 Kouran

Kouran

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

Children born to older mothers have a much greater risk of autism, as well. I'm also someone who believes that overpopulation is a huge, huge problem and it's probably a little irresponsible for the future of the earth to have more than 2 children. But, if you decide you want a girl someday, why not adopt?


Actually Kay, 2.0 kids wont cut the mustard. Population would decline at that level of fertility, see here:

Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which newborn girls would have an average of exactly one daughter over their lifetimes. That is, women have just enough female babies to replace themselves (or, equivalently, adults have just enough total babies to replace themselves).
If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). However, the replacement level is also affected by mortality, asexuality, genetic disorders inhibiting procreation, and by women without the desire to have children. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[4] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero.



http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate


#20 Mandy

Mandy

    POOR IMPULSE CONTROL

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,565 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:36 PM

And pregnancy isn't?


Comparatively, not if you have insurance. With insurance, I think my co-pays for the entire birth and all doctor appointments came to under $400. There are also age maximums for ADOPTION as well in the US. I've been working with an attorney who has adopted 4 kids, all of them from other countries, because the US age maxes were too low for them to adopt. Of courrse,, those kinds of adoptions are WAAAYYYY more expensive.

To be honest, I was adopted, and I don't think it's fair to bring an adopted child into a family where there are already biological siblings. It was kind of horrible for me, personally.

ETA. PS they have no freaking clue what causes autism. My youngest is on the spectrum. Trust me. They have No. Freaking. Clue.

Edited by Mandy, 11 December 2012 - 01:37 PM.




Reply to this topic