TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › My friend's biological clock!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My friend's biological clock!

post #1 of 93
1/18/11 at 5:02am
Thread Starter 
I reconnected with a high school friend back in the summer of 2009. She's living down in the States and came up to visit her Mom so we got together one evening.

She was always undecided about kids and put her career and travelling above everything else.

So at our meeting I find her telling me about her desire to have a baby! And that her and her boy friend had been doing fertility drugs and donor eggs and IVF for several months, having resulted in her having miscarriage after miscarriage followed by D&Cs after each one. She had just had one 2 weeks prior to our meeting.

I should add, she was 48 years old at the time.

She told me they were going to try one or two more times and then consider a surrogate. They were totally against adoption.

Anyway, one of those last 2 times took, and she got pregnant and became a mother in September, at the ripe old age of 48 years old. She turned 49 on Dec 31/10.

Her Son is 5 months old and cute! I heard from her yesterday, they are planning on doing IVF again later this year or early next year. So if all goes as she plans, she will be having a baby at the age of 50 years!

As happy as I am for her that she finally got to be a Mom. I think 48/49 years old is too old to bring a baby into this world and raise it. Let alone at 49/50!!

You don't have the same energy as you do when you're younger. When they are in high school you will be on pension..... college, you'll likely be in a nursing home.

Colour me mean, but I think what she is doing is highly selfish of her. She's thinking of her own needs and not those of the children and what having such an old parent can mean to them. They'll likely be orphans by the time they are 25 years old

My parents were older when I was born. My Mom 36 and my Dad 59. As much as I loved them, I wish they had me much earlier in their lives, or chose not to have kids at all. Growing up with aging parents when I was a teenager was very difficult. Not that my Mom was aging, but she developed a great deal of health issues that I was responsible to care for at the ripe young age of 14 years old until her death.

Anyway, as much as she wants to have another baby, I'm secretly hoping that she can't and will be happy with the one that she already has.
Reply
post #2 of 93
1/18/11 at 5:26am
I'm with you Linda, although i know there are some who won't agree.

My parents had me in their early 40's when Mum was going through an early menopause, but it can't have been easy on them. And i always felt that they were old compaired to my friends parents as well

My Niece recently had their 2nd baby at 38 and even she said no more because it's exhausting. She had hers late because she's a nurse so she wanted to get as much experience under her belt before having them.
Reply
post #3 of 93
1/18/11 at 5:42am
For someone who has gone through the wringer and come out empty handed in this infertility process so far, I am happy for her but her age definitely makes me wonder, as you do, if this is fair on the kid (or kids, in the future). I am way younger than her and as it now stands, we will consider being parents till I am about 35 and then perhaps call it a day. Maybe will give a couple more years for adoption (if we are in the process by then already) since we cannot start the adoption process for a few more years yet. DH and I, in the past, have discussed if advanced infertility treatment was for us and if we could be happy not having children and we decided to go for it because I do not want to regret when I am older for not trying. I know many adoption agencies/ birth parents will be reluctant to place a child with your friend because of her age and so adoption may not be an option for her.
My mother had me when she was 22 and my sister when she was 29 and there was a difference there, too. With me she was naive, made mistakes, was energetic (which was fun) and also trying to raise a "perfect" child while trying to find her own identity. With my sister, she knew there can be no "perfection" and she had learnt from her mistakes. She was also more confident and found her place in the world, had a career and my sister got less of the crazy fun. Both of us turned out ok but I cannot see mom being a mother of a toddler now. I have trouble understanding some of the things that my younger cousins talk about and the generation gap can be insurmountable. The health factor can be a large burden on the kids and I hope they have enough money/ support so that the kids are taken care of if they are unable to for any reason. That being said, there are older women who are becoming new mothers and doing a great job since they are where they need tobe in their lives and really really want to be parents- so hope your friend and her kids will be part of that group.
Reply
post #4 of 93
1/18/11 at 5:51am
I actually think it is better than the young kids having children that are totally unprepared to care for them both emotionally and financially. In fact, I would think the older parents would be more stable in both areas. The energy levels may not be as high, but given that we, as a society, are healthier and living longer than our forefathers, I wouldn't say it is necessarily true of most people that age.
Reply
post #5 of 93
1/18/11 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I actually think it is better than the young kids having children that are totally unprepared to care for them both emotionally and financially. In fact, I would think the older parents would be more stable in both areas. The energy levels may not be as high, but given that we, as a society, are healthier and living longer than our forefathers, I wouldn't say it is necessarily true of most people that age.
This is something I thought about reading this post as well.. It seems as though few people are unselfish when it comes to having and raising kids. I'm one of the lucky ones, having really conscientious parents, who decided to have only one child due to finances, and they planned things like paying for my college from the time before they had me.
But I know not many people stop to think about the kind of life they will be providing for the child they are about to bring into the world, even if they are at the what's considered an "appropriate" age to have children. So, I can definitely see the decision to have kids so late in life rationalized when you compare it to the majority of parents out there...
Regardless that it's better than some parents who completely neglect their children by having them too young or whatever other reason, it's still not a choice I'd agree with, because of the same reasons you pointed out, Linda.
Reply
post #6 of 93
1/18/11 at 8:36am
Age has nothing at all to do with being a good parent. Personality type and finances, however, have a huge impact.

There are wonderful older parents and wonderful young ones, and terrible parents in all age groups. Being young or old isn't what determines a person's parenting style, or how well someone can care for their kids.

It saddens me when we judge others based solely on our experiences and our feelings. My parents were "pillars of the community" and they had their children exactly when society expected them to. My siblings and I were physically and emotionally abused at the hands of our cruel and violent mother. We would have died - some of us had brushes with death more than once - if our oldest sister had not looked out after us and been our "mother." Ironically, she was a wonderful mom to us even though she was just a child herself.

From my personal experiences, I should believe that all community leaders are abusive parents, and all 6+-year-old girls are wonderful surrogate mothers!

Older parents might not have as much "energy" as younger parents, but I don't think that's even true these days. There are plenty of lazy young people and many healthy, fit older ones. Plus, older parents often have a financial advantage, and have learned to have more patience than they did in their youth. They are often finished with their partying phase or even with their careers and ready to focus on raising a child.

We can't project our history and our current situation on others, expecting them to feel and act how we would. We should "walk a mile in their shoes" before we judge.

p.s. A person can't be an orphan at age 25, lol.
Reply
post #7 of 93
1/18/11 at 8:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWitch View Post
p.s. A person can't be an orphan at age 25, lol.
Sure you can. The definition is "A child whose parents are dead". No matter how old you are, you are still a child of your parents. If your parents both die, that leaves their children, orphans.
Reply
post #8 of 93
1/18/11 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWitch View Post
25-year-olds are not children, they are adults.
I'd have to agree with this statement. Otherwise I would be a 64 year old orphan. I must admit it would be lovely for a nice old rich man to adopt me.
Reply
post #9 of 93
1/18/11 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
Sure you can. The definition is "A child whose parents are dead". No matter how old you are, you are still a child of your parents. If your parents both die, that leaves their children, orphans.
No wonder your friend says adoption is out of the question, I wouldn't want to adopt a 25-year-old "orphan", either.
Reply
post #10 of 93
1/18/11 at 9:05am
I have a cousin who didn't have her daughter until she was older. She and her husband spent years working and gathering riches according to the world. One day they realized they had nobody to give it to when they died. So they made a decision to have a child. They are wonderful parents and the child will be financially secure no matter how old she is when her parents die. It is a matter of personal choice as to when to have children. There are pros and cons on both sides. Having had a daughter in a previous marriage at a very early age, I thought I was too old to have any more children. I regret that decision, but I have to live with it. Loving parents are a blessing no matter how old they are. Life is not perfect.
Reply
post #11 of 93
1/18/11 at 9:57am
See, I have trouble caring about what your friend is doing at all.
If they are blessed with children, good parents, good people, healthy relatively speaking, and support their kid(s), then that is that. It is really not for me to judge because it changes nothing at all as it isn't my choice or my funds.
However, there are TV shows on this type of thing so some people are highly interested in it
Reply
post #12 of 93
1/18/11 at 10:48am
Its just so hard and competitive out there in 7 billion populace world. You really have to think of the child your trying to create and what the odds are they will have serious health issues from your actions.
Reply
post #13 of 93
1/18/11 at 10:56am
I can see your point; but like others have said...it really depends on them! Now I know how tiring my baby is to me; and I'm 28. DH's dad was in his 40s when he was born and they still do things together like hiking, rafting, etc and he is in his 70s. FIL spent the summer hiking in the alps and touring Europe! I can't imagine being a new parent at that age more so just because of how much your life changes. And sure they are less likely to see their grandkids or enjoy them the way my parents do so that would make me sad. But I can tell you; when your clock starts screaming at you to have a baby, you can't think of much else!! For the longest time I knew I wanted babies someday. Then I got the itch and it was like torture to see other people with new babies. I never used to cry a lot. At least not in public. Hiding my emotions was just me. But that all changed when that itch started. I probably would have agreed with you more before I decided to become a parent. But now I understand it from the other side much better.
Reply
post #14 of 93
1/18/11 at 11:25am
I think it's disgusting. Personally I found that story quite revolting, particularly the "they're against adoption" part. So desperate to be parents but against adoption. Huh, seems hypocritical to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I actually think it is better than the young kids having children that are totally unprepared to care for them both emotionally and financially. In fact, I would think the older parents would be more stable in both areas. The energy levels may not be as high, but given that we, as a society, are healthier and living longer than our forefathers, I wouldn't say it is necessarily true of most people that age.
Immature people popping out sprogs they're ill-equipped to raise properly are a dime a dozen these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madara View Post
Its just so hard and competitive out there in 7 billion populace world. You really have to think of the child your trying to create and what the odds are they will have serious health issues from your actions.
People never factor this into their considerations. It's another inconvenient truth people don't think has any relevance to their lives. And well gosh darn it they just need to have baybees and it's everyone's right to reproduce afterall and they want to be the same as everyone else.
Reply
post #15 of 93
1/18/11 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pushylady View Post
I think it's disgusting. Personally I found that story quite revolting, particularly the "they're against adoption" part. So desperate to be parents but against adoption. Huh, seems hypocritical to me.
Perhaps there's a good reason why they don't want to adopt. When I was in my 30's and my (then) husband was in his 40's, we couldn't adopt through the state of Florida unless we adopted a special needs child or a group because he was over 40. (crazy, huh?) We were not looking to adopt a baby. We did want a younger child. We decided against it because we knew with a special needs child we one of us would need to be home full time on a permanent basis, which was not affordable.

To adopt through another avenue was not affordable for us either.
Reply
post #16 of 93
1/18/11 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWitch View Post
p.s. A person can't be an orphan at age 25, lol.
I was 23 when my Dad died. I may not have been a child but i was still too young to lose the man that i looked up to
Reply
post #17 of 93
1/18/11 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosiemac View Post
I was 23 when my Dad died. I may not have been a child but i was still too young to lose the man that i looked up to
We don't want to lose a parent at any age, but at 23 I hardly think you would have been considered an orphan which is what Swampwitch was trying to say. Orphan = "child" without parents, not "adult" without parents.

As for adoption, it isn't all that easy in North America and can take many years. If it were so easy, there wouldn't be so many adoptions of children from overseas. I totally understand preferring to have one's own biological child.
Reply
post #18 of 93
1/18/11 at 1:32pm
From what I understood of Linda's post (and yes I could be wrong) the people were actually against adoption not just unable to.
Yes I understand the biological imperative to wanting one own's offspring, but going that nightmarish IVF route in order to get that child appalled me. It bothers me so much because as a childfree woman I have had to endure hearing all sorts of crap about selfishness blah blah blah, but a woman like this gets understanding. Talk about selfish- she could adopt a baby (granted not a white North American baby ) and be a parent, but no she has to have her own. She sounds like she's in a great position to be a parent too, regardless of the whole energy question, and she could make such a positive impact by adopting.
Reply
post #19 of 93
1/18/11 at 1:59pm
At least their both grown ups, and want their kids.
Reply
post #20 of 93
1/18/11 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pushylady View Post
Talk about selfish- she could adopt a baby (granted not a white North American baby ) and be a parent, but no she has to have her own. She sounds like she's in a great position to be a parent too, regardless of the whole energy question, and she could make such a positive impact by adopting.
This is how I feel too. I rarely tell people I feel this way because I know sooo many people who are desperately trying to get pregnant and not even considering adoption, and I always think that they are so selfish, but it seems as though everyone else completely understands that they want their own baby, not an adopted one
It just makes me sad, maybe because I'm a pet owner and Jake didn't come out of my womb but I love him as much as I would love a child of my own, so it just makes no sense to me. I'm getting my tubes tied, so there won't be any kids for me, ever (but I do plan to adopt) just because I see no reason to add another number to the earth's population. I think we human beings should be driven by logic and reason, not by instinct, and while sure instincts tell us to have babies, there is lots of evidence out there that homeless babies already exist for us to adopt and take care of...
Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone, it's just my personal opinion.
Reply
post #21 of 93
1/18/11 at 2:32pm
I really don't get what is possibly wrong with her choice... She is financially and emotionally stable, healthy, proved to be capable of bear a healthy child which she did quite recently, has her partner support, family support, has the knowledge and maturity to raise wonderful human beings who will be great for this society. What seems to be the problem? Because she doesn't "fit the norm"? Well, a short while back neither did woman voting or working, or having a voice, for that matter. Or blacks... or anything different at all.
And what is the problem with her wanting to have her own child? Why is she selfish in satisfying her most basic need? Maternal instincts is something so powerful that can't just be undermined like that IMHO. Everyone should have the right to have a choice, and this is her choice... I personally don't see why she should have to give up on her dream of having babies of her own because others might not see fit...
My biggest dream was always to have a baby... Time is quickly slipping away as I turn 37 this year, and I see how this could be me one day... Frankly, I personally wouldn't take adoption out of the picture (personally), but my first choice will be trying for a child of my own, and I will see nothing wrong with that. I can also say that I am now at 37 far more prepared than when I was at 25-26, in all areas of my life, no doubt about it, and I have no question that I will be even better when I am 40.
Just my opinion FWIW.
Reply
post #22 of 93
1/18/11 at 3:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Perhaps there's a good reason why they don't want to adopt. When I was in my 30's and my (then) husband was in his 40's, we couldn't adopt through the state of Florida unless we adopted a special needs child or a group because he was over 40. (crazy, huh?) We were not looking to adopt a baby. We did want a younger child. We decided against it because we knew with a special needs child we one of us would need to be home full time on a permanent basis, which was not affordable.

To adopt through another avenue was not affordable for us either.
When I asked her about adoption, she said that they didn't want to because they wanted the baby to be at least one part of them as a couple. She was using donor eggs because hers had dried up and not enough were being produced to work with IVF. So they wanted their child to have at least his DNA if it couldn't have both of theirs.

They were going to do the surrogate route using donor eggs and his sperm if she couldn't carry the baby.
Reply
post #23 of 93
1/18/11 at 3:08pm
I think it is within their rights to want a baby of their own, whatever the age. I don't think it is selfish at all.

I might be biased though because we have been trying for almost a year with no luck. I might end up like this woman.
Reply
post #24 of 93
1/18/11 at 3:32pm
Thread Starter 
I just think that at some point it becomes unfair to the children. I'm happy that she has a baby that she's been wanting so much. But I think she's getting on in years and I think that a child needs it's parent's long term, and there is a better chance of that happening with younger parents. I know I sure wouldn't want to be 25 years old, in college and my life ahead of me and having to look after aging and possibly sickly parents.

I went through that when I was 14 years old. I had no choice. They were my parents. But it cost me my childhood. Based on what I went through, I can't help but feel that they should be thinking to the future of their children, not their desperate need to have a baby "now!"

Yes, she is in a position financially to give that baby a good home with wants for nothing. But she's By the time the kid graduates from college, my friend will be in her mid 70's. I just don't think it's fair to her children to have to take on the responsibility of starting to transition into looking after aging parents when they are so young.
Reply
post #25 of 93
1/18/11 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
I really don't get what is possibly wrong with her choice... She is financially and emotionally stable, healthy, proved to be capable of bear a healthy child which she did quite recently, has her partner support, family support, has the knowledge and maturity to raise wonderful human beings who will be great for this society. What seems to be the problem? Because she doesn't "fit the norm"? Well, a short while back neither did woman voting or working, or having a voice, for that matter. Or blacks... or anything different at all.
And what is the problem with her wanting to have her own child? Why is she selfish in satisfying her most basic need? Maternal instincts is something so powerful that can't just be undermined like that IMHO. Everyone should have the right to have a choice, and this is her choice... I personally don't see why she should have to give up on her dream of having babies of her own because others might not see fit...
My biggest dream was always to have a baby... Time is quickly slipping away as I turn 37 this year, and I see how this could be me one day... Frankly, I personally wouldn't take adoption out of the picture (personally), but my first choice will be trying for a child of my own, and I will see nothing wrong with that. I can also say that I am now at 37 far more prepared than when I was at 25-26, in all areas of my life, no doubt about it, and I have no question that I will be even better when I am 40.
Just my opinion FWIW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouts mom View Post
I think it is within their rights to want a baby of their own, whatever the age. I don't think it is selfish at all.

I might be biased though because we have been trying for almost a year with no luck. I might end up like this woman.
I have choosen to adopt my children. It really is their choice. As long as they can provide what the child needs. I don't think it is selfish.
Reply
post #26 of 93
1/18/11 at 4:37pm
I'm the product of a 52 yo father and 43 yo mother. My father died when I was 17 and still in high school. I was an only child with no living grandparents or any relatives my age or living in the same state. My mother died when I was 42. I always felt I was being raised by grandparents instead of parents. I think having children is best when you are young and healthy enough to be good parents. God designed menopause for a reason.
Reply
post #27 of 93
1/18/11 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I just think that at some point it becomes unfair to the children. I'm happy that she has a baby that she's been wanting so much. But I think she's getting on in years and I think that a child needs it's parent's long term, and there is a better chance of that happening with younger parents. I know I sure wouldn't want to be 25 years old, in college and my life ahead of me and having to look after aging and possibly sickly parents.

I went through that when I was 14 years old. I had no choice. They were my parents. But it cost me my childhood. Based on what I went through, I can't help but feel that they should be thinking to the future of their children, not their desperate need to have a baby "now!"

Yes, she is in a position financially to give that baby a good home with wants for nothing. But she's By the time the kid graduates from college, my friend will be in her mid 70's. I just don't think it's fair to her children to have to take on the responsibility of starting to transition into looking after aging parents when they are so young.
I know I won't be popular for saying this, but I personally think the above statement is selfish.

1 week ago today I lost my wonderful MIL. My SIL (not a blood relative) left her home and moved in to nurse my MIL while she slowly died at home. She nursed my MIL and we all did everything in our power to run errands, make food for dad and my SIL to make her life easier while caring for our beloved mom and not one of us resented doing it. It was done out of genuine love and caring. I'd rather have a loving parent for a few years than never to have a loving and caring parent at all. And I truly hope that my daughter will never resent caring for me if that time ever came.
Reply
post #28 of 93
1/18/11 at 6:42pm
To my personally if I lost my parents now (I am only 23) I don't know how I'd survive. I am very dependent on my parents still. I know I am an adult, but unfortunately different people need their parents until an age that they don't anymore to survive. Plus, if they did, I'd be in charge of taking care of my brother, who is only 15. I do not have the capacity to do this (even though I'd try my hardest to get him whatever he needed to succeed in life) So, call me selfish, but I agree that it would be unfair to the child to have to take care of his parents or potentially have to lose his parents and take care of a sibling on top of that because his parents wanted the children so bad. Most ''children" between 20-26 nowadays are either just graduated from college or still in college and are broke and don't have secure jobs. Now, unless the parents in this instance have something in place where the older and future younger child can survive on (at least till they can provide for themselves) how are the children to survive without big struggle in the future? As a parent, I wouldn't ever want my children to hurt in life in any way and NO "child" should have struggle excessively just to get through life IMO.
Reply
post #29 of 93
1/18/11 at 6:50pm
Carolina and Yosemite - I agree with everything you guys said. I dreamed of being a mom from my youngest years. Didn't meet my husband until I was 29, though, and got married at 30. At times I really thought my dream was not going to come true.

My mom was 23 when I was born; I was the last of four. I've still got her - she's in her 70's. It's great, I agree, being the product of a young mother. But I'd feel the same about her if she'd been 43.

I had my first at 32, and my third at 38. He was completely unplanned, and one of the greatest blessings of my life. Yeah, the pregnancy was more tiring. But I got over it.

I say: "to each his own". That lady could live to be a hundred. God doesn't give us more than we can handle, IMO.
Reply
post #30 of 93
1/18/11 at 7:10pm
I'm going to be 48 (I think LOL) in a month, and I cannot begin to imagine caring for a baby.

I don't know that what they're doing is selfish, though personally, I can't relate to it at all. I've never felt any strong urge to have a child and though I love Gary dearly, his gene pool in particular is a real crap shoot. I'm with Marianne and Mariya on this one. We adopted a daughter, and weren't even planning on that one. If they want kids, fine. But to go so far as to use a surrogate - when there are so many children that already need homes? I can't wrap my mind around that one, though I'm not sure it's selfish. To me it's just weird.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › My friend's biological clock!