My friend's biological clock!

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.

Originally Posted by Rockcat

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by Carolina

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.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Trouts mom

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Natalie_ca

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yosemite

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.

Click to expand...

What a horrible tragedy, I am sorry for your loss. You have some truly wonderful people in your family.
I am sorry to for the losses of everyone in this thread who lost their parents or inlaws or people close to them.
I am in my 20's (my parents had me when they were younger after they married) and taking a very active role caring for a parent. This parent is the best parent a kid or person (and there are a few of us and we all couldn't think more highly of our parents) could ever ask for and is way to young to be going through this health crisis, it isn't fair. Both our parents are great. I love and enjoy every moment I get to spend with my parents regardless and am happy to help out. If I lose either of my parents I will be extremely heartbroken. This goes for at any age. Be it in your childhood, 20's, 30's, 40's, or above, losing someone you love, adore, and know really well is beyond hard.
That being said I still stand by my original opinion of I really don't care about what the friend does or doesn't do with her own biological clock in the example.

This is sorta a sad thread to me. Not because of the opinions...to each their own, you know? But because this is even a matter of debate in society.

Nowadays we have shows on MTV or VH1 or whichever network broadcasts it called "16 and Pregnant". This show is so made fun of and not supported at all because these girls are often just young and dumb, but also hellbent on keeping their child and letting the grandparents raise it.

And there is also frequently great debate when a woman older than 35 chooses to have children. With arguments like these going back and forth between the physical fitness and health of a parent to financial stability.

It seems that at either extreme, there is criticism abound. It seems the only acceptable age to have a child is early to mid-twenties, with women in their thirties "pushing it".

But all people, especially young children in these times are constantly hearing that they need to go to college. And to some degree, this is actually imperative. In order to have a decently paying job anymore, a college degree is a standard. Between two candidates applying for a job, even if they can preform all the tasks equally, the one with a written pedigree will win out over the other. It's very sad.

So women who are in their early to mid-twenties are either still in college and relatively broke or fresh out of college with loans out the who-ha to take care of.

I am a current college student who never wants children, and it stresses me out just thinking about having a kid when I graduate. (Granted, I began college early and took a fast paced course, so I'll have my 4 year degree in 3). I can't imagine any woman fresh out of school managing a new baby and a job pulling in income to pay for living accommodations and baby necessities.

It just seems like having children anymore is almost a luxury. And this may seem a little controversial, but honestly the best way to provide a financially and emotionally stable life for a child is to plan on being a stay at home mom from the time you graduate high school, and marry a man with a decent paying job. Kind of a throwback to stereotypical 50's roles.

Otherwise it's just a trade-up. Either you sacrifice your youth working towards financial stability and have a child later in life, drawing stigma.

Or you have a child and a society-accepted age after attending college (or not) and scrabble for pennies OR be a stay at home mom.

OR you can bin all that, and just pop a little one out at 15 or 16 and rely on parental support.

Seriously though, it's a sad situation anymore. I wish it was financially easier for younger (22-29) people to have both children and an education. But it always just seems like one or the other in today's society.

There are many grandparents that have had to take over the parenting role of their children, I don't have a big issue with that. I'd take parents in their 40s over a single young mom stressed to high heaven trying to support a family by herself on a meager income.

What I don't understand though is when people are older where the children might have health issues, have a genetic defect that has a good possibility of being passed on, or are having difficulty having a child, why not ADOPT?

There are so many needy kids out there and if anything it should be clear that future generation's quality of life is harmed by overpopulation.

Up next: children without siblings are all spoiled brats & their parents are selfish.

Snazzi33:

Oh my gosh, that's crazy.

I totally agree with you though. I think it's totally selfish, and absolutely insane that she was even able to have it. Sometimes the advancement of science is not for the best. She'll be lucky if she even gets to see her own grandchildren. I would be devastated knowing that my parents were too old to ever get to know their own grandchildren. Grandparents are something I hold very dear in my life.

The way I see it, don't sacrifice your child's life just so you can have a few more years of yours.

Oh and I just wanted to add, this lady is 50, not 30 or even 40. There is a HUGE difference.

Originally Posted by EnzoLeya

Oh and I just wanted to add, this lady is 50, not 30 or even 40. There is a HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

Thank you! That's my entire point.

Well if we stop to do a little bit of math 50+18 is 68 which is a year over the life expectancy for women in the US. So, we can't even expect her to live until the kids reach adulthood, which is sad. She should start making arrangements for who to take care of them if something happens to her, and really no parent wants to do that, because what other friend or family member is going to give them the exact same kind of love and attention as a parent would??

I understand we all have maternal instincts we want to have babies, but I think what I would do in her situation is adopt an older child, like 5-10 year old.

Originally Posted by ut0pia

Well if we stop to do a little bit of math 50+18 is 68 which is a year over the life expectancy for women in the US. So, we can't even expect her to live until the kids reach adulthood, which is sad. She should start making arrangements for who to take care of them if something happens to her, and really no parent wants to do that, because what other friend or family member is going to give them the exact same kind of love and attention as a parent would??

I understand we all have maternal instincts we want to have babies, but I think what I would do in her situation is adopt an older child, like 5-10 year old.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this life expectancy from? The CDC says 77.9 years old average for all races for 2007, and 80.8 years old for Female white... I am confused.... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus...s/Table024.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

Originally Posted by Carolina

Where did you get this life expectancy from? The CDC says 77.9 years old average for all races for 2007, and 80.8 years old for Female white... I am confused.... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus...s/Table024.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

Click to expand...

Yeah I was gonna ask that too! If so then all of the females in my family have beat that by quite a bit! 69 seems young!

Originally Posted by madara

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.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by pushylady

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.

Click to expand...

This is my main concern. It's not really the age, unless it affects the parents' ability to take care of the child or the health of the child, but the fact that people just want to reproduce without sparing a minute of their time wondering what their child would be like. I can't think of a more selfish thing to do than have a child just because you want and can. If i could have chosen, i wouldn't have been born.

It's one of the reasons why I will never have kids, I don't want them to have these crappy genes just because I want a kid. For example I just watched this documentary last night about a girl who had disfigured face and limbs because of some disease. She went to meet other people with the same condition and there was this man who had a son, both of them had the disease. I wonder if the child liked being bullied at school, stared at, and very unlikely to ever get a girlfriend, just because his daddy wanted a kid at any cost.
I also know people who just had to have kids, and knowingly passed on a serious disease which will be (and is) affecting the (now grown up) childrens lives. It runs in the family, every generation as far as they know.