[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Sure, but the chances of my brother in law living to see his kids graduate from high school were already slim. So to some extent my sister and her husband made the decision that their children would face the death of one parent as children when they had them. I’m not sure that was an ethical decision (nor am I sure it was unethical). Now the possibility exists where the children will face the death of both parents - which when you start as a single parent (or in this case, knowing you are facing single parenthood) is a real possibility that has to be factored in.
(Its also annoying in that my brother in law basis his own personality issues and addiction issues on his own father dying when he was young - he’s a 50 year old man that was screwed up by the early death of his father. And yet he has chosen the same path for his children).
As someone said earlier, the risk that both parents will die when you have your kids at 21 is slim (not that I’m recommending kids at 21) - as you age that risk increases. With one parent already ill, or with a single parent in the mix, the risk fuctionally doubles. I think one of the responsibilities you take on as a parent is to commit to living until your kids reach adulthood. Now, it isn’t always possible to meet that committment (and it isn’t like you have a lot of control over it), but if there is significant risk that you won’t, I’m not sure its ethical to have kids.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. I like the idea of making a commitment to physically be available to your children at least until they’re grown, and even beyond. Even with my own sons, I was too often guilty of thinking about what they meant to me rather than what I mean to them; and my wife even more so.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
However, she is not thinking about the ramifications of being a mother to three teenage kids when she is in her mid 70’s.
Then again, maybe she’ll live to be a hundred.
[/QUOTE]
Even if she lives to be a hundred, when I was a child I liked doing stuff with my parents. Going to a conservation area and enjoying nature. Playing frisbee or catching a ball.
I can’t imagine the world of “No. Mommy can’t go to the Pioneer Village, there are too many stairs. We can go to the zoo, but we have to see the animals from a distance because mommy needs to stay on the little train that shuttles you past the exhibits. No, Daddy can’t play catch wwith you, with his arthritis the glove hurts his hand.”
That just seems sort of sad to me. These children will be spending a good chunk of their childhood assisting their parents when it’s usually the other way around.
We have a 1-1/2 year old graddaughter whom we have overnight ,on average, every week to 10 days. We dearly love her, but she completely wears us out!
Of course we’d step up and take responsibility should tragedy befall her parents, but having one of our own in our mid 50’s? Insanity! My wife, still not “100%” five years after chemo, could survive parenthood if thrust upon her, but pregnancy would be out of the question.
The woman referenced by the OP did those twins and their 6-year-old brother no favors by not getting the older siblings on board with this as the older siblings will quite likely end up raising unwanted younger siblings and resenting the Hell out of it.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be raised by someone who didn’t want me to begin with and harbors great resentment over being stuck with me.
[QUOTE=featherlou]
100% selfish, with a healthy dose of deluded thrown in for spice. Yes, this is exactly what would fix all the problems in the world - 60 year old women giving birth all over the place, and dying and leaving their young children for others to raise.
My new brother-in-law was a “miracle baby” - his mother wasn’t expected to be able to have any more kids, and he came along when she was about 40, I think. Here he is at 40 now, newly married and about to try to start his own family, and his mother is 80. There’s a good chance she won’t live to see his kids born; she’s certainly too old to do much with a new baby or toddler. On the other side, my husband’s parents had him at 19; he’s 38, and they’re only 57.
…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think having a baby at 40 is the same thing as having a baby at 60. 40 isn’t that old and most women are still naturally fertile at 40, it’s not the same situation at all. The fact that his mother may never see her grandkids or be able to do much with them has nothing to do with her age when she had her son but his age when he finally decides to have kids.
[QUOTE=Jelymag]
One article I read said they wanted more children so the six year old wouldn’t be lonely…
[/QUOTE]
They shouldn’t have had the six year old. It’s what zenith said: they created an “outsider” situation for their kid, and now they’re compounding it. Guys, you don’t get to have two families.
[QUOTE=Wile E]
I don’t think having a baby at 40 is the same thing as having a baby at 60. 40 isn’t that old and most women are still naturally fertile at 40, it’s not the same situation at all. The fact that his mother may never see her grandkids or be able to do much with them has nothing to do with her age when she had her son but his age when he finally decides to have kids.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think its the same situation (I had my kids relatively late), but I don’t think there is a bright line either…there are bad ages to have kids (regardless of natural fertility) in our society. Twelve is too young - and I’d say 19 to 24 is too young for most people (although military wives often start their families young with great success - its a different economic situation than most 19 year olds face). But its some sort of bell curve.
At sometime in your mid to late 30s the curve starts decending again. It becomes just hard to chase after a seven year old learning to ride a two wheeler. Your fertility decreases and age related birth defects start going up. Your risks start increasing that your own health won’t hold through.
Of course, its going to depend on situation - if a couple is healthy and active into their 40s, that makes a lot more sense to continue to have children than a couple that is in poor health to start with. If a couple is well enough off that the child has financial security if Dad retires the day college bills start coming in and can afford a trust if they die, that’s a little different than being unable to provide the financial security. If you have a really close network of family and friends that can pick up for you if the worst happens, that’s different than if you don’t speak to your family, your spouse’s family is incapable of taking care of kids, and you don’t have close friends you’d trust to raise them.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
I notice of the handful of people who do this and make the news, not a one comes back 5, 10 years later saying how everything is going…I wonder why?
[/QUOTE]
Because the parents are dead by then.
I think Dangerosa’s point about an extended network of family and friends apply to anyone who’s thinking about having kids. It’s just easier to raise them if you have other people around.
That said, I think 45 is about the latest anyone should reproduce. I’m not going to propose legislation or anything, but beyond that age I think they’re rather nuts.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Gee, the parents aren’t standard issued and a third party is involved? Sounds like the same arguments against gay parents.
[/QUOTE]
Not quite. If my sister and her girlfriend have a baby, they’ll still be around in ten years. They will be active parents who can be physically involved in the kid’s life and able to keep up with the kid’s activity levels.
I know this great kid that is being raised by his grandfather (his mom deserves a Pit thread, she dumped the boy off with his grandfather because she finds having a kid makes complicates the dating scene).
The boy is the caregiver. He’s missing out on a lot of his childhood as a result. His grandfather can’t manage well on his own and relies on the boy to take care of him. That’s not something the grandfather planned, it was foisted on him (although he really does love the boy to pieces and he is a very good, kind-hearted man).
My sister and her girlfriend could have a kid and still be parents. Having a kid at 60 is scary because there is the very real posibility that your roles will be reversed when your child is still just a child.
BTW: my sister and her girlfriend have offered to become Will’s legal guardians if his grandfater has to go into a nursing home. He’s a great kid.
[QUOTE=Swallowed My Cellphone]
Not quite. If my sister and her girlfriend have a baby, they’ll still be around in ten years. They will be active parents who can be physically involved in the kid’s life and able to keep up with the kid’s activity levels.
My sister and her girlfriend could have a kid and still be parents. Having a kid at 60 is scary because there is the very real posibility that your roles will be reversed when your child is still just a child.
BTW: my sister and her girlfriend have offered to become Will’s legal guardians if his grandfater has to go into a nursing home. He’s a great kid.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how you can make such a statement. You don’t know if your sister and her girlfriend will be here tomorrow. Nobody is guaranteed a future.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
I don’t know how you can make such a statement. You don’t know if your sister and her girlfriend will be here tomorrow. Nobody is guaranteed a future.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but statistically, if they are younger, the odds are good they will still be around.
Statistically, having a child at 60, the parent will be dead by the time the child is 20, and in fact there are good odds that the child will be an orphan by the time the child is in drivers ed.
Yes, no future is guaranteed. But there is a whole business based around the statistics of when someone may die.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Gee, the parents aren’t standard issued and a third party is involved? Sounds like the same arguments against gay parents.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there are some similarities. You could argue that a woman giving birth 15 years after menopause is unnatural, too. I still don’t think they are the same at all, though. I think parents have a responsibility to make the best decision for the child when they decide to have kids*, and having a parent who will be dead before you graduate high school is not best for the child.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
I don’t know how you can make such a statement. You don’t know if your sister and her girlfriend will be here tomorrow. Nobody is guaranteed a future.
[/QUOTE]
True enough, they could both be hit by a bus tomorrow. But they are certainly more likely to be around in ten years and are also much more likely to be able to physically participate activley in the kid’s life during that time.
It is unlikely that the child of my sister and her girlfriend would lose both parents to natural causes by highschool graduation 18 years from now. It is unlikely that a child born to a 60 year old parents will not lose both parents to natural causes by highschool graduation.
If I was 60, that is something that would weigh heavily in my mind when it came to a responsible choice of briging a child into the world as well as how much I could activley contribute to my child’s enrichment. I’d want to be young enough to play ball with my kid.