difference between old and young mums?

Petra - posted on 10/07/2010

I take the stance of To Each Their Own, on this topic. You can find irresponsibility in either scenario, but the fact remains that we have the right and the technology to conceive at pretty much any age. I'm not a proponent of arbitrary limitations on conception - this flies in the face of a woman's bodily autonomy, something women have fought really fucking hard for and hearing other women saying that this should be limited, or even taken away, really bothers me.

The 69 year old mother is an extreme example of "late" motherhood. I highly doubt that this is going to become the norm, or even a trend. I think she's got some serious balls and my only hope is that she really thought it through and has a good support system in place for any of the "what ifs" that will arise. No one is exempt from the "what ifs" of life, regardless of age.

Its popped up a few times on here that some of you think having an older mom would be embarrassing or that these moms would be incapable of keeping up with other, younger moms. Seriously? This is your criticism of moms in their 30s and 40s who choose to wait to have kids? Would you rather have a mother who is financially secure and waited until the time was right, or a cute mom who can still run fast? Individual circumstances are the only things that can dictate who is the more or less responsible mother.

Women can, and do, naturally conceive well into their 40s and I personally know of a few of these "happy accidents" and planned pregnancies. These kids have loving and committed parents, secure households, and guaranteed college educations. A lot of women are putting off having kids until their 30s and 40s (I'm one of them) so that they are in the best position possible to have a family. The idea that my son may one day be embarrassed of my age was not a factor when my partner and I agreed to start a family.

Stifler's - posted on 10/07/2010

It's still irresponsible. I don't like threads like these, they're just typical older mum bashing.

Shannon - posted on 10/07/2010

69 is too old. At least a 16 yr old will be around for her child. Yes, 16 is too young but that doesn't mean she can't be a great mom. Every mom makes mistakes, 16 yr old, 30 yr old, & 69 yr old... It's about loving your child & being there for them

Kelly - posted on 10/07/2010

Both parties are equally irresponsible, but I would have to say that ultimately the planning that went into the pregnancy and care of the child, not the age of the mother, would determine who was less irresponsible. It would have to be broken down to specific aspects of parenthood, then compared and every case would be unique.

The post said "with or without help" so if the older woman has the help she needs and the teen has the help she needs, and both have wills and plans for their child in the case of their death, I would say both are equally responsible.

The thing I find, is that very, very few teen mothers are able to support their children without help from their parents or the government and I feel it is irresponsible to have a child that you cannot support--regardless of age. If the older mother cannot support her child, she is equally irresponsible, but if she has the means to artificially conceive, then she has the means to support the child, and thus is more responsible in that aspect.

I also find very few teen mothers who have drawn up their wills and included plans for their children. That is incredibly selfish and irresponsible for ANY parent. The post does not say whether the older mom or the teen have wills.

And the list goes on......thus, it is impossible to say who is more irresponsible based on the information given in the post, but assuming their situations are identical except for age, neither is more irresponsible than the other, they are both equally irresponsible.

Sabrina - posted on 10/07/2010

Well Emma I agree with u but accidents do happen

Stifler's - posted on 10/07/2010

Both parties are irresponsible. I don't like the idea of a person having a baby only to die before their kid can take care of themself, thus leaving them in the care of family members. Same with the teens, if you're not in a situation of financial stability and still living at home and going to school and the parents of the mother are raising the child that's just as irresponsible.

Sabrina - posted on 10/07/2010

Rebecca is aabsolutely right!

Rebecca - posted on 10/07/2010

I asked my boyfriend what he thought on this situation and I completely agree with him...

"You can't base an irresponsible person on their age, you have to base it on the person."

Sabrina - posted on 10/06/2010

teen moms don't really plan it and if they really try bravo.Some women that are older accidently get preggers2. to have MORE children planned at such an advanced age isn't fair with all the added risk and u got2watch ur chidren grow and risking unnecesarily isn't right.Be a foster parent. I got pregnant at27 and I was in perfect health before my pregnancy I got gestational diabetes,preclamsia,severely high blood presure etc.YOU NEVER KNOW.My son was 9lb9oz a week early(induced)and totally healthy so I am blessed.Point is accidental16or60if u do ur best and take care f the baby why does it matter.If ur a little later in life do a

great thing and take in kids who don't haveparents.Thats an amazing thing to do

Ashley - posted on 07/02/2010

They are both irresponsible.....A lot of teen moms are irresponsible parents because they don't want to take the time out to care for their child, they have a "life"..But the comment about older women dying a birth anyone can die giving birth and leave their child w/o a parent where as you can be in a car accident and die and again your child will be w/o a parent..To me that is not a reason or excuse for older women having babies...I mean it is kinda selfish but at the same time they have the want for a child just like you and I think if they have arrangements made for their child where the child would be taken very good care of I really don't see a problem with it.

Christina - posted on 07/01/2010

I think both are irresponsible, but there's a big difference. Teen moms have to become adults and start thinking about someone other than themselves and their friends, just like all parents. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are behind her getting pregnant as long as she chooses to care for her baby in the best way she can.
On the flip side, I know a few teen moms who have put their childs' life in jeopardy because they got pregnant for the wrong reasons or didn'tcare about how their actions would affect the kid.
I know of one who got pregnant and continued to drink and do drugs thru most of her pregnancy. Her kid was born almost completely deaf. Another who got pregnant to try to keep her bf, and wwas drunk every weekend forthe first two months, started fights and constantly argued with him throughout her entire pregnancy. Her baby was born almost perfectly healthy, although a paternity test proved he wasn't the father. I know some other teen moms who finished school, got jobs, and did everything they could to support their kids and make a good life for them.
I do agree that a woman is capable of raising kids at a young age, however there are a lot more obstacles a young mom has to overcome. For one, if the rlationship with the babys father goes bad, or there is no support whatsoever, she will most likely hve a harder time finding a partner who's willing to raise the baby with her. I'm not sayng it's impossible, but I've heard more than one story about a girl not being able to find someone simple because she has a kid. (I know a grown man who is very hesitant to go on a date with a young mother.)
As for older parents, they are most likely at a place in life where it'd be less of a financial burden to raise a child. Not surprisingly, that's what several Hollywood celebs are doing. They'd have more life experiences, presumably, to help them in raising their kids.
I do believe there should be a cutoff age for IVF and other conception methods. I'm not sure what that age should be, though. I was thinking 50, but I'm not in a position to say when others should be able to have kids.
As for a limit? Perhaps counseling should be mandatory when trying to conceive a child artificially. I mean, I understand how desperately some people would love to have kids, but it would seem almost pointless to keep trying after your body rejects the embryo so many times. There are other options, including surrogacy, adoption, fostering even.
Regardless of age, everyone has something they can teach children. Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's just to serve as a warning to others.
And congratulations to every teen mom who has endured the hardships to provide a better life for your kid(s). The world will soon be yours!

Danielle - posted on 06/30/2010

The older mother.There is a reason why our bodies naturally stop producing eggs to make babies. We won't live long enough to raise them. A young mother can learn (if she has someone who is willing to teach her) An older mother may know alot but what if she's not around to share it...I'm jus sayin

Alisa - posted on 06/25/2010

What if this 69 year old woman lived to be 104, Her child would have been 35. I think that each person should be able to choose when they have thier children. Basing when a girl/woman having a period on whether or not they have a child isn't really a great way to do it because girls get thier periods much younger now than they used to. I got mine when I nine years old. I am sure that this woman thought about the risks of having children at such an advanced age. Many mothers have children knowing that it may not be the safest thing for them to do and do you feel that these women are irresponsible. I am willling to bet that this woman was able to support herself and her child. Now I feel that having a baby you can't support when you are a teenager is irresponsible. I am talking about being able to financially, emotionally, and spiritually.Most teenagers don't have these things to ofer at the time they become pregnant and must get support from many other places. Now if at 15 you can go to school, work enough to support yourself and a child, and be able to pay for child care, and spend enogh time with your child to aid in thier emotional and spiritual developement, and choose to become pregnant, then more power to you. I'd like to meet you! However if you can't do these things and you choose to get pregnant and then you don't finnish school, or support yourself and your child then you are irresponsible. I believe even having sex and not being able to support a child is irresponsible, whether or not you are on birth control or are using some sort of protection. I am just saying that choosing to have a child you can't support is irresponsible, not that you are an irresponsible parent. That being said I DO NOT believe that abortion is the answer. However, that all being said I think that a teenage who chooses to have safe sex and still becomes pregnant can be a good, responsible parent. It takes alot of sacrifices and hard, hard work but it can be done.
Why does everyone assume that having an older parent would be so bad? I would have much prefered a mother who may have died than the teenage mother who was unable to care for me.

Susanne - posted on 06/25/2010

At the moment im not planning on having anymore kids after this one due to lack of house room but if when my oldest son moves out i want another baby i dont really see how that would be irresponsible. Im no more likely to drop dead at 45 than i am now at 32. My husband has every chance of living into his eighties as his parents and grandparents before him. As it stands now any baby i might have at 45 would be in a better position than the children i have now because if my husband and i died tomorrow my kids would go into care where as at least a child born at 45 would have two adult brothers to look after him. And before anyone mentions the burden placed on my sons to look after a younger sibling i have been in that position and didnt see it as a burden at all.

Jodi - posted on 06/24/2010

"There's a big difference between pruposely trying for a baby and contraception failing."

But this is where I am trying to understand the difference. If a teenage mother gets pregnant because her contraception fails, she is often called irresponsible (it seems like there is a 20% failure rate at that age, LOL). So if a 45 year old's contraception fails, is she also irresponsible?

I personally don't want children at 45 myself, but I don't agree that it is irresponsible for someone else to do so if they are healthy. Having a baby well into your 50s or 60s is a whole different thing, and I don't think it can be compared, the same as having a baby at 15 is irresponsible for another set of reasons.

Susanne - posted on 06/24/2010

My mother was 45 when she had my baby brother. She had no complications through pregnancy other than needing iron tablets. My brother is now a healthy 18 year old who has never suffered any serious illnesses. Im 31 and pregnant with my fourth child would i consider having a baby at 45? Yes if i wanted one why shouldnt i if i can conceive it naturally, i would never do ivf anyway even if i had no other kids. By the way my husband is 50 at the moment and will be 65 when our youngest is 15 years old. Older parents doesnt automatically mean that you cant do the things younger ones can with their kids my hubby spent most of last night riding around a bmx stunt track with my 11 and 10 year old hes got more energy than a lot of 20 year old dads. My father in law was 40 when my husband was born and he lived into his 80's saw his son marry and saw his grandkids before he died peacefully at home without having someone to care for him. 45 is not too old to have kids!

Jennifer - posted on 06/24/2010

Yeah Jodi I agree. I'm not syaing 45 year olds shouldn't have sex and at the end of the day I respect what anyone else does but personally for me I wouldn't be wanting a baby at 45.

There's a big difference between pruposely trying for a baby and contraception failing. If contraception was to fail should the woman abort? No way, babies are the most precious thing is this world and after 15 months of trying for our son and nearly having to have fertility treatment I value the life of a baby very highly.

It's not really the 45 being old that forms my opinion, it's mainly that the thought of having a teenager when you're 60 is just odd, but fair dos to the people who are =]

Stephany - posted on 06/23/2010

I don't know who said having a child at 45 was selfish. In fact, having a child at ANY age is quite selfless indeed. However, it can be both selfless and irresponsible. Besides the medical reasons I listed above, here are a few things to think about:
-In the last few years the number of elderly people living with and being cared for by their adult children has gone up by over 60%, to nearly 3.6 million (http://www.insideeldercare.com/uncategor...). If it is natural to have children at 45, and one can assume that it will also be natural for their children to have children at 45, should a woman who is giving birth to her child then be expected to go home and care for her 90 year old mother? How much of a role is a 90 year old going to be able to play in their grandchild's life? What kind of a future burden are we placing on our children when we conceive at such a maternal age?
-I think it would put the child in an awkward position as well, when it was assumed that their mother was their grandmother. How involved is that mom going to want to be in school events and functions when all the other moms are 20 years younger?
-As someone who is currently menopausal (because of a hysterectomy) I promise you from the bottom of my heart that NOBODY should have to go through menopause while they have small children. Trust me on this. A lot of women enter menopause around the end of their 40's, so that would make the child under 5 or so. I have a 2 and a 4 year old whom I love dearly, but imagine PMS-ing for several years, non-stop. On top of that, imagine having to care for very loud, very young, very irrational children. Seriously UNnatural.
I'm glad I had my kids when I did. I understand why some women have children a little late. I don't fully understand the reasoning behind waiting SO long that it puts the mom's health and the baby's health at risk. I don't get it, I probably never will. When I turn 45 I hope I have the energy required to chase after a toddler, but I hope I can use that energy for something OTHER than chasing after a toddler.

Jodi - posted on 06/23/2010

Just another thought, if we can still fall pregnant naturally at 45, and we all know contraception fails, does that mean we should just abstain because otherwise we may risk very *selfishly* bringing a child into this world? Because ultimately, that is what we preach to young teens. "Abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control". "If you don't want a baby don't have sex". So does the same lecture apply to 45 year olds? I'm sure my husband would be absolutely delighted (and I'm not very chuffed at that idea myself!!).

No? Oh, well in that case, how is having a baby at 45, if you are still able to naturally conceive, selfish?

Jodi - posted on 06/23/2010

You only see 45 as old because of the age you are. When you are my age, you will see that it isn't actually as old as you think :)

Jennifer - posted on 06/23/2010

I think over here they're trying to make men's and women's pension's age the same so it would go up to 65 years old. But even so my nana is 72, she was 52 when my mam had me and if she was my mother I'd be horrified! I know its a very small factor but how do the children feel being asked at school if it's their nana?

Jodi - posted on 06/23/2010

Jennifer, they have just changed the pension age here in Australia to 67 for people my age (it is being gradually increased from the current 65 - ours increased from 60 quite some years ago). It is considered that because we now live longer, we should need to work for longer. Pensioning people off at 60 is no longer considered appropriate due to increased health and life expectancy.

Jennifer - posted on 06/23/2010

Yes 69 is way too old but even 45 is old to have a baby. Over here in the UK you're considered a pensioner at 60 years old for women therefore the child would be 15 when you became a pensioner! Yes anyone could die at anytime but it's much more likely for a 60 year old to die than a 19 year old and it's the child left motherless who would suffer.

Jodi - posted on 06/23/2010

Um, its a debate, we are discussing our opinions. Who is being judgemental? I'm well aware of the cultural aspects and I still do not agree that it is appropriate. You have simply ASSUMED that no-one is aware of the cultural aspects of the situation. You don't think that is rather judgemental of you too? Heck, anyone forming an opinion on any topic in this community is being judgemental to some degree. That's why we all have differing opinions.



And things may be different in other parts of the world but 69 is still 69.

Heather - posted on 06/23/2010

I am just saying that things are different in other parts of the world...people in India, were not so against this woman in her 60's having a baby. As far as her not being there...it really does not matter what your age is...there are no guarantees that any of us will be here another day...I just get sick of people thinking that it is their job to decide what is right and wrong when it comes to other peoples decisions.

Jackie - posted on 06/23/2010

It seems to me that no one is talking about not having kids in their 40s....peole are saying its irresponsible to have one when you are 70 b/c like it or not, it's true that you are unlikely to be there for your child until they are an adult.

Heather - posted on 06/23/2010

I would like to say that you ladies are way too judgmental! As medical science continues to improve, people live longer and longer. There are many woman who have children well into their 40's and are in a much better position to raise a child than a 16 y/o. Most older woman have already lived their lives, and are ready to settle down, established themselves financially, have a stable career..etc.
I think that there are pro's and con's to both older and young moms...but I dont think it is fair to tell a woman that she is too old or too young to have a baby...that is her choice, whatever the age. I dont think that that 69 y/o woman was entirely wrong for having a child, in her culture, you are looked down upon if you cant produce a child. For centuries, being childless in India was a stigma so severe that it drove many women to suicide and gave men grounds to take another wife.

Desperate would-be-mothers used to turn to tantrics, visit fertility shrines and take herbal remedies in the belief it would help them conceive. I am sure she tried her whole life...I am happy that she could experience motherhood...I think its sad that people cant consider other cultures and how they feel about child birth and motherhood...before you are so quick to judge, do a little research...you may actually learn something.

Jackie - posted on 06/23/2010

I agree they are both irresponsible...just in very different ways. The older woman planned it so knew what she was doing and knew there was a good likelihood she would leave a child motherless at some point before the age of majority.

The teen is irresponsible b/c you KNOW you COULD get pregnant if you have sex..esp. unprotected but anything can happen if you have sex period. You do it anyways. And you KNOW you are not able to even support yourself yet...why would you bring in another very dependent being to that situation.

But, like I said, I don't think the two can be compared at all...and I agree with the comment of when someone says "older mom" i think 30s/40s...not 70

Stephany - posted on 06/23/2010

I didn't mean to offend anybody. I'm sorry for that being the case. However, due to the increased likelihood of birth defects and pregnancy complications, yes, I think it is irresponsible for a 45 year old woman to conceive, carry, and give birth to a child. I'm not saying that I would ever tell a woman to not do it, but that is my opinion. Just because someone is "naturally still capable" of having a baby at 45 doesn't necessarily mean they should. Here's some info I found on the March of Dimes website (with the web address below). It is all easily found at other sites, as well:

"A woman’s risk of having a baby with certain birth defects involving chromosomes (the structures in cells that contain genes) increases with age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect. Affected children have varying degrees of mental retardation and physical birth defects. A woman’s risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is (1):

At age 25, 1 in 1,250
At age 30, 1 in 1,000
At age 35, 1 in 400
At age 40, 1 in 100
At 45, 1 in 30
At 49, a 1 in 10
Some complications that are more common in women over 35 include:

Gestational diabetes: This form of diabetes develops for the first time during pregnancy. Studies suggest that women over age 35 are about twice as likely as younger women to develop gestational diabetes (7, 8). Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to have a very large baby who is at risk of injuries during delivery and of newborn health problems (such as breathing problems).
High blood pressure: As with diabetes, high blood pressure can develop for the first time during pregnancy. This is called pregnancy-induced high blood pressure or pregnancy-induced hypertension. In its more severe form, it is called preeclampsia. Some studies have found that pregnancy-induced high blood pressure is more common in women over age 35 (8, 9).
Placental problems: The most common placental problem is placenta previa, in which the placenta covers part or all of the uterine opening (cervix). One study found that women in their late 30s were almost twice as likely, and women in their 40s nearly three times as likely, as younger women to have this complication (7). Placenta previa can cause severe bleeding during delivery, which can endanger mother and baby. A cesarean birth (also called c-section) often can prevent serious complications.
Premature birth: Women ages 40 and older are more likely than women in their 20s and 30s to deliver prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). From 2003 to 2005, 16.6 percent of women ages 40 and older delivered prematurely, compared to 12.5 percent of women ages 30 to 39, and 11.9 percent of women ages 20 to 29 (10). Premature babies are at increased risk of health problems in the newborn period and of lasting disabilities. Some studies also suggest that women in their 40s may be at increased risk of having a low-birthweight baby (less than 5½ pounds) (7, 8). (Low birthweight can result from premature birth, poor growth before birth or both.)
Stillbirth: Stillbirth is the death of the fetus after 20 weeks of pregnancy. A number of studies have found that women over age 40 are about two to three times as likely as women in their 20s to have a stillborn baby (7, 11). The causes of stillbirth in the over-40 age group are not known."
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professional...

Teresa - posted on 06/22/2010

45 isn't too old. I had my son at 31 and FEEL old though, so definitely wouldn't consider having a baby in my 40's. That's just for me. I don't think it's irresponsible.



I agree w/ Dana that both the mid teen and late 60's woman are irresponsible for having a child at that age. Who the heck wants to chase a toddler 24/7 when you're in your 70's?! Crazy....

Jodi - posted on 06/22/2010

Sherri, my husband was 40 when our youngest was born. We've finished our family, because we already had 3 other kids between us, but we did discuss having one more and ended up deciding not to. Really, 45 isn't THAT old!! I'd hardly compare it to having a baby at 60 or something.

Sherri - posted on 06/22/2010

Well I am 38 yrs old and my husband and I are considering trying for our 4th. He would be close to 43yrs old when this baby was born. I took huge offense to what Stephany said.

Jodi - posted on 06/22/2010

@ Stephany, why is a woman being a mother at 45 irresponsible? I mean, for some of us, we have not entered menopause yet at that age, so we are naturally still capable of having babies at that age, so how is it irresponsible to do what is still something quite natural? Not that I am planning on becoming a mother at 45.......

Amy - posted on 06/22/2010

I would go for a teen mom over a 69 year old mom. The 69 year old mom should be wiser and understand that she has a good chance of leaving young children behind when she dies. It's hard to even think of a 69 or 70 year old keeping up with a toddler! I'm in my 20's and have a hard enough time keeping up with my toddler!

Stephany - posted on 06/22/2010

The 69 year old is gross and irresponsible. Eewww.
I think a woman who has a child at 45 is irresponsible, too, though. Who wants to have a 63 year old mom when they graduate high school, or a 67 year old mom when they graduate college? Who wants to be a new grandma when they are 70 or older? Not to mention the significantly higher probability of birth defects with advanced maternal age.
I also think that a 16 or 17 year old girl who falls pregnant was being irresponsible. Any girl at that age who falls pregnant does do because of some level of irresponsibility: ineffective (or lack of altogether) birth control methods, or some romantic idea of having a baby and 'making everything better'. Nobody, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves or anyone else, is fully prepared to be a mom at 16.
I think there should be limits on IVF. Limits on how many times you can do it (like 8 or 10- I've known women who have had several cycles more than that).There should also be limits on maternal age, like not before age 21 and not after age 45.
I wonder how you all feel in regards to adoption? Should a woman be able to adopt a baby if she is in her 50's?

Sherri - posted on 06/21/2010

The older mom is way more irresponsible. IMO

Amber - posted on 06/20/2010

The 69 year old mom is irresponsible. They are well aware of the fact that they won't see their child grow up and have children. They also cannot keep up with their children in the same way. They can't run and play, don't have the energy to do all the things that their child wants....it's not fair to that child.
Some teen moms are irresponible, but not all. I technically was a teen mom, because my son was born a couple months before my 20th birthday. But I had my own house, plenty of money in the bank, and his father had a career that supports us and keeps us living in and upper-middle class lifestyle.
My child has not suffered from me being a young mom. He has more opportunities than his playmates with parents who were in their 30's when they had their children.
I do playdates with other young moms (who are also stay at home) and all of our children are healthy, happy, and have everything they need and most of what they want.
Unless we have some disease or accident, we will see our children grow up, go to private schools, and hopefully use their college funds wisely. That's not irresponsible, it's good parenting just like women who waited a few years longer than us.

Amy - posted on 06/20/2010

honestly i think the 69 year old is completly selfish and it disgusts mewhere as a teen mum (like myself) can be responsile about the situation, and in alot of cases wont leave the child/ren without a mom.

Chatty - posted on 06/20/2010

They're both irresponsible but for different reasons!

Jodi - posted on 06/20/2010

I think a woman having a baby at 69 is a whole different type of irresponsibility than what is generally discussed in these type of debates. It is pure selfishness to have children at that age (and it is selfishness for a man to father a child at that age too in my opinion). Generally an "older" mum would be someone between 35-45, in which case the term "responsible" takes on a different meaning.

Jennifer - posted on 06/20/2010

I think the 69 year old mum is more irresponsible than the teen mum (whether the teen's baby was planned or unplanned). In my opinion I think there should be tighter controls age wise as to who can have IVF to have children. I think no one over the age of 45 should be allowed IVF. We all know that there comes a time when we stop having periods and lose our ferility and for most women that starts from around 45 onwards. A 69 year old having a baby is just ridiculous. My nana is 71 and I think if she had a baby I'd be physically sick and never talk to her again. A pensioner having a baby is not normal whilst being a mum when you're a teenager may not be the best time to have a child it is normal as you are meant to be able to bear children at this age. I do not condone teen pregnancy under the age of consent or where contraception wasn't used, in the same way I think older mums who fall pregnant because they didn't use anything are silly too, but everyone makes mistakes and as long as the parent strives to do the best for their baby that is what matters. A 69 year old would be more at risk of dying in childbirth for a start and what sort of life would the child have with their parents dying when they are very young?