Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulinVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I had my one (and thus far, only) daughter at 42…both the conception and delivery occurred during my 42nd year. My doc made certain I was well aware that statistics state I had a 1 in 6 chance of having a baby diagnosed with DS (or other chromosomal defects). Two problems with that statistic: 1) That statistic includes babies diagnosed, en utero, who are arborted based upon that diagnosis…and MANY parents have suffered with receiving that diagnosis, only to go on and give birth to a completely healthy/normal baby; and 2) The way the statistic is presented, it focuses on a negative, instead of the very real positive- I had a FIVE IN SIX statistical chance of a perfectly normal, healthy baby. Sounds way less scary, doesn’t it? But it’s the same statistic, only adjusted for perspective.

It is true that advanced maternal age does increase risk of miscarriage, but again, many other factors can contribute to overall pregnancy health, decreasing risk of miscarriage.

I truly believe that advanced maternal age, in and of and solely because of itself, isn’t a reason to avoid fertile periods…but my personal opinion has no weight for anyone other than my husband and myself, as it should be. It just makes me sad to know that women are sometimes afraid of becoming pregnant past the age of 35, for no other reason than numerical age.
 
Also, is there a difference between a near 40 year old woman with 7 children conceiving #8:eek: and a near 40 year old woman with 0-1 children conceiving first or second?? Because I tend to think the latter would be judged much less critically. Rumors are already starting to spread that my husband and I are trying for #8 when our youngest is just 3 weeks old!! I know we are quite an oddity, and other people’s opinions generally don’t bother me, but if we were to have a child with a genetic abnormality or if something would happen to me during pregnancy/childbirth, I feel we would be very harshly judged!!!

And, for the record, I don’t believe we will purposefully “try” for another baby, but I would most certainly accept one! My kids are always wanting another one and that is how I believe the rumor about us “trying for #8” got started because many people even ask my kids if we are done??!! But we have a pretty poor track record with NFP, and I detest the idea of doing that for 10 more years!!!
 
PaulinVA said:
So, in another thread this topic came up.

As mom approaches 40, some statistics show that there is an increased risk of bad outcomes. Is this a reason to avoid? Of course, this is an NFP-related thread.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that the 20s decade for women is the most low-risk age bracket for genetic defects.

Whether or not a woman of 40 has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy though probably depends on her situation. “Serious reason” can be a subjective term. Is a 1% risk of Down’s Syndrome as inhibiting as a 50% chance? I don’t think so, personally.

Certainly, whether or not a woman already has children would also sway her judgment on what constitutes an acceptable reason to avoid; I could see a 39-year-old woman who already has four children deciding that a relatively small risk of defects is reason enough to abstain. OTOH, I think a childless 39-year-old woman would find these risks to be negligible.

“Serious reason” is a judgment only she alone can make, taking her family/financial/health/support system into consideration.
 
No obligation or moral imperative to avoid, but it certainly can be a just reason.

For illustration purposes, this is my line of thinking for myself:
Advanced maternal age → greater risks of miscarriages or pregnancies complications
→ greater risk of hemorrhaging after miscarriage or childbirth
→ personally, greater pain during childbirth, more intense, faster delivery, more psychological stress and anxiety prior to and during
→ greater risk that a child might be stillborn or born with a genetic abnormality
→ after seven pregnancies in a decade, I am tired
→ my pregnancies are not cake-walks and my ability to function is reduced
→ nursing is a significant drain on my physical resources, and after 9 months of pregnancy, there is still nearly two years of nursing
→ as a homeschooling mother, my physical and emotional resources are much more important now than they were when my children were younger
→ my oldest will be in entering her teens by the time I would be able to conceive and birth yet another baby (currently pregnant with my fifth)
→ already had two miscarriages, and when I thought I was losing this baby, I was so heartbroken, and then subsequently elated when the baby was okay (I really kind of want off this rollercoaster)

Anyway, I might one day cite “maternal age” as my just reason for using NFP to avoid, but there are really so many other realities that stem from my age. And that is without me having any real knowledge of the actual statistical risks involved as Xantippe had shared in the other thread.
On the other hand, I may not cite that. God only knows what He has planned for me. I have done my best to form my conscience, and to be open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and to attend to the needs of my marriage to my husband. So who knows, I could end up having babies into my 40s. 🤷 But if that happens, I am gonna have to get comfortable with the idea of getting an epidural (having a catheter inserted into my spinal column has, thus far, freaked me out far more than the pain of childbirth.)
 
When discussing child bearing – the following needs to be kept in mind.
**Although motherhood is a key element of women’s identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms **and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women. The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard.17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny. Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation.18
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
Click to expand...
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
While I am certain age can be a legitimate concern for a couple to use NFP to avoid, we cannot use it as a certainty or universal reason for a couple to avoid conception after a certain age or even with certain risks. As far as I know the Church does not change the wedding promises after a certain age. We still accept children lovingly from God.
Click to expand...
Couples who are using NFP are still capable of accepting children lovingly from God. Many forum members have posted about how they conceived babies while using NFP to avoid, and that the conception of the baby really surprised them because all the signs said that they were far enough removed from the fertile window for conception to be impossible. Doesn’t mean that they refused to accept the baby lovingly from God. In fact, some of the best pregnancy testing moments of my life happened at times when I was not seeking pregnancy, and had thought conception was not likely. The surprise and the unexpected joy quickly replace any other thoughts in my mind. Even if mothers have more of a reason to remain concerned about having conceived (health problems, as an example) does not preclude the possibility of lovingly welcoming a new baby as a blessing from God. So I think, for those of us who, at least for the time being, have abandoned NFP, we must be very careful to avoid any hint of condemnation of the mindset of others who continue to use it. They are faithful Catholics, too, with a different set of circumstances than ourselves, and they are demonstrating prudence and restraint and self-sacrificing love for their spouse and family.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
[SNIP]
No other issue is left open to personal interpretation where so many people can have opposite conclusions and claim CHurch support.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to respond only to this comment. There are, in fact, other issues that are left open to personal interpretation, and some of them are quite contentious right now. As an example, the question of what is morally licit in terms of foreplay. There is a huge range of opinions, and each side of the debate can cite the catechism and magisterial documents to attempt to bolster their point of view, but the reality is that neither side can prove their point that way. The Church, it seems, has remained purposefully vague. It is an area where She has seen fit to provide couples with liberty. And that liberty is joyfully and gratefully exercised by some couples, but that same liberty is a huge stumbling block for other couples, and furthermore, that same liberty is used as cause for condemnation of some couples by other couples who find certain expressions of love to be repulsive or demeaning.
I know that this is not totally on-topic for the thread as a whole, but the paragraph of yours from which I snipped this quote really hit on this issue. The Church does permit freedom of conscience in many, many matters in all areas of life. I mentioned only one of those matters here, but I have seen dozens of such matters raised and debated here at CAF.
 
mommamaree said:
Couples who are using NFP are still capable of accepting children lovingly from God. Many forum members have posted about how they conceived babies while using NFP to avoid, and that the conception of the baby really surprised them because all the signs said that they were far enough removed from the fertile window for conception to be impossible. Doesn’t mean that they refused to accept the baby lovingly from God. In fact, some of the best pregnancy testing moments of my life happened at times when I was not seeking pregnancy, and had thought conception was not likely. The surprise and the unexpected joy quickly replace any other thoughts in my mind. Even if mothers have more of a reason to remain concerned about having conceived (health problems, as an example) does not preclude the possibility of lovingly welcoming a new baby as a blessing from God. So I think, for those of us who, at least for the time being, have abandoned NFP, we must be very careful to avoid any hint of condemnation of the mindset of others who continue to use it. They are faithful Catholics, too, with a different set of circumstances than ourselves, and they are demonstrating prudence and restraint and self-sacrificing love for their spouse and family.
Click to expand...
I remember a year or so ago, when I missed a period.

I told my husband.

His response?

“Oh, no.” Pause a beat. “Oh, WOW.” As a smile spread across his face.

Now without explaining the reasons, we have decided that we have reason to avoid. But, we also would have celebrated if the test had been positive.

So, yes, I would lovingly welcome children into our family. I also chart the best I can, so I won’t get pregnant.
 
I have seen both a midwife and a maternal-fetal specialist for most of my pregnancies. I have a tendency to miscarry, most of them have been between 12-16 weeks, but two were earlier and one was later. All of my miscarriages happened before the age of 35–none since then. My last pregnancy I was 37. Due to a “marker” on the ultrasounds, I was told that my risk for having a Down’s Syndrome child was increased to 1 in 80 instead of 1 in 100. I was offered a blood test that could tell me with 99% accuracy if our baby did have DS which we declined. I know many moms who have children with DS, ironically most these moms had their babies before they were 30, probably because they didn’t think of being tested and therefore didn’t abort. None of these children are in diapers into adulthood as someone posted on another thread said they would be, nearly all hold jobs and are very capable of living a good life. I cannot see how it would be something I would fear. There are much worse things, some of which I do find concerning, but DS is not one of them. The maternal-fetal medicine specialist also pointed out that the majority of women having children in their 40’s and beyond are already high risk for complications and fetal defects because they conceived with medical procedures and not naturally. Women who get pregnant using clomid, IVF, IUI, and all the other procedures and medications are more likely to miscarry, have complications, give birth prematurely, develop diabetes and preeclampsia, as well as have children with various defects/diseases/chromosomal problems. This is across the board for fertility treatment, not just older moms. He also pointed out that these women are more likely to have multiples and that also increases the risks. This doctor was very clear that an otherwise healthy woman in her early 40’s that naturally conceived a baby is not nearly as high risk as the statistics indicate, but most regular OB’s, other doctors, and the general public tend to not realize that these statistics include ALL women of the same age group with no distinctions. Personally I also wonder how the effects of ABC plays into this. Many women are on the pill or have IUD’s from their teens until close to age 40 when they finally decide a baby fits into their plans. This also could play into the whole increased risks/decreased fertility statistics, but I guarantee that will never be stated publicly. That is far to politically incorrect.

It is not my place to tell anyone to have more children, but it needs to be said that not ALL women can be lumped into the same category. Age alone is not a serious or just reason to avoid. Age can be a factor in the decision, but it cannot be the sole reason.
 
Rico_S said:
wait…I am confused.
Click to expand...
Why? It’s the truth. I can’t tell somebody to have more kids. But it does not make age a legitimately just reason. Lots of people avoid for many reasons that are not just as well, but I still am not going to tell them to have more kids
 
HoosierDaddy said:

“No other issue is left open to personal interpretation where so many people can have opposite conclusions and claim CHurch support.”

Not at all.

The question of how much to give to charity (which is a big deal in Christianity) is similarly elastic. We know we should give and that we must give, but there is no hard and fast percentage for every situation.

There is nothing unique about family planning in this respect.

The hard and fast stuff is the “do nots”–don’t commit adultery, don’t use artificial birth control, don’t murder, etc. The “dos” are much fuzzier.
 
7armyrugrats said:
Why? It’s the truth. I can’t tell somebody to have more kids. But it does not make age a legitimately just reason.
Click to expand...
Is telling someone they don’t have a legitimate reason to avoid having kids essentially telling them they should have more kids? 🤷
 
So, the Church does not address what to do when you feel your family is “built out” and “complete”. That is a corollary to the maternal age idea, in my mind.

Some people are perfectly happy having babies into their forties. But, for most couples, “we are done” comes before menopause.

I do not think that we are supposed to have babies until we drop. Accepting children as they come and actively trying are two different things. Maternal age does bring a higher risk of defects. It also draws out the time you are responsible for raising them. Taking on a baby at 42 means that you have very little time to save for retirement, and you will be at high school graduation at 60. Not impossible, but not for everyone.

I think the whole thing should be looked at. it’s maternal age, husband and wife’s health, finances, and other things.
 
7armyrugrats said:
Why? It’s the truth. I can’t tell somebody to have more kids. But it does not make age a legitimately just reason. Lots of people avoid for many reasons that are not just as well, but I still am not going to tell them to have more kids
Click to expand...
Well then, what say you to my post about how maternal age connects to a variety of other serious considerations that could all be listed under the category of advanced maternal age?

I think we need to be careful in our discussion of these matters to not be so focused on the “open to life” aspect of marriage that we inadvertently denigrate women. There is more to motherhood than continual procreation. At some point, a woman should be allowed to say about herself “I am too old and too tired to keep doing this”. We should support her and not second-guess her.
The Church has always allowed abstinence as a method for preventing pregnancies, and She has always taught that a couple need not seek conception with every marital act. Continence within marriage has been allowed or even expected, under certain circumstances, from the earliest times within the Church.
I also do believe, that a magisterial document, perhaps Castii Connubi or Humanae Vitae, specifically mentions maternal age as a just reason for preventing future pregnancies. I cannot remember which one. Perhaps someone else can recall?
 
Cathmomof6 said:

“Also, is there a difference between a near 40 year old woman with 7 children conceiving #8 and a near 40 year old woman with 0-1 children conceiving first or second?”

My understanding is that both first time mothers and mothers of large families are higher risk categories.

bioline.org.br/request?am11042

Here’s a quote:

“The elderly primigravidae [older first time mothers] are at increased risk of preterm, macrosomic, and caesarean deliveries compared to their younger primigravid counterparts.”

I have to rush off, but there should be something somewhere about the elderly multigravida (i.e. the older mother of a larger family).

I’m not sure which is riskier, but I believe an older mother with a small family already is a better risk.
 
(serious question)

is it against the teachings of Catholicism for a woman to have her eggs frozen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top