Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[bitterhope]

My mom had me at 46, and two more after me. Her youngest was born at 49. None of us have problems.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How would you feel about this if you had serious reason to avoid? Would you practice NFP?

If my wife was going to die if she got pregnant I would of course practice NFP.
I have said time and time again that NFP is approved by the Church, what I question is the manner in which it is employed.

 

[patsa]

If my wife was going to die if she got pregnant I would of course practice NFP.
I have said time and time again that NFP is approved by the Church, what I question is the manner in which it is employed.

So you believe that it is only moral to use NFP in life or death cases?

 

[Rau]

If my wife was going to die if she got pregnant I would of course practice NFP.
I have said time and time again that NFP is approved by the Church, what I question is the manner in which it is employed.

Sorry, I thought you’d expressed great difficulty with the teaching, not simply how others behave. I recall you saying that you believed the teaching would very like change over time, referencing its “issues” as the cause.

 

[PaulinVA]

If a woman is young enough to get pregnant naturally, society (and especially Catholics, who are suppose to be on the side of life) should not act as if she’s too old to have a baby. The idea that age *alone *is sufficient reason for a couple to not welcome another child strikes me as very wrong–it seems like a form of ageism. In many of these posts on this very long thread, people added far more things beyond age into the equation, such as physical and mental health, the need to care for elderly parents, the need to care for older children with disabilities, etc. But this thread didn’t ask about all those other things–it asked about specifically about age–maternal age. It spun off of a thread where a husband wanted more children, but his wife, who was in her late 30’s, insisted on using NFP for reasons she hadn’t made clear to him.

Many people *do *want more children, but they let themselves get talked out of it by societal pressures that tell them they are “too old”–when their biology says they are not.

That’s why I care. :twocents:

It’s interesting how we intermingle the various “statuses” of couples vis-a-vis trying to avoid or conceive.

1. Trying to conceive
2. Letting what happens happens
3. Trying to avoid

There is trying to conceive and there is letting it happen. I admire you for your honesty. I am only a year away from the senior special at iHop, so I know how it feels. My wife has a serious chronic condition, and we had to stop at four kids, both for that reason and for the fact that our oldest’s problems exhausted us and added ten years to our ages (according to my mother in law). I admire people who make the large families work. But, we just could not.

Back on topic, I think it’s acceptable for someone to say maternal age alone is their reason to avoid.

How’s this for a question? Is a lack of ability in trusting God a serious reason not to have another?

 

[Rau]

So you believe that it is only moral to use NFP in life or death cases?

The area of difficulty that I have seem some people ponder over is perhaps around the idea that just reasons for the wealthy American can be different to just reasons for the dirt poor African. At least where “life or death” of the spouse is concerned, the threshold is objectively the same.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So you believe that it is only moral to use NFP in life or death cases?

No

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The area of difficulty that I have seem some people ponder over is perhaps around the idea that just reasons for the wealthy American can be different to just reasons for the dirt poor African. At least where “life or death” of the spouse is concerned, the threshold is objectively the same.

yes

 

[patsa]

No

Good!

 

[Xantippe]

PaulinVA said:

“Back on topic, I think it’s acceptable for someone to say maternal age alone is their reason to avoid.”

Yes!

I also think it’s unacceptable to tell somebody that advanced maternal age is not an adequate reason for them to abstain. (And let’s bear in mind that that’s what we’re talking about–abstaining.)

If doctors and other medical professional who care for pregnant women are concerned about advanced maternal age (and they are–I read a lot of obstetrics chatter on the internet), it is a real, credible issue.

That’s not to say that it’s wrong to try to have a baby at an advanced age, but the concerns are not coming out of thin air.

Congratulations on the impending IHOP senior status, by the way!

 

[PaulinVA]

Congratulations on the impending IHOP senior status, by the way!

My wife and I are Floridians transplanted (decades ago) to Virgina, so we know it works:

“Remember miss, we said the SENIOR coffee”!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

PaulinVA said:

“Back on topic, I think it’s acceptable for someone to say maternal age alone is their reason to avoid.”

Yes!!

Ok. Here is where I am confused.

Now I am going to take a couple of liberties here.

1. A Wiki article about a Catholic subject. I know I know but lets just take it at face value.
2. Ignoring Josephite marriages. Yes, I think we are all aware these exist.

So IF age is indeed and ALONE reason to avoid. then I have a question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
From the article:

Refusal to have children One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church.

Premise:

1. Refusal to have children is an impediment or factor that can invalidate a marriage.
2. The Church marries people at any age between 16/14 to, well, death.
3. Because of Number 2 the Church would marry a couple pre menopausal but later in years, say 40s
4. The couple cannot “refuse” to have children.

So how can age alone be a reason to avoid when the Church specifically addresses this issue about refusal to have children?

 

[Rau]

Ok. Here is where I am confused.

Now I am going to take a couple of liberties here.

1. A Wiki article about a Catholic subject. I know I know but lets just take it at face value.
2. Ignoring Josephite marriages. Yes, I think we are all aware these exist.

So IF age is indeed and ALONE reason to avoid. then I have a question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
From the article:

Premise:

1. Refusal to have children is an impediment or factor that can invalidate a marriage.
2. The Church marries people at any age between 16/14 to, well, death.
3. Because of Number 2 the Church would marry a couple pre menopausal but later in years, say 40s
4. The couple cannot “refuse” to have children.

So how can age alone be a reason to avoid when the Church specifically addresses this issue about refusal to have children?

First, one ought not to marry with an intention to avoid children (till menopause). [Curiously, they can wait a few years, then there’s no problem.]

But, given a person is married, they may see good reason to avoid children arising from their age.

Second, I would note in passing that one’s age-related reason most like can’t be described as “age alone”. The implications of age are almost certainly intrinsically bound into the reason. Eg. We are tired. Heightened Risks of birth defects. Don’t believe I’d be able to cope ini 10 years still having X kids under age Y,…

 

[thewanderer]

Ok. Here is where I am confused.

Now I am going to take a couple of liberties here.

1. A Wiki article about a Catholic subject. I know I know but lets just take it at face value.
2. Ignoring Josephite marriages. Yes, I think we are all aware these exist.

So IF age is indeed and ALONE reason to avoid. then I have a question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
From the article:

The Church is also willing to marry couples even if the wife is on medications which would be harmful/fatal to any children they conceived even if they decide that because of their serious reason they will avoid indefinitely. If you have a serious reason to avoid children your marriage will still be valid even if you avoid. So the only question remains, what counts as a serious reason?

Premise:

1. Refusal to have children is an impediment or factor that can invalidate a marriage.
2. The Church marries people at any age between 16/14 to, well, death.
3. Because of Number 2 the Church would marry a couple pre menopausal but later in years, say 40s
4. The couple cannot “refuse” to have children.

So how can age alone be a reason to avoid when the Church specifically addresses this issue about refusal to have children?

 

[Rau]

If my wife was going to die if she got pregnant I would of course practice NFP.
I have said time and time again that NFP is approved by the Church, what I question is the manner in which it is employed.

Can you imagine scenarios not as black and white as this? Eg. What about when the risk of death is not certain? Say 75% ? Say 50%? Say 10% ? Say 0.5%?

Can you imagine that different couples might assess these situations differently, and thus make different decisions? Let’s say you agree they might do so. If a 10% risk is acceptable to couple Nbr 1, they continue sex as normal. Couple Nbr 2 can’t accept that risk, and use NFP. Couple Nbr 3 take the view that they can’t take the 10% risk, but the reason is not serious enough for NFP. So they permanently abstain.

Is it possible to say any of these choices was morally deficient? I believe it is not possible to conclude that. The Church’s position of leaving it to the couple seems the only viable position.

Extending the reasoning to other non life and death matters can’t be excluded.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can you imagine scenarios not as black and white as this? Eg. What about when the risk of death is not certain? Say 75% ? Say 50%? Say 10% ? Say 0.5%?

Can you imagine that different couples might assess these situations differently, and thus make different decisions? Let’s say you agree they might do so. If a 10% risk is acceptable to couple Nbr 1, they continue sex as normal. Couple Nbr 2 can’t accept that risk, and use NFP. Couple Nbr 3 take the view that they can’t take the 10% risk, but the reason is not serious enough for NFP. So they permanently abstain.

Is it possible to say any of these choices was morally deficient? I believe it is not possible to conclude that. The Church’s position of leaving it to the couple seems the only viable position.

Extending the reasoning to other non life and death matters can’t be excluded.

Of course I can imagine other things. I get so tired of defending things I am not saying. I know people are gunshy about posters that have an absolute stance on this.

For the millionth time.
NFP is a Church approved method to avoid conception. It can be used for serious reasons. Ugh…
I rarely use this emoticon.
:banghead:

Can we please stop with the insinuations…

 

[Rau]

Of course I can imagine other things. I get so tired of defending things I am not saying. I know people are gunshy about posters that have an absolute stance on this.

For the millionth time.
NFP is a Church approved method to avoid conception. It can be used for serious reasons. Ugh…
I rarely use this emoticon.
:banghead:

Can we please stop with the insinuations…

Ok, I won’t persist. I only asked because you expressed serious personal difficulty with the teaching in prior posts. I am not insinuating. And I don’t doubt you are obedient in respect of this teaching.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Is it possible to say any of these choices was morally deficient? I believe it is not possible to conclude that. The Church’s position of leaving it to the couple seems the only viable position.

Extending the reasoning to other non life and death matters can’t be excluded.

Of course we can conclude that! Every pregnancy with every woman carries with it a percentage of death. So yes, there has to be a threshold at which a percentage is reasonably serious or not.

A little rough justice (math) here…

At a country level, India (19% or 56,000) and Nigeria (14% or 40,000) accounted for roughly one third of the maternal deaths in 2010. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, United Republic of Tanzania, Bangladesh and Afghanistan comprised between 3 to 5 percent of maternal deaths each. [17] These ten countries combined accounted for 60% of all the maternal deaths in 2010 according to the United Nations Population Fund report. Countries with the lowest maternal deaths were Estonia, Greece and Singapore [18].

From Wiki (again)

In the United States, the maternal death rate averaged 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during the years 1979-1986,[19] but then rose rapidly to 14 for every 100,000 patients in 2000 to 24 per every 100,000 patients in 2008.[20] According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 650 women die in the United States each year as a result of pregnancy and delivery complications.[21]

And outside of the US.

According to the 2010 United Nations Population Fund report, developing nations account for ninety-nine percent of maternal deaths with majority of those deaths occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. [14] Globally, high and middle income countries experience lower maternal deaths than low income countries. The Human Development Index (HDI) accounts for between 82 and 85 percent of the maternal mortality rates among countries.[15] In most cases, high rates of maternal deaths occur in the same countries that have high rates of infant mortality. These trends are a reflection that higher income countries have stronger healthcare infrastructure, medical and healthcare personnel, use more advanced medical technologies and have less barriers to accessing care than low income countries. Therefore, in low income countries, the most common cause of maternal death is obstetrical hemorrhage, followed by hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, in contrast to high income countries, for which the most common cause is thromboembolism.[16]

At a country level, India (19% or 56,000) and Nigeria (14% or 40,000) accounted for roughly one third of the maternal deaths in 2010. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, United Republic of Tanzania, Bangladesh and Afghanistan comprised between 3 to 5 percent of maternal deaths each. [17] These ten countries combined accounted for 60% of all the maternal deaths in 2010 according to the United Nations Population Fund report. Countries with the lowest maternal deaths were Estonia, Greece and Singapore [18].

So we can see that there is and historically you can be sure it was MUCH higher a certain percentage of risk of the death of a mother. One cannot just use this as a reason alone to not have children.

But certainly there are thresholds to be met that make it a serious and just reason in and of itself. But what are those thresholds?

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy,

My husband says:

“There is a difference between a couple intending never to have children and a couple expecting that it will never be prudently possible for them to have children. Intention is a crucial concept in Catholic ethics, and it differs from foresight. A couple who thinks that they will have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for all of their married lives is foreseeing that they (probably) won’t have children, but they aren’t necessarily intending not to have children. And they can be quite open to trying to have children on the condition that it is ceases to be imprudent to do so–say, because of a medical advance. And no one should be open to trying to have children except on the condition that it is not imprudent to do so, since prudence is a virtue and to act against a virtue is wrong.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ok, I won’t persist. I only asked because you expressed serious personal difficulty with the teaching in prior posts. I am not insinuating. And I don’t doubt you are obedient in respect of this teaching.

I have difficulty with the logic of the ambiguity of it’s employment, not of it’s legitimacy or the Church’s authority.