.There is a certain comfort in being told what to do… in having explicit rules laid out to follow. But the Church in her wisdom does not do this for child spacing/avoiding pregnancy. As much as you don’t want to, you and your husband must decide…weighing the factors yourself.
And girls are fertile at the age of 12-14…I certainly wouldn’t argue that this fact should lead us to believe that getting married and having kids at that age is best.
Can there never be a thread on any topic involving one sex where someone doesn’t post something similar to “this is an issue for BOTH sexes!” Can’t we ever not have the post-feminist “the sexes are the same” point reiterated ad naseum? Advanced age is a much more serious problem for women than for men. Is it so bad to admit that?
Well, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that - based on statistical evidence - the risk of certain genetic problems, miscarriages, etc increases with age.Since I asked this question in another thread, I would like to restate the details since this topic is a big one for me right now. I am 37 and hubby is 39. We just had our 7th healthy baby march 25. When I was 19 weeks pregnant we were told our baby could have trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality more likely with advanced maternal age. After a lot of stress and tests and meetings with genetic counselors and hearing how “old” we were, everything turned out fine. I have had 7 relatively easy pregnancies and deliveries, no miscarriages or stillborns, we are financially stable. Basically my only reason for not having another baby is age!
On other threads it as been stated that each couple must decide for themselves, but how could you possibly determine this? I need some more concrete advice!! Could we handle a baby with a genetic problem? How could we possibly know this without experiencing it? Would I feel guilty for purposely conceiving a baby with lifelong struggles when well aware of the increased risks? Most definitely - especially when others would view it as imprudent!!! But why are we fertile well past 35 if conception should be avoided?? It sickens me to think of NFP for the next 10 years or so
There a lot of factors that you would consider. If you are in good health and do not have a history of pregnancy complications it might be a lot less risky to have children after age 40. But risk isn’t the only issue. An 8th child at age 40+ is a different concept than an 8th child at age 35. The reason the couple must decide for themselves is that only you and your husband know what you can handle, what another child would mean financially, what support you have if you had a special needs child or a pregnancy complication such as bed rest, etc.Since I asked this question in another thread, I would like to restate the details since this topic is a big one for me right now. I am 37 and hubby is 39. We just had our 7th healthy baby march 25. When I was 19 weeks pregnant we were told our baby could have trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality more likely with advanced maternal age. After a lot of stress and tests and meetings with genetic counselors and hearing how “old” we were, everything turned out fine. I have had 7 relatively easy pregnancies and deliveries, no miscarriages or stillborns, we are financially stable. Basically my only reason for not having another baby is age!
**On other threads it as been stated that each couple must decide for themselves, but how could you possibly determine this? ** I need some more concrete advice!! Could we handle a baby with a genetic problem? How could we possibly know this without experiencing it? Would I feel guilty for purposely conceiving a baby with lifelong struggles when well aware of the increased risks? Most definitely - especially when others would view it as imprudent!!! But why are we fertile well past 35 if conception should be avoided?? It sickens me to think of NFP for the next 10 years or so
Of course not but I also don’t believe you can compare a 12-14 year old child with a 37 year old women in a committed long term relationship. A 12-14 year old girl would have no need to use NFP outside of marriage. I, on the other hand, would have to utilize very conservative NFP, as we have conceived twice outside the supposedly fertile window!!
Actually yeah it is bad in this context. NFP and childbearing is a joint decision. Yours is the position that actually takes the post feminist (it is my body) type of thinking. Let’s assume that losing the love of his life to a pregnancy or having a disabled child has an effect on the man as well.
As someone who practices NFP, I’m well aware of the man’s unique role in such decisions. That clearly wasn’t what I was saying nor was the post I was responding to mentioning the unique role of a man in the NFP decision process. I was simply responding to the claim that “age isn’t only a woman’s issue” made as if there is no biological difference between a man and a woman procreating over 40. Nice try though.
Because that would be a lie. Advanced age for men does have an affect, such as increased risk of autism. I never stated the sexes were the same but older people of both genders have increased risks. Men can’t accept this, but it is true.
While I agree with you that it would be wrong to claim that age is universally a good reason for NFP I have to quibble with your last sentence. The way your post is phrased makes it sound as though people who use NFP to avoid, even if they have just and serious reasons to avoid do not accept children lovingly from God, which is not a universal claim anyone can make.
I guess you read into the post whatever you will. All I did was use the words of marriage. If you have a problem with that. I don’t know what to tell you.
No other issue is left open to personal interpretation where so many people can have opposite conclusions and claim CHurch support.