Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[7armyrugrats]

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?

Age alone is not a just factor. Age alone does not make something so. But as I said age can be taken into account AS ONE OF THE FACTORS.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Yes, it is.

No it isn’t. People can choose whatever they want. Just because it is not just, some people decide to never give to any charity. To tell them it is only right to help people in need is in no way telling them they have to do it. You can let people know it is not right to use ABC, but that is not the same as making them stop. We can tell people it is required to attend Sunday Mass, but that is not making them go. People can do whatever they want. They can make their own decisions. We cannot make them decide to do what is considered right, but we can and should tell them truthfully what is right.

 

[Rico_S]

Age alone is not a just factor.

Are you just stating your opinion here or are you maintaining this is Church teaching? You are so adamant and cut and dry about it, it seems your implication is that this is Church teaching.

 

[Walking_Home]

PaulinVA:

Originally Posted by Rico S
Is telling someone they don’t have a legitimate reason to avoid having kids essentially telling them they should have more kids?

Originally Posted by 7armyrugrats
No.

Yes, it is.

---

Ditto.

 

[PaulinVA]

No it isn’t. People can choose whatever they want. Just because it is not just, some people decide to never give to any charity. To tell them it is only right to help people in need is in no way telling them they have to do it. You can let people know it is not right to use ABC, but that is not the same as making them stop. We can tell people it is required to attend Sunday Mass, but that is not making them go. People can do whatever they want. They can make their own decisions. We cannot make them decide to do what is considered right, but we can and should tell them truthfully what is right.

The question was, "*Is telling someone they don’t have a legitimate reason to avoid having kids essentially telling them they should have more kids? "

*The answer to that is yes. It’s a binary. You have an opinion about another person’s reasons. You say they cannot justly avoid. Well, whats the opposite of avoid?

They can do whatever they want, but you are saying they should have more kids.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Are you just stating your opinion here or are you maintaining this is Church teaching? You are so adamant and cut and dry about it, it seems your implication is that this is Church teaching.

As posters continually point out on this kind of thread, the Church has no clear teaching. But what the Church does state is we must be generous with our decisions in amount of children. We are not supposed to set a cut off date or a cut off limit. Setting age AS THE SOLE factor would be setting a cut off date. The Church does not say that NFP is to be used unless a couple has just reasons to conceive. The Church says that NFP MAY be used if a couple has just reasons to avoid.

 

[lerapt78]

(serious question)

is it against the teachings of Catholicism for a woman to have her eggs frozen?

It is not against Catholic teaching for a woman to have her eggs frozen. However, the usual intended purpose of a woman freezing her eggs (for later fertilization and implantation), is. IVF is not allowed.

 

[maryjk]

Age alone is not a just factor. Age alone does not make something so. But as I said age can be taken into account AS ONE OF THE FACTORS.

Age in and of itself brings many other factors.

But it comes down to age being the factor.

 

[kozlosap]

Those of you who have had children in your late 30’s and early 40’s are giving some hope to my dear daughter. She will be thirty in the fall and just broke up with a long term boyfriend. Her main fear is that she has been diagnosed with Stage 4 endometriosis. Eighteen months ago she had her first surgery to remove as many endos as they could reach using lap surgery. The endos are attached everywhere, including her intestines. When the surgery took place her tubes were still open and scar tissue had not done significant damage. I’m so grateful to our Lord for having her develop appendicitis, because otherwise, the definitive diagnosis of endometriosis could not have been made. Her infected appendix was covered with endos. The pathologist was amazed.

Her endometriosis OB/gyn ,who is considered an expert on the condition ,has told her that she will need to have an hysterectomy after her first, or hopefully, her second child is born. Your stories of successful pregnancies at later ages will be one way I can show her that she will be OK achieving a healthy pregnancy even after 35. She is an awesome young woman who has always wanted children. Luckily, as an attorney, most of her friends have put off having kids until they are established in their careers. Once again, thanks for your life stories and pray with me that my beautiful girl will not marry the first guy to come along just so she can have a baby, which is a huge fear of mine.

 

[7armyrugrats]

The question was, "*Is telling someone they don’t have a legitimate reason to avoid having kids essentially telling them they should have more kids? "

*The answer to that is yes. It’s a binary. You have an opinion about another person’s reasons. You say they cannot justly avoid. Well, whats the opposite of avoid?

They can do whatever they want, but you are saying they should have more kids.

And I still say that no it is not. Not actively using NFP to avoid is not the same thing as attempting to conceive. It is also in no way telling someone they should have more kids, but just that age alone should not be the deciding factor. If there are other reasons, so be it. Each of those need to be looked at individually as well, and then looked at as a whole. I have never told anyone, “Oh, you really should have more kids.” It isn’t like anyone would listen to that and do it anyway. I don’t hold that power of people and I am glad that I don’t. But when someone asks a question, we are supposed to tell people the truth. Here on CAF it is very unpopular to speak the truth about NFP. It can be and is over used. It truly is Catholic birth control. There are legitimate reasons for using NFP, but most of the reasons people are using it for need to be reevaluated by the couple and carefully discerned. If a couple is setting a limit of 4 kids or 12 kids and then no more, that is contrary to what we as Catholics are supposed to believe. If a couple says I’m ok with kids until age 35 or 40 but them no more, that also is contrary to what we believe. There may be many other factors that are at play that make it perfectly legitimate. A couple may only have one child and that is the only child ever they have. If the reasons for avoiding are sufficient, then the couple is not doing anything wrong. It has nothing at all to do with family size at all

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

No, not quite. The Church leaves open to how much you support but not IF you support. Rich or poor, starving or gluttonous we ALL must support. The precepts of the CHurch bind morally. And number 5.

5 The fifth precept (“You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church”) means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability. The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities.

Clearly lays out that it is not acceptable to NOT provide. Now “according to ability” certainly guides how much but the idea of “nothing” is not an option. Now, of course this does not apply directly to procreation. Some cannot procreate. Some are not called to marriage and therefore not called to procreation. But IN a marriage, the intent to have children is implicit. So, a couple getting married in their forties would be taking the same vow as a couple in their 20s, teens, 30s, or 80s. And since when two people Cannot perform the act the Church generally holds back the sacrament. We can assume that a couple getting married in their forties could not get married with the full intent NEVER having relations or children. To express the idea that they are not open to life, would inhibit marriage.
(let’s not bring Josephite into this) lets just keep it simple for now.

Now you and I know in practice that selfish ABC live together premarital sex, never want kids couples get married in the Church all the time. Heck, I was one, and I am going to a wedding like this in June. But, that does not make it theologically correct, though it is practical.
That is why I struggle with NFP as a concept. Again, not that I deny the legitimacy of the Church in this matter, but rather why the ambiguity is doing no one any favors in our marriages and our societies.

Moral ambiguity, or the fuzziness of your “dos” list does not define Holy or Unholy. The fact that people on CAF cannot agree about anal stimulation for foreplay does not change any type of sexual morality in God’s eyes. It does not excuse or even lessen any type of sin or selfish action that is not in tune with God’s will and calling for a person or a couple. It makes for interesting conversation, but settles nothing theologically. Which is my issue with the whole NFP deal. Nothing is like it. Nothing HAS been like it in 2000 years of the Church. Not tithing, not foreplay, not war, not murder, not theft. Black and white, good and evil, holy and unholy. That is the reality of the theology.

But like I said, the practicality of it makes perfect sense. That is why I cannot condemn NFP or those who for reasons known to them and God decide to not be open to life at any given time. I cannot reconcile it to the faith. But I also cannot condemn it.

Sigh.

I do believe that given the gift of time the Church will further guide and define these issues for us. 500 years from now, if Jesus has not come again yet, you can be certain that there will be future councils, and future encyclicals and future popes weighing in on this issue and guiding us. Too bad we will all be dead and our children (few though they may be) will also all be dead.

 

[PaulinVA]

7armyrugrats, we apparently are talking past each other. I was simply answering one question.

If I say you should not do A, then I am saying you should be doing that which is not A. In terms of avoiding conception, if avoiding conception is A, then not doing A is not avoiding conception. In married life, not avoiding conception means that, over time, you will have more babies. So, telling someone not to avoid is telling them to have more babies.

And, in all Christian love, you do not hold the Truth about NFP and are not the holder of just reasons. What might not seem just to you might, in fact, be just.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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?

I like this post.

Let’s remember what the phrase open to life means. It means each act. Each act of marital embrace needs to occur in a manner that is open to life.

So a 53 year old couple probably cannot conceive, but each act must be “open for life”.

As for the question in the OP.

The Church gives us guidelines.

These guidelines are for each couple to discern. Some couples have gifts that allow them to happily and efficiently parent many children. Some women have better health. Some couples struggle. There isn’t one answer. The answer is personal that the couple needs to discern with God.

I had my last at almost 40. He’s a perfectly nice little sweetheart. He was a preemie, not because of my age, but because the pregnancy was difficult. Out of all his little roommates in the NICU, I was actually the oldest mom. Most of the other mothers were in their late teens early 20’s.

From Humanae Vitae:

Responsible Parenthood
10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

 

[maryjk]

This blog has been linked a number of times, but it is just as relevant now as it was then.

But why doesn’t the Church give some specific examples of what qualifies as a just reason? Well, one problem is that my just reason is not necessarily the same as your just reason.

For instance, we could say, “Severe economic instability is a good reason to postpone pregnancy.” But …

Woman A grew up deathly poor, and fully expected to die before she hit age 40.  Her husband is disabled and often out of work, and sometimes they have to scramble for the rent on their tiny house — but this is routine and tolerable for them, and causes no turmoil.  With help from friends and government programs, they are raising happy, healthy children on $25,000 a year.
Woman B grew up wealthy, has always generously endowed Crisis Pregnancy Centers in her town, and always hoped to have a large family of her own.  But a catastrophe struck, she went bankrupt, and has to sell everything and move into a tiny house and live on $25,000 a year.  They’re still reeling from the shock of what their life has become, and are trying to learn how to accept help, rather than giving it.
Woman C lives a tiny house and live on $25,000 a year, which her husband manages thriftily, so no one is deprived.  But she makes him sleep on the couch until he agrees to quit his job at the library  so he can make more money and they can catch up with their fancy friends next door, who go to Rio every March.
Woman D recently quit her high-paying job so she can stay home and have babies.  They now live on her husband’s salary of $25,ooo a year and can hardly wait to fill their tiny new house with children.

One person’s maternal age as a serious reason is not everyone’s maternal age as a serious reason.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Are you just stating your opinion here or are you maintaining this is Church teaching? You are so adamant and cut and dry about it, it seems your implication is that this is Church teaching.

I don’t see it as Church teaching either.

Some women can discern that pregnancy at an older age is something they can face. Some other women can discern that pregnancy at an older age is a risk they cannot face.

Neither one is wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This blog has been linked a number of times, but it is just as relevant now as it was then.

One person’s maternal age as a serious reason is not everyone’s maternal age as a serious reason.

I love Simcha!

 

[mommamaree]

Two points:

1. Maternal age is not an arbitrary number. Maternal age MEANS something. Age carries with it age-related issues. However, one woman’s 40 is another woman’s 50. So, whether or not maternal age is a just reason is best left for each couple to discern, which is exactly what the Church has stated.
2. Just because we are saying that maternal age is a just reason, does NOT imply that maternal age becomes a moral imperative for anyone or for everyone. The Church never requires any couple to prevent pregnancies. She simply allows for each couple to make that decision if they discern serious reasons. One couple’s discernment process should not be entertwined with the discernment process of another couple, even though it is acceptable to seek counsel.

 

[7armyrugrats]

No I don’t hold the cards. But it is untrue that all 40 year olds have the same risks during pregnancy. Age is not the only factor to be considered.

Also, not purposely trying to avoid does not mean you will conceive. It may increase the chance, but most couples do not have sex daily, and not every month will they have sex during fertile time even if not charting. There are reasons for NFP. But can you all honestly state that there are never couples that just decide they do not want more kids, or that never intend to ever have children? People have started threads stating they never want kids, but that they agree to only use NFP to avoid. Do you all honestly believe that this is justification for using NFP?

Yes, there are reasons to use NFP and no one doubts that. Just as there are people who do use NFP for reasons that are not just. Are we supposed to turn our eyes and pretend it doesn’t occur or are we supposed to provide some guidance and hope they at least rethink their position? I realize this thread is not going anywhere. It will end up just like all the other threads on similar topics. Everyone has already made their mind up and no one will budge. Arguments will go round and round. People on one side will feel like they are being attacked and so will people on the other side. Opinions are strong, some people feel guilt for their choices while others feel hurt because they feel they have no choice in the matter while still other feel judged for their choices. All of these emotions are more substantial reasons for avoiding than maternal age alone. If a mom is overwhelmed or dad feels he can’t provide or another loss would do the kids harm–these are very real and serious reasons to avoid. If there is a health problem or a genetic predisposition to a problem, again that is an excellent reason to avoid. I do not doubt that people need to use NFP to avoid. And age can play into that decision.

 

[thewanderer]

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.
Perhaps you feel the rite of the sacrament should be changed?
.

You clearly did not understand the point I was making, however, since other posters have since made the same point and you have not objected to them I will assume you agree with all of us but just made a poor choice of phrasing. I have nothing against the importance of willingly and lovingly accepting children. I do have an issue with people making it sound as though it is impossible to avoid children and still be willing to lovingly accept children. That is all.

 

[thewanderer]

No I don’t hold the cards. But it is untrue that all 40 year olds have the same risks during pregnancy. Age is not the only factor to be considered.

If this is the position you are arguing against then I don’t think many people would disagree with you, which is why they have said it is up to the couple in question to discern, it seems to me that people are simply trying to point out that age-related issues can certainly be the primary reason for abstaining. They are not claiming that it always is a sufficient reason in and of itself. There clearly are women who are perfectly capable, and willing to continue having children in their forties, no one is denying that.

Also, not purposely trying to avoid does not mean you will conceive. It may increase the chance, but most couples do not have sex daily, and not every month will they have sex during fertile time even if not charting.

There are reasons for NFP. But can you all honestly state that there are never couples that just decide they do not want more kids, or that never intend to ever have children? People have started threads stating they never want kids, but that they agree to only use NFP to avoid. Do you all honestly believe that this is justification for using NFP?

Can I ask? Why are you bringing this up? No one in this thread has said that its ok to go into marriage saying you only want one kid and then stick rigidly to thatsolely because it was your fantasy of what your family would look like. You make it sound as though you are the only person on this thread who would see issues with that. Why do you think that others here would disagree?

Yes, there are reasons to use NFP and no one doubts that. Just as there are people who do use NFP for reasons that are not just. Are we supposed to turn our eyes and pretend it doesn’t occur or are we supposed to provide some guidance and hope they at least rethink their position? I realize this thread is not going anywhere. It will end up just like all the other threads on similar topics. Everyone has already made their mind up and no one will budge. Arguments will go round and round. People on one side will feel like they are being attacked and so will people on the other side. Opinions are strong, some people feel guilt for their choices while others feel hurt because they feel they have no choice in the matter while still other feel judged for their choices. All of these emotions are more substantial reasons for avoiding than maternal age alone. If a mom is overwhelmed or dad feels he can’t provide or another loss would do the kids harm–these are very real and serious reasons to avoid. If there is a health problem or a genetic predisposition to a problem, again that is an excellent reason to avoid. I do not doubt that people need to use NFP to avoid. And age can play into that decision.