M
MomaMary8
Guest
Congratulations leonie!!! What wonderful news!!! :extrahappy:
- Status
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Congratulations!!!
I don’t like that this thread may put into people’s minds that they are too old for more children. Or scare them into thinking the chances of complications are more than what they are. Or make them think minor complications are a major barrier to having more children. There are plenty of women who have successful pregnancies and good outcomes in our forties.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
My mom had my youngest sibling at 41. Everything was pretty much fine. The risks are real and elevated compared to the “norm” but plenty of people have gone through higher-risk pregnancies and ended up just fine.
I don’t want anyone to be discouraged, but I don’t want genuine concerns to be dismissed as trivial either. That’s why I’d prefer that these sorts of threads never start.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Gardenswithkids said:
“I don’t like that this thread may put into people’s minds that they are too old for more children. Or scare them into thinking the chances of complications are more than what they are. Or make them think minor complications are a major barrier to having more children. There are plenty of women who have successful pregnancies and good outcomes in our forties.”
And I don’t like that this thread may put into people’s minds that they are sinning unless they keep on having kids, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how worried they are by the risks, no matter what their doctors say, and they need to keep doing so until invisible strangers on the internet are happy.
“I don’t like that this thread may put into people’s minds that they are too old for more children. Or scare them into thinking the chances of complications are more than what they are. Or make them think minor complications are a major barrier to having more children. There are plenty of women who have successful pregnancies and good outcomes in our forties.”
And I don’t like that this thread may put into people’s minds that they are sinning unless they keep on having kids, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how worried they are by the risks, no matter what their doctors say, and they need to keep doing so until invisible strangers on the internet are happy.
X
Xantippe
Guest
PaulinVA said:
“I don’t think that’s something that we should take on to satisfy someone elses view of holiness.”
Yes!
If any of us are canonized, we will be canonized for our own particular gifts, not other people’s. I can only be St. Xantippe. I can’t be St. The Bucket, or St. PaulinVa or St. Gardenswithkids or St. Bitterhope or anybody else.
“I don’t think that’s something that we should take on to satisfy someone elses view of holiness.”
Yes!
If any of us are canonized, we will be canonized for our own particular gifts, not other people’s. I can only be St. Xantippe. I can’t be St. The Bucket, or St. PaulinVa or St. Gardenswithkids or St. Bitterhope or anybody else.
L
leonie
Guest
True, but I think probably more people are dissuaded by fear than are persuaded by unfounded guilt. Any pregnancy at any age can be a leap of faith.
R
Rau
Guest
I suspect very few people go on to have large families for fear of sinning if they stop. Perhaps those with large families will want to add actual experience here, but I would guess these parents love a large family! And that goes a long way to making large families a great outcome for them.
M
mommamaree
Guest
I took a few days away from this thread to carefully consider both sides. If anything, my view has become more set than it was before.
I firmly believe, at some point in a mother’s life, she has a right to say “I am too old, or too tired, or too worn-out from pregnancies/childbirth/miscarriages/breastfeeding, to go through it all again. I am done.” Now, women are going to reach that stage at different points, and some women might never reach that moment until nature removes the option.
But saying that maternal age is not a serious/just reason, that discomforts of pregnancy are not a serious/just reasons, that wellness concerns short of serious illness are not serious/just reasons, that emotional well-being concerns short of mental illness are not serious/just reasons: are ALL wrong statements and are actually AGAINST the teachings of the Church, which leaves it to the discernment of the couple alone.
I know that some women happily and safely have children into their 40s, but some don’t.
I know that some women happily and safely have large families, but some can’t.
I know that some women would undertake to bear a child no matter the risks, but many won’t.
The women that DO are not more “truly pro-life” than the women that DON’T.
Just because one couple discerns serious reasons to avoid does not mean that everyone who experiences similar circumstances must follow suit. And just because one couple discerns their reasons are not serious enough to avoid does not mean that couples who do define those reasons as serious are selfish.
I firmly believe, at some point in a mother’s life, she has a right to say “I am too old, or too tired, or too worn-out from pregnancies/childbirth/miscarriages/breastfeeding, to go through it all again. I am done.” Now, women are going to reach that stage at different points, and some women might never reach that moment until nature removes the option.
But saying that maternal age is not a serious/just reason, that discomforts of pregnancy are not a serious/just reasons, that wellness concerns short of serious illness are not serious/just reasons, that emotional well-being concerns short of mental illness are not serious/just reasons: are ALL wrong statements and are actually AGAINST the teachings of the Church, which leaves it to the discernment of the couple alone.
I know that some women happily and safely have children into their 40s, but some don’t.
I know that some women happily and safely have large families, but some can’t.
I know that some women would undertake to bear a child no matter the risks, but many won’t.
The women that DO are not more “truly pro-life” than the women that DON’T.
Just because one couple discerns serious reasons to avoid does not mean that everyone who experiences similar circumstances must follow suit. And just because one couple discerns their reasons are not serious enough to avoid does not mean that couples who do define those reasons as serious are selfish.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Are we reading different threads???
X
Xantippe
Guest
Gardenswithkids said:
“Are we reading different threads???”
Apparently. All I know is, whenever I’ve posted fairly serious reasons, they all get pooh-poohed as no big deal.
To recap (with a few amplifications) here is my situation:
–38, almost 39 (current risk of chromosomal anomaly, one in 102, in two months, the risk will be 1 in 82, a year later it will be 1 in 66, a year after that it will be 1 in 53, and so forth)
–one mildly autistic child who took until 8 to be able to dress herself or get through the school day without heroic effort on the part of her teachers and was very, very difficult at home until around then–in fact, given to long, frightening rages, during which we’d lock ourselves in our bedroom with her little brother and hope for the best. Her therapy and our intensive work with her was effective, but consumed vast amounts of time and money.
–a 1 in 7 chance of having a second autistic child
–one middle child who is always a little neglected, because he’s easy and is neither autistic nor a toddler
–one 18 month old
–miscarried at 13 weeks at 36, very long hard recovery, both physically and psychologically
–rough pregnancy at 37, subchorionic hematoma with bleeding, short bedrest, physical restrictions during second trimester, gestational diabetes during third, sciatica during late third–was essentially immobilized for half a year. Would have to hire a nanny to care for myself and toddler if even half of those complications recurred.
–my family doctor said I have a 50% chance of going Type II diabetic in the next decade
–I currently weigh 224 pounds and I normally gain 40-50 pounds during pregnancy (although I didn’t during my last pregnancy, when I was half starved)
–I’ve been seeing a lot of my podiatrist, and there’s been some talk of foot surgery.
–my family doctor, OB and podiatrist have all stated that they want me to lose weight, and the podiatrist has specified that he would be happy if I got down to 160, which would be a 64 pound weight loss.
–my mom had breast cancer around 41/42
“Are we reading different threads???”
Apparently. All I know is, whenever I’ve posted fairly serious reasons, they all get pooh-poohed as no big deal.
To recap (with a few amplifications) here is my situation:
–38, almost 39 (current risk of chromosomal anomaly, one in 102, in two months, the risk will be 1 in 82, a year later it will be 1 in 66, a year after that it will be 1 in 53, and so forth)
–one mildly autistic child who took until 8 to be able to dress herself or get through the school day without heroic effort on the part of her teachers and was very, very difficult at home until around then–in fact, given to long, frightening rages, during which we’d lock ourselves in our bedroom with her little brother and hope for the best. Her therapy and our intensive work with her was effective, but consumed vast amounts of time and money.
–a 1 in 7 chance of having a second autistic child
–one middle child who is always a little neglected, because he’s easy and is neither autistic nor a toddler
–one 18 month old
–miscarried at 13 weeks at 36, very long hard recovery, both physically and psychologically
–rough pregnancy at 37, subchorionic hematoma with bleeding, short bedrest, physical restrictions during second trimester, gestational diabetes during third, sciatica during late third–was essentially immobilized for half a year. Would have to hire a nanny to care for myself and toddler if even half of those complications recurred.
–my family doctor said I have a 50% chance of going Type II diabetic in the next decade
–I currently weigh 224 pounds and I normally gain 40-50 pounds during pregnancy (although I didn’t during my last pregnancy, when I was half starved)
–I’ve been seeing a lot of my podiatrist, and there’s been some talk of foot surgery.
–my family doctor, OB and podiatrist have all stated that they want me to lose weight, and the podiatrist has specified that he would be happy if I got down to 160, which would be a 64 pound weight loss.
–my mom had breast cancer around 41/42
P
PaulinVA
Guest
mammamaree, thank you for your post #536.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Me too. Very well written. Thank you!
X
Xantippe
Guest
Mommamaree:
That was very good. I’d revise this slightly, though, to express that one will welcome any unexpected further children:
"I firmly believe, at some point in a mother’s life, she has a right to say “I am too old, or too tired, or too worn-out from pregnancies/childbirth/miscarriages/breastfeeding, to go through it all again. I am done.”
That was very good. I’d revise this slightly, though, to express that one will welcome any unexpected further children:
"I firmly believe, at some point in a mother’s life, she has a right to say “I am too old, or too tired, or too worn-out from pregnancies/childbirth/miscarriages/breastfeeding, to go through it all again. I am done.”
M
mommamaree
Guest
In the context of a faithful Catholic woman, such as the ones who care at all about abiding by the moral teachings of the Church with respect to the marital act and the morally licit way to plan one’s family, such a caveat is already implied. We are talking about using NFP for serious/just reasons, after all. I do not believe that I, or any other woman, needs to perform linguistic acrobatics in order to prove that she is not guilty of a sinful mentality. By virtue of the fact that any marital relations would be ordered to procreation, she demonstrates her obedience and acceptance of God’s laws, even is she says “I am done”.
I find it extremely unfortunate that someone such as yourself, Xantippe, who can always be counted on to defend Church teaching and show your passion for your faith, has found it necessary to define all your personal reasons for avoiding future pregnancies. And not just once, but you have had to repeat yourself and defend your reasoning. And why? Because at various points throughout this thread, such reasons have been trivialized. Mothers who discern very good, well-founded reasons to stop procreating have been painted as less truly pro-life. And for my own self, my own personal reasons have also been mentioned throughout this thread as not serious/just enough. It is true that no one is directly saying to us that we are selfish or we should have more children, but when we offer examples of good reasons, and then in subsequent posts over the next day, such reasons are addressed by other posters and are minimized or trivialized, or are included as examples of selfishness, it amounts to the same thing.
I think it did me some good to stop and make an internal assessment. If I, with my husband, discern serious reasons to avoid future pregnancies, and we use the morally licit method to do so, who else in the world has the right to say that our reasons are selfish? No one does. The Church Herself has granted to couples the right to discern for themselves, without needing to seek permission nor consulting any list. Furthermore, once such obedience is demonstrated, there is no need for any couple to continually prove that they are not intending any sinful means, so no caveat should be necessary.
I think The Bucket is absolutely right. These threads come to no good. They are always started by someone well-meaning with a good question, but the end result is always the same.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Bingo! This is why I have always opposed debate over whether NFP can be used selfishly or whatnot. I fall back to the parable of the two sons
Even if a good Catholic wife says she’s “done” with kids, her actions in being open to life with her sexual life demonstrates that she is actually doing the will of the Father.
I am saving this… because it’s probably the only time someone will say I’m “absolutely right” about anything ever.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Mommamaree,
It shouldn’t be necessary to add that, but as we’ve seen, it’s easy for people to misunderstand things!
Thank you for your very kind words.
It shouldn’t be necessary to add that, but as we’ve seen, it’s easy for people to misunderstand things!
Thank you for your very kind words.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I find it unfortunate too. Unfortunately all kinds of *other issues that are unrelated to a woman’s age *(or virtually unrelated to a woman’s age) have been brought into this thread! However, since she shared I’ll share that in my opinion, I think she has reasons (outside of age) that a woman ten or fifteen years younger than her might prayerfully discern to be reasons for avoiding. Xantippe’s also posted numerous times on this thread with scary sounding statistics about pregnancy in older women that could drive a healthy older woman who wants more children to fear.
Here’s one thing she recently shared:
It all sounds rather scary and ominous!!!
Let’s put those odds about chromosomal anomaly into perspective. The odds of dying in a car crash are between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. The average woman’s chances of dying in a car crash is greater than the chance she’ll have a child with chromosomal problems if she has a child at an older age.
Drive carefully.
(Source: asktheodds.com/death/car-crash-odds/)
X
Xantippe
Guest
gardenswithkids said:
“Let’s put those odds about chromosomal anomaly into perspective. The odds of dying in a car crash are between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. The average woman’s chances of dying in a car crash is greater than the chance she’ll have a child with chromosomal problems if she has a child at an older age.”
The care accident death risk is presumably a total lifetime risk, whereas the risk of a chromosomal anomaly is one that repeats with every pregnancy. Hence, a 1 in 100 risk multiplied 5 times turns into a 1 in 20 risk.
If you look at the automobile miles driven per death, you get numbers like 1.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles, which is really rather amazingly low.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States
“Let’s put those odds about chromosomal anomaly into perspective. The odds of dying in a car crash are between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. The average woman’s chances of dying in a car crash is greater than the chance she’ll have a child with chromosomal problems if she has a child at an older age.”
The care accident death risk is presumably a total lifetime risk, whereas the risk of a chromosomal anomaly is one that repeats with every pregnancy. Hence, a 1 in 100 risk multiplied 5 times turns into a 1 in 20 risk.
If you look at the automobile miles driven per death, you get numbers like 1.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles, which is really rather amazingly low.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
The topic at hand is whether age alone is a serious reason to avoid, and I still believe there is no magical number at which every couple has a serious reason to avoid, and for that reason I do not believe age is a serious reason ON ITS OWN. If it is true what some are saying, that it is for some people, and not for others, then it must be due to other factors, not age alone, since turning x years old is something every woman that does not die before that age will do. Now, there are factors that are closely or not so closely related to age that can affect the situation of a particular couple and it is up to them to discern carefully whether their particular situation merits avoiding, if they are being generous and prudent, or selfish and/or fearful. Which goes back to what we have been saying all along… it is up to the couple to discern if their reasons are just, taking into consideration that the effects of their decisions are not limited to this Earth. It isn’t about “having the right” to be done, it is about prayerfully seeking what He wants. If one prayerfully discerns one should avoid indefinitely until fertility is over, so be it!
R
Rau
Guest
You’ve misrepresented the maths rather gravely. The “whole of life” risk of fatality in a car crash cannot be compared to the risk of a birth defect occurring in someone of a given age. Even the article you quoted provides an annual risk rate of 1 in 4000 to 1 in 8000 (which adjusts for the 80 year lifespan assumed in the 1 in 50 to 1 in100 figures). This risks is substantially lower than the birth rate risks quoted.
Here’s a more comprehensive view of risks:
riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php
(The Risk Communication Institute)
In referencing Xantippe’s data " risk of chromosomal anomaly, one in 102, in two months, the risk will be 1 in 82, a year later it will be 1 in 66, a year after that it will be 1 in 53, and so forth)."]
you wrote:
“It all sounds rather scary and ominous”!!!
That sounds a little like an attempt to belittle the risks and the concerns others may experience.
Another person might conclude: “Those birth defect risks are quite concerning risks to face in my next pregnancy.”
- Status