Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Rau]

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!

You are correct. I tried several times to point to the fact that age is but a proxy for the real reason, being health risks, weariness, or whatever. However, I think most people prefer to use the proxy of age. At least it is generally agreed I think that people of the same age can and will reach different assessments, which is fine.

 

[mommamaree]

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!

I am the poster who asserted that a mother has the right to say she is done. And yes, it most certainly is about that. How, pray tell, does one prayerfully discern God’s will, about whether or not to be open to pregnancy? Does God provide a clear answer of yes or no, so that the Catholic has no doubt whatsoever about what God wants of them? Unless one is a mystic, experiencing visions of God speaking His will, I seriously doubt that anyone can be so certain. In situations where a person must fumble for His will, considering a decision from a variety of perspectives is a good idea. This includes an examination of one’s own physical, emotional, and mental resources. If a mother knows she cannot handle any more right now or ever, she absolutely does have the right to say “I am done”. God does not ever impose His will upon His creatures. He invites us to participate with Him, but never beyond what we are capable of. He also leaves it to us to respond to His invitation and to acknowledge that we have reached a point of critical mass if we feel we have. We mere humans may not impose upon others where God Himself does not.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, the risk of a chromosomal anomaly is best compared to the ANNUAL rather than lifetime risk of vehicular deaths. As Rau has pointed out, the risk of chromosomal anomalies per pregnancy is far, far greater than the annual risk of vehicular deaths. Using Gardenswithkids’ numbers and back of the envelope math, it’s something like 40-80X more likely for a 38-year-old mother to have a baby with a chromosomal anomaly than for her to die in a car accident. Also, with every succeeding year, the risk rises.

 

[mommamaree]

You are correct. I tried several times to point to the fact that age is but a proxy for the real reason, being health risks, weariness, or whatever. However, I think most people prefer to use the proxy of age. At least it is generally agreed I think that people of the same age can and will reach different assessments, which is fine.

I, too, have pointed this out several times, as well as the point that one woman’s 40 is not every woman’s 40.

 

[Bookcat]

Five hundred fifty three posts…on this thread…

It is important to note that one needs a serious reason to head any further towards 600…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, the risk of a chromosomal anomaly is best compared to the ANNUAL rather than lifetime risk of vehicular deaths. As Rau has pointed out, the risk of chromosomal anomalies per pregnancy is far, far greater than the annual risk of vehicular deaths. Using Gardenswithkids’ numbers and back of the envelope math, it’s something like 40-80X more likely for a 38-year-old mother to have a baby with a chromosomal anomaly than for her to die in a car accident. Also, with every succeeding year, the risk rises.

Really, Xantippe, your fear-mongering is one the reasons I keep posting on this never ending thread.

“Back of the envelope math”. Says the woman who thinks a statistical chance of 1 in 100 five times is the same thing as 5 times in 100. It’s not. Review your college statistics, and stop giving medical advice to women about the risks and dangers of pregnancy.

And to clarify, I said a woman’s chance of dying in a car crash–as in over the course of her life. I did not narrowly specified to just her 38th year of life, so don’t misrepresent what I wrote. And yes, according the the fact, our chances of dying in a car crash (over the course of our lives) are greater than the chance of a 38 year old women having a baby with a chromosomal anomaly.

“Risk, risk, risk. Fear, fear, fear.” I keep reading that from you.

The greater statistical risk to women and our baby-making as we get older is that we become infertile. With every passing year, the chance of a woman actually conceiving and carrying a pregnancy to full term declines also, so the real chances of a woman having a child born with serious challenges really* declines *over the years–because we become less likely to have a child at all, even if we want one.

More interesting stats from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

In 1957, a study was done on a large population that never used birth control. The investigators measured the relationship between the age of the female partner and fertility. (Infertility rates today are believed to be higher in the general population than for the population in this study from the 1950s.)

This 1957 study found that:[14]
By age 30, 7% of couples were infertile
By age 35, 11% of couples were infertile
By age 40, 33% of couples were infertile
At age 45, 87% of couples were infertile

 

[gardenswithkids]

Five hundred fifty three posts…on this thread…

It is important to note that one needs a serious reason to head any further towards 600…

555

I had a very serious reason for 554. Someone mocked my math skills. After she had statistics wrong.–and it was killing me but I let it go until she mocked my math. And she misrepresented what I wrote. It’s her fault.

Why do I now feel the need to justify my posting to internet strangers?

 

[Xantippe]

gardenswithkids:

““Back of the envelope math”. Says the woman who thinks a statistical chance of 1 in 100 five times is the same thing as 5 times in 100. It’s not. Review your college statistics, and stop giving medical advice to women about the risks and dangers of pregnancy.”

I think what I said was that a risk of 1 in 100 pregnancy risk of chromosomal anomalies multiplied by five pregnancies roughly equals a 1 in 20 chance. (In real life, the risk would be increasing every year, but I wanted to use friendly numbers.)

Liberal arts major here–I’ve never taken a college math class, particularly not statistics. Explain what I’m doing wrong with that calculation. As Barbie says, “Math is HARD.”

“And to clarify, I said a woman’s chance of dying in a car crash–as in over the course of her life.”

It only makes sense to use that lifetime number for comparison if she is only going to have one baby over the course of her entire life.

I’m a little too tired to be talking about numbers, but it makes the most sense to compare lifetime risk of death in car accident to lifetime risk of chromosomal anomalies (you’d have to choose a number of children and particular years of childbearing to calculate from–complicated) or to compare the yearly risk of a fatal car accident to the risk of a chromosomal anomaly in a particular year.

That way you get an apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges result.

““Risk, risk, risk. Fear, fear, fear.” I keep reading that from you.”

Yes–it’s a thread entitled “Maternal Age a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.” It’s a thread largely about serious reasons for older women to avoid pregnancy. Hence, there will unavoidably be some talk about risk.

“The greater statistical risk to women and our baby-making as we get older is that we become infertile. With every passing year, the chance of a woman actually conceiving and carrying a pregnancy to full term declines also, so the real chances of a woman having a child born with serious challenges really declines over the years–because we become less likely to have a child at all, even if we want one.”

Now, that is quite true.

Unfortunately, a lot of that infertility comes via increased risk of miscarriage.

There’s a chart here:

extendfertility.com/downloads/documents/NEJM_AdvancedMaternalAge_HowOldIsTooOld.pdf

Fertility plunges with age, while the risk of miscarriage shoots up.

 

[bitterhope]

555

I had a very serious reason for 554. Someone mocked my math skills. After she had statistics wrong.–and it was killing me but I let it go until she mocked my math. And she misrepresented what I wrote. It’s her fault.

Why do I now feel the need to justify my posting to internet strangers?

You are funny!

Yes, I feel like there is a huge need for justification. It seems like people are trying to prove to themselves as well as everyone else that they are correct. If we stayed on the risk free path throughout life we would never leave our bed. All the statistics of drowning a at the pool, brain injuries from bike accidents, choking at restaurants, slipping in the shower, falling off of ladders…accidents are deadly and common!!!

We cannot let fear rule our lives. St. John Paul II reminded us repeatedly to not be afraid. There is no safe road in life. My husband has a job that holds higher risk of him not coming home EVER than any of the statistics quoted on this thread. It isn’t healthy to focus on negatives so darn much. No wonder our society has such large amounts of people with anxiety and depression. And something that seems to be overlooked is that even with the worst statistics, the greater chance is still on the side of favorable outcome. My friend has a son with CF. Each child she has will have a 1/4 chance to have CF. It’s like she told me–that still means each child has a 3/4 chance of being just fine. It’s all how you view things. We have to make the choice of being all doom and gloom or we can flip it and see the positives.

 

[Xantippe]

I asked a mathematician I know about the 1 in a 100 risk multiplied by 5 pregnancies problem and he tells me that while the answer is not exactly 5 in a 100, it rounds up to 5 in 100 (it’s something like 4.9). He says: “If the trials are independent, the probability that there will be no problems in each of five cases is 0.99^5, which is about 0.95, so the probability of problems in at least one case is about 0.05.”

In other words, approximately 5%.

My mathematician friend explains that while you obviously can’t add up large probabilities in that manner, you can add up small probabilities and get reasonable approximations. I believe I said it was a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Gardenswithkids, what’s your alternate calculation?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I am the poster who asserted that a mother has the right to say she is done. And yes, it most certainly is about that. How, pray tell, does one prayerfully discern God’s will, about whether or not to be open to pregnancy? Does God provide a clear answer of yes or no, so that the Catholic has no doubt whatsoever about what God wants of them? Unless one is a mystic, experiencing visions of God speaking His will, I seriously doubt that anyone can be so certain. In situations where a person must fumble for His will, considering a decision from a variety of perspectives is a good idea. This includes an examination of one’s own physical, emotional, and mental resources. If a mother knows she cannot handle any more right now or ever, she absolutely does have the right to say “I am done”. God does not ever impose His will upon His creatures. He invites us to participate with Him, but never beyond what we are capable of. He also leaves it to us to respond to His invitation and to acknowledge that we have reached a point of critical mass if we feel we have. We mere humans may not impose upon others where God Himself does not.

We are called to be saints, thus we are called to aim for what is morally best. We need to correctly form our consciences to be able to know what is best, and then strive for that.

Deus Caritas Est:

Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle [9]—to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God’s will increasingly coincide: God’s will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself.[10] Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28).

This encyclical (Veritatis Splendor) from Saint extrahappy JPII is awesome with regards to seeking God’s will. I tried to find a quote that covered it all, but it is something that you read, and then read some more, and it all adds up. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"64. The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the “heart” converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to “prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God’s law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of “connaturality” between man and the true good.110
…

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself ".111 It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.
…

In acknowledging these commandments, Christian hearts and our pastoral charity listen to the call of the One who “first loved us” (1Jn 4:19). God asks us to be holy as he is holy (cf. Lev 19:2), to be — in Christ — perfect as he is perfect (cf. Mt 5:48). The unwavering demands of that commandment are based upon God’s infinitely merciful love (cf. Lk 6:36), and the purpose of that commandment is to lead us, by the grace of Christ, on the path of that fullness of life proper to the children of God."

 

[thewanderer]

We are called to be saints, thus we are called to aim for what is morally best. We need to correctly form our consciences to be able to know what is best, and then strive for that.

Deus Caritas Est:

Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle [9]—to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God’s will increasingly coincide: God’s will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself.[10] Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28).

This encyclical (Veritatis Splendor) from Saint extrahappy JPII is awesome with regards to seeking God’s will. I tried to find a quote that covered it all, but it is something that you read, and then read some more, and it all adds up. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"64. The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the “heart” converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to “prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God’s law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of “connaturality” between man and the true good.110
…

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself ".111 It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.
…

In acknowledging these commandments, Christian hearts and our pastoral charity listen to the call of the One who “first loved us” (1Jn 4:19). God asks us to be holy as he is holy (cf. Lev 19:2), to be — in Christ — perfect as he is perfect (cf. Mt 5:48). The unwavering demands of that commandment are based upon God’s infinitely merciful love (cf. Lk 6:36), and the purpose of that commandment is to lead us, by the grace of Christ, on the path of that fullness of life proper to the children of God."

May I ask why you addressed this post to mammamaree? Do you believe she disagrees with this or is somehow ignorant of this information? If so, why do you believe that? If not, what was the reason you posted this in reply to her? The way you responded makes it seem as though you believe that she somehow disagrees with the above. If that is not the case I’m sure she would appreciate the clarification.

 

[gmx2014]

My grandmother was 44 when she gave birth to her final child, the 8th. My aunt was born in 1965. She’s perfectly fine, no genetic abnormality or anything like that. My aunt’s two children are also perfectly fine.

But I’m sure there are abundant opposite stories.

I think it is a matter of the family goal. Mom and Dad have 7 children, so you are a family of 9. Does that suit you? Do you want to be a family of ten or eleven or twelve? Does Mom enjoy pregnancy, and would she like to avoid the natural grieving process when she reaches the point of finality? Something to consider.

 

[maryelisabeth]

First, if you haven’t done so, read Love and Responsibility (Karol Wotyla aka Pope St. John Paul II). It won’t answer this particular question but will lay the foundation for reaching a conclusion, particularly practicing periods of continence.

Second, I have four children born to me when I was 35, 42, 44 and 45–all perfectly normal. All my pregnancies were problem-free and my last three deliveries were completely unmedicated. I will tell you I struggled with fear of delivering a child with chromosomal abnormalities when pregnant with my second. My OB recommended an amniocentesis. I did a lot of research at this point and came to the conclusions 1) the chances of delivering a normal baby were greater than 95% (just going on statistics alone); 2) there are no “chances” with God and He will give us the child He wants us to have. So we refused the amnio (knowing that test itself can cause a miscarriage) since we wouldn’t do anything with the information anyway. Once I got to this point, I relaxed much more through the pregnancy and the two that followed. I wish we could have had more but I guess we ran out of time at that point.

me

 

[PaulinVA]

I asked a mathematician I know about the 1 in a 100 risk multiplied by 5 pregnancies problem and he tells me that while the answer is not exactly 5 in a 100, it rounds up to 5 in 100 (it’s something like 4.9). He says: “If the trials are independent, the probability that there will be no problems in each of five cases is 0.99^5, which is about 0.95, so the probability of problems in at least one case is about 0.05.”

In other words, approximately 5%.

My mathematician friend explains that while you obviously can’t add up large probabilities in that manner, you can add up small probabilities and get reasonable approximations. I believe I said it was a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Gardenswithkids, what’s your alternate calculation?

This is not right. Each pregnancy has the same risk. It is not cumulative. That is not the way stats work.

Think of it this way: Every airplane flight has a risk of crashing, statistically. That risk does not increase because there are a bunch of frequent fliers that are dragging some sort of cumulative risk with them. If that were the case, flights between New York and Washington would crash frequently because there are passengers on those planes that fly every day.

There is no concept in stats that if you do something with a 1 in a hundred chance of a bad outcome a hundred times that you are guaranteed a bad outcome. Each of the 100 times has a one in a hundred chance of a bad outcome.

 

[PaulinVA]

Five hundred fifty three posts…on this thread…

It is important to note that one needs a serious reason to head any further towards 600…

I am really getting upset by people who twist the words of the Moderators.

I believe the proper term is serious and/or just reason . While this rule appears in many moderation documents, serious and just appear interchangeably, even though some people think that serious is more, well, serious, than just.

There is no rule that says one must post past 600 entries. Some posters may not be comfortable doing that. Not posting is perfectly acceptable, because no one can force you to post. Some may feel that you should be posting in multiple threads with high thread counts, but that is just a personal interpretation of the moderation documents.

It seems the moderators’ advice is sufficiently vague that posting or not posting should be left up to the individual.

 

[Xantippe]

PaulinVA,

I didn’t follow my mathematician friend’s calculations myself (11th grade trig/college algebra was my last math class), but in any case, the total risk involved in five 1 X 100 risk takings will add up to rather more than 1 in 100.

“It seems the moderators’ advice is sufficiently vague that posting or not posting should be left up to the individual.”

Ha!

 

[Bookcat]

I am really getting upset by people who twist the words of the Moderators.

I believe the proper term is serious and/or just reason . While this rule appears in many moderation documents, serious and just appear interchangeably, even though some people think that serious is more, well, serious, than just.

There is no rule that says one must post past 600 entries. Some posters may not be comfortable doing that. Not posting is perfectly acceptable, because no one can force you to post. Some may feel that you should be posting in multiple threads with high thread counts, but that is just a personal interpretation of the moderation documents.

It seems the moderators’ advice is sufficiently vague that posting or not posting should be left up to the individual.

Serious Reason.

Compendium of Catholic Answers:

1. What kind of reason is needed in a thread to post once the posts have reached 550?

A serious reason to post past 550 is required. It falls though to the poster with a well formed conscience to judge if something in their contingent circumstances may be a serious reason or not. However posting is an action of a public and manifest nature, thus is open to public comment and fraternal correction.



(NB:The Church of course uses the term “serious reason” to denote for example the reason needed to make use of only infertile times – the serious reason to post past 550 need not be of that nature)

 

[MomaMary8]

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.

I love MY large family, but first I loved God.

“Personal holiness is not centred in the fight against sin but in love for Christ, who shows Himself to us as being truly human, fully aware of everything about us.” ~ Francis Fernandez

I read this bit above priror to going to Mass this morning, but I thought of this post when I read it. (my reason for adding this string of post to get us to #600) I never had in my mind or dreams that I would have or want a number of children that went into the double digits. I simply tried to love God as best as I could in my vocation as wife and mother.

as for statistics. My oldest child has an eye condition that has lead to 6 eye surgeries (I think, I tend to lose count. He also had a few ear surgeries.) We were told we had a 25% (1 in 4) chance of another child having the same condition. Each pregnancy had a 1 in 4 chance. None of our other 9 children have this eye condition.

 

[Rico_S]

There is no concept in stats that if you do something with a 1 in a hundred chance of a bad outcome a hundred times that you are guaranteed a bad outcome. Each of the 100 times has a one in a hundred chance of a bad outcome.

Yes and no. Yes each individual event is when viewed by itself is 1 in a hundred. But…if viewed as a succession of events, that number changes.

Flipping a coin is the easiest way to demonstrate this. Chance of landing on heads is 50%. Let’s say I flip a coin twice and it lands on heads twice…then what is the chance of the next flip being heads? 50%–like you said. My prior flip results have no bearing on the stats for the next flip.

But if we go back to before I flipped the coin at all and asked, what is the chance of landing on heads 3 times in a row…the answer is clearly not 50%. In fact it is 1/21/21/2 which is 12.5%. If you have an event that is 1/100 chance of happening, what is the chance of having a good outcome 10 times in a row? It isn’t 99%. I know it doesn’t matter much, and perhaps this is what you meant and I misunderstood—I just thought I would comment.

And really, I don’t see how generic car fatality statistics can really be compared to a single event statistic like a pregnancy. It just sort of muddles things up and confuses, imo.