No more kids due to gravity of parents ages?

[SteveGC]

The following post from another thread,

Something else to think about, fertility is a gift that only lasts a certain amount of years, money can come and go, but once those years are gone, they are gone.

which I agree with, got me thinking…I’ve wanted to poll other Catholics about this…

What are some opinions about the gravity of parental ages, in terms of any legitimacy of abstaining? IOW, I’m sure many would defend the notion that, in the absence of other grave reasons, a couple should not purposefully abstain during fertile periods for the remainder of their lives (assuming it’s likely that menopause will naturally and permanently negate the procreative capability anyway).

But prior to menopause, advancing in age (late 40s / early 50s), do some hold that there is some valid gravity in the sole reasoning that having additional children at these ages is irresponsible? This would be based on the notion that there would likely be a significant reduction in the physical capacity of the parents (in their 60s) to adequately care for children in their preteen and teenage years, as well as the natural departure (death) of said parents when the children are relatively very young.

My position wavers. In one sense, I see the rationale - especially if they had only one child at that age (with no siblings to help raise them). In another, it seems to deny God’s providence, and underestimate the capacity of older people to be primary caregivers and keep up with younger kids as they enter their 60s. Seems the parent’s primary formative duties is up until the children approach the age of 20 or so. And if we assume the highest likely age of conceiving is around 55, then is it reasonable to assume it is responsible parenthood to raise a child (or children) from the ages of 55 to 75?

Does Humanae Vitae address this directly? indirectly?

Thanks in advance for thoughts…

 

[Nate13]

This is a good question and I’ll be watching to see how it develops. I don’t think in any terms we can say that no one over blank age should ever be trying to have a kid. We definitely know it is more dangerous the older a woman is and can result in many more complications, but the threat is dependent on the individual woman. Your question revolves around the notion of determining what situation would be necessary to warrant a good enough reason to practice NFP for age alone, correct? Or more directly is it a good enough reason to practice NFP solely because a doctor tells us there is such and such percentage that a child would have down syndrome or another serious complication?

 

[SteveGC]

This is a good question and I’ll be watching to see how it develops. I don’t think in any terms we can say that no one over blank age should ever be trying to have a kid. We definitely know it is more dangerous the older a woman is and can result in many more complications, but the threat is dependent on the individual woman. Your question revolves around the notion of determining what situation would be necessary to warrant a good enough reason to practice NFP for age alone, correct? Or more directly is it a good enough reason to practice NFP solely because a doctor tells us there is such and such percentage that a child would have down syndrome or another serious complication?

Thanks for responding, Nate. I will certainly consider it ON-topic to branch out into discussions about any of those things you mentioned. The rationale of probability of birth defects is certainly worth discussing. I do have an opinion about that - namely that I do not think that the statistical increase in likelihood of birth defect to be sufficiently grave matter to abstain at any age (although that’s certainly an emotionally charged issue as well). But, I would like to hear other opinions, and I am not opposed to the notion that that, in conjunction with other elements of aging parents, could combine to form a reasonable gravity which would make fertile-period abstinence morally licit. Thanks again.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The following post from another thread,
which I agree with, got me thinking…I’ve wanted to poll other Catholics about this…

What are some opinions about the gravity of parental ages, in terms of any legitimacy of abstaining? IOW, I’m sure many would defend the notion that, in the absence of other grave reasons, a couple should not purposefully abstain during fertile periods for the remainder of their lives (assuming it’s likely that menopause will naturally and permanently negate the procreative capability anyway).

But prior to menopause, advancing in age (late 40s / early 50s), do some hold that there is some valid gravity in the sole reasoning that having additional children at these ages is irresponsible? This would be based on the notion that there would likely be a significant reduction in the physical capacity of the parents (in their 60s) to adequately care for children in their preteen and teenage years, as well as the natural departure (death) of said parents when the children are relatively very young.

My position wavers. In one sense, I see the rationale - especially if they had only one child at that age (with no siblings to help raise them). In another, it seems to deny God’s providence, and underestimate the capacity of older people to be primary caregivers and keep up with younger kids as they enter their 60s. Seems the parent’s primary formative duties is up until the children approach the age of 20 or so. And if we assume the highest likely age of conceiving is around 55, then is it reasonable to assume it is responsible parenthood to raise a child (or children) from the ages of 55 to 75?

Does Humanae Vitae address this directly? indirectly?

Thanks in advance for thoughts…

That Pope said that, that one should not abstain during fertile periods just for the sake of planned parenthood. I do not know how to interpret that and coming from a person who has no experience of married life, it is hard to interpret. Does it eman:

1. 
   *]that you must have sex during fertile days? Till you reach the masimum of kids I saw in a couple: 24 !?
   *]that fertiles days have different rules form non-fertile days?
   *]that you do not do sex to have a kid but for pleasure and in consequence, there comes a kid?
   
   the Pope is a bright Theologians and bright Theologians then do think the subject to the last details what, from a Theoretical view point is OK, from the practical point, which is not explained, is hard do see.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The following post from another thread,
which I agree with, got me thinking…I’ve wanted to poll other Catholics about this…

Thanks in advance for thoughts…

Just found:

elderly people in china topple 100 million

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Thanks for bringing the topic up. I fall into this age range, and have often wondered myself what I would do or have to do if I ever remarry.

 

[SonCatcher]

I think the example we are given contradicts avoiding pregnancy exclusively due to age:

Abraham and Sarah: 100 and 90 (scripture)
Zechariah and Elizabeth: “advanced in years” (scripture)
Joachim and Ann: “advanced in years” (tradition)

 

[Rudolfo]

Yes, the older age of one or both of the couple may pose a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from marital relations.

Many reasons were already named, downs, child-rearing issues, etc, and every couple needs to evaluate for themselves, but there is no question risk of birth defects increases with the increasing age of the woman AND the man. Also, health and energy usually declines in both people the older they get, but not always. It would have to relate to their life.

So age unto itself is not a “grave” (although it need not be “grave” - “good” is sufficient) reason, but age certainly often is accompanied by many other factors that would provide a perfectly good reason to abstain.

 

[Nate13]

Yes, the older age of one or both of the couple may pose a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from marital relations.

Many reasons were already named, downs, child-rearing issues, etc, and every couple needs to evaluate for themselves, but there is no question risk of birth defects increases with the increasing age of the woman AND the man. Also, health and energy usually declines in both people the older they get, but not always. It would have to relate to their life.

So age unto itself is not a “grave” (although it need not be “grave” - “good” is sufficient) reason, but age certainly often is accompanied by many other factors that would provide a perfectly good reason to abstain.

Yeah I think the real question is whether it is ok to use NFP purely because the doctor tells you if you have another kid, there is a 80% chance the child will have some kind of serious complication. I think there are good reasons to suggest that the couple should look into adoption if they believe God is calling them to have another child and continue using NFP, correct? I’m not saying this should be required but rather asking whether this line of thinking would be acceptable in determining whether to continue using NFP or not at this point.

 

[silicasandra]

Yes, the older age of one or both of the couple may pose a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from marital relations.

Many reasons were already named, downs, child-rearing issues, etc, and every couple needs to evaluate for themselves, but there is no question risk of birth defects increases with the increasing age of the woman AND the man. Also, health and energy usually declines in both people the older they get, but not always. It would have to relate to their life.

So age unto itself is not a “grave” (although it need not be “grave” - “good” is sufficient) reason, but age certainly often is accompanied by many other factors that would provide a perfectly good reason to abstain.

I agree with this.

However, it’s also my understanding that if a woman already has given birth, the likelihood of complications in later pregnancies is not as high as if it was a first pregnancy - but I’m not sure how this relates to the likelihood of disabilities in children born to parents who are older; it’s just something I’ve heard with regards to pregnancy. I could be totally wrong about this but it’s always been my impression.

I do sometimes wonder what might have happened if my mom hadn’t had a tubal ligation after the birth of my youngest sister (she was almost 30 and had four children by that time) - note: my family is NOT Catholic. She is just beginning to go through menopause now in her late 40s. She was infertile almost two years after each of us were born, then got pregnant again easily. There could have been eight or ten of us if that pattern had continued! We were unusual enough being a family with four kids (especially since we weren’t Catholic).

My husband and I are both young and we are open to life, but I have thought about what adjustments we might have to make as we age. I like that we married young and started our family young, but there’s a long period of fertility (hopefully!) ahead of us and we will have to continue considering what is best for us and our family, and most importantly, God’s will for us.

 

[Warrior1979]

I don’t think it’s a good idea for women to be having children naturally in their 40s. There are way to many risks for both the child in the mother.

However, one can adopt children when the older, which is what I did. I’ll be pushing 60 by the time my youngest is graduating high school. One of the most important things about having children later in life is the health of the parents. If the parents are obese and have health problems at 40, they might not be able to care for the kids in a few years, or even live long enough to see them graduate high school. Having children that one can’t take care off until they become an adult is not good for the children.

 

[Rudolfo]

Yeah I think the real question is whether it is ok to use NFP purely because the doctor tells you if you have another kid, there is a 80% chance the child will have some kind of serious complication.

Absolutely, this is exactly the sort of “good reason” or “well-grounded reason” that Humanae Vitae is pointing to. Not any old flippant, selfish reason, but you are describing severe medical issues of a high probability for mother and child.

These “causas bonas” are why the Church allows a natural approach that abstains during the fertile period. The Church recognizes marriage must be open to life but also certain circumstances are an extreme risk or hardship, so WITHOUT OBSTRUCTING the NATURE of MARRIAGE, we are allowed to accommodate those rough situations.

We don’t have to go to wild extremes to justify NFP, like already having 12 kids, no money and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In that case, hey, maybe NFP should have been started a few years earlier!

No, in all seriousness, again the criteria is “a good cause” or “a well grounded reason”. That leaves room for a great deal of individual choice, but this is where we must be honest with our conscience and our spouse. We are adults; it should not take running to the priest after each baby to ask “Can we do NFP now?” The couple know better than the priest, they understand the family scenario more than he, in all likelihood.

 

[MomaMary8]

No, I do not think age alone is a reason. There are no guarantees in life saying we are going to make it to our next birthdays. Prudent parenting would require setting up a will and guardenship if you are worried about an early death! Health is more a factor than age. I’m 41 and going to have baby #10. My 9th baby was bron when I was 40. She is perfectly healthy, happy and bright. I pray this one will be too, and all signs indicate he/she is. To say he or she shouldn’t exist because I’ll be 60 when he or she graduates high school is rather silly and would be selfish of me! Now, my brother (just a year older) has severe medical issues that is gradually deteriorating his body. He has chosen not to continue having children, and I fully understand his reasoning. He knows he will have an early death and that he will not be physically able to take care of his child and his wife will be caring for his needs. That sounds like more of a “just” reason than age alone.

Seeking spiritual direction is always prudent even if it’s to have a 2nd person make sure your reasons are logical reasons and not just emotional reasons. A good spiritual director or priest can do this for you.

 

[SteveGC]

Thanks to all who have participated thus far…

Some interesting points brought up:

= Differentiating between “grave” and “good” in terms of having valid reasons. I will have to explore HV more fully - for some reason I had always heard it must be “grave”. Not that “good” is far removed from the concept of “grave”, but it seems to allow for more situations than just the extreme ones.

= The concept of possible birth defects or complications is indeed worth exploring more. We should unpack this some. The sophistication of medical science with accurately predicting critical problems with pregnancy, birth and other complications is pivotal in that sort of issue. We, of course, don’t hear much (yet) in terms of 100% probability for problems - perhaps we never will. What seems to be the relevant part is what sort of problem is predicted, and with what degree of likelihood. On one hand, I could see rather clear and licit reasons to abstain if the medical consensus (assuming more than one opinion is received) was that it is, say, 10% (or more) likely that the mother would sustain life threatening injury from a pregnancy/delivery. On the other hand, I don’t see much in the way of licit reasoning to abstain if a consensus was that it is, say, 80% (or less) likely that a pregnancy would result in the child being born with some birth defect or abnormality. Then there’s all the gray area of complications and likelihoods in between. Makes for a difficult task of discernment indeed.

= I’m seeing alot of variance along the spectrum already from participants here - to be expected. Some posit that it seems morally irresponsible to have children once you get into your 40’s and older, in terms of decreasing parental health, energy, and ability to otherwise effectively raise a child. Other’s posit that it seems morally irresponsible NOT to have children at those ages, because of the lack of adequate reasoning that this parental age might deteriorate the capability to some degree or another.

Obviously comes down to a case-by-case issue, because of how many different variables combine to form the overall reasoning. And that, of course, is going to inevitably be the overarching principle in a discussion like this…what are all the variables? There are too many to list out and go through combinations, so all I’m trying to do here is take some of the parental aging issues one-by-one, isolate them and look at them individually - and evaluate each one on its own merits (as if each issue were the ONLY issue at hand). To me, that will be helpful in later looking at combinations of the issues to help a couple discern (through prayer and spiritual guidance as well, of course) the licitness of their decisions.

Carry on…

 

[PatriceA]

I do think its a case by case decision, or couple by couple however you want to put it. I don’t think age alone should be the deciding factor, but maybe health of the couple involved should be more important. I know couples in their mid to late 40s that are healthier than their counterparts in their 20s.

As far as the statistics go about birth defects and so on, why do people put more trust in those statistics and reports than they do God’s will? I have never understood that. We are to trust God in all things and if the couple has prayed and discerned its God’s will for them to continue to be open to life, regardless of what our secular society tells us is best, why do we continue to listen to society and turn our backs on God? God’s will a majority of time contridicts what society would tell us is the more prudent and intelligent thing to do, that’s why He gave us faith and perseverence. I don’t think age alone is a “grave” reason to not be open to life if one has properly discerned its God’s will to have more children biologically.

 

[JoArtist]

The biggest problem is that each woman is born with all her eggs. So the age of the woman is the age of the eggs that she has. So there is a much greater risk in having children with serious birth defects/syndromes at later ages. I have heard some doctors say that it is risky for a woman to have a child even in her late 30’s.

 

[SteveGC]

I know couples in their mid to late 40s that are healthier than their counterparts in their 20s.

Very good point.

As far as the statistics go about birth defects and so on, why do people put more trust in those statistics and reports than they do God’s will? I have never understood that. We are to trust God in all things and if the couple has prayed and discerned its God’s will for them to continue to be open to life, regardless of what our secular society tells us is best, why do we continue to listen to society and turn our backs on God? God’s will a majority of time contridicts what society would tell us is the more prudent and intelligent thing to do, that’s why He gave us faith and perseverence. I don’t think age alone is a “grave” reason to not be open to life if one has properly discerned its God’s will to have more children biologically.

I agree we should certainly be prioritizing our discernment based on confidence in God’s providential care and His will for us. I don’t think faithful Catholics would suggest that it’s important to listen to society’s recommendations, but rather to utilize the resources the medical community possesses and provides in terms of their capacity to predict outcome based on scientific data. In other words, we shouldn’t give credence to a physician who elevates his dialogue with us from prognosis to recommended action. The ultimate decision we make with this information should not be based on a secular suggestion. But the information itself certainly is relevant, and is an integral part of our discernment process. I would think God would call us to explore these available resources to gather the necessary information we need to make a prudent decision.

 

[SteveGC]

The biggest problem is that each woman is born with all her eggs. So the age of the woman is the age of the eggs that she has. So there is a much greater risk in having children with serious birth defects/syndromes at later ages. I have heard some doctors say that it is risky for a woman to have a child even in her late 30’s.

This brings up an interesting point.

How does the faithful Catholic integrate the concept of “risky” in terms of possible birth defects? I could see myself supporting an argument which suggests that, if we have the means (without grave hardship) to support and care for a child with birth defects, then all other issues aside, it seems responsible to strive for children even if it would be highly likely that such a pregnancy would result in, say, a Down Syndrome baby. Certainly however, the idea of “grave hardship” must be explored. One issue that could be relevant to the decision would revolve around the fact that a person with physical or mental handicaps must normally receive some sort of specialized care throughout their lifetime…and this care would be shared among parents, siblings and extended family (if any), friends, and certainly the community of specialized caregivers in society. If we have a high probability of necessitating the commitments of finances and family/friend support for such a child/adult, and we discern that such resources do exist, is it morally responsible to strive for children?

My conscience suggests ‘yes’.

Other opinions?

 

[JoArtist]

I agree with you on that point, but many people, like my husband and I have no family anywhere near us and move every few years. It would be hard for us to have a child with a disability because we just don’t have the finances to get special treatment from outside sources and we don’t really have family to help. Not to mention for any children we have I will be the primary care-giver because my husbands work schedule and sometimes I am alone for a couple of months at a time. So it is possible if you are in the right financial, familial, locational, ect. situation, but many people are really on their own.

This brings up an interesting point.

How does the faithful Catholic integrate the concept of “risky” in terms of possible birth defects? I could see myself supporting an argument which suggests that, if we have the means (without grave hardship) to support and care for a child with birth defects, then all other issues aside, it seems responsible to strive for children even if it would be highly likely that such a pregnancy would result in, say, a Down Syndrome baby. Certainly however, the idea of “grave hardship” must be explored. One issue that could be relevant to the decision would revolve around the fact that a person with physical or mental handicaps must normally receive some sort of specialized care throughout their lifetime…and this care would be shared among parents, siblings and extended family (if any), friends, and certainly the community of specialized caregivers in society. If we have a high probability of necessitating the commitments of finances and family/friend support for such a child/adult, and we discern that such resources do exist, is it morally responsible to strive for children?

My conscience suggests ‘yes’.

Other opinions?

 

[SteveGC]

I agree with you on that point, but many people, like my husband and I have no family anywhere near us and move every few years. It would be hard for us to have a child with a disability because we just don’t have the finances to get special treatment from outside sources and we don’t really have family to help. Not to mention for any children we have I will be the primary care-giver because my husbands work schedule and sometimes I am alone for a couple of months at a time. So it is possible if you are in the right financial, familial, locational, ect. situation, but many people are really on their own.

Yes, I understand.

It brings up yet another dilemma:

When we find ourselves in this situation (financially unprepared for adequately supporting a child with disabilities), how does that translate into our decision to abstain based on age-related medical opinions regarding the probability of having such a child? In other words, given that all current medical technology reveals only generalized concepts of likelihood of birth defects based on parental age (and cannot predict with high degrees of certainty), we have the hardship of discerning our choice to abstain based on this vagueness, on this concept of “chance”.

Difficult indeed.