Pregnancy Over 50: A Medical and Moral Issue
May 10, 2009 by Lexi Borowitz
Published in Motherhood
In vitro fertilization made it possible. Notables like Elizabeth Edwards made it mainstream. But is it morally acceptable?
Many women plan out their lives and choose to have babies when they’re somewhere between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five (although many do have children in their earlier twenties and later thirties.) Although the chances of birth defects rise after thirty-five, many women do have successful pregnancies and healthy babies at forty. My mother had my brother when she was almost thirty-six. Although he was born with severe jaundice, it probably wasn’t caused by her age (because she was thirty when I was born, and I ended up with jaundice too). Plus, my brother ended up healthy, intelligent, and devoid of any birth complications. So I’m not telling women to shut down the factory after the age of thirty-five. But some ages are just too old to be having children, period.
Before I begin with the moral, societal and medical analysis of this phenomenon, I want to make some disclaimers. This is not only a woman’s issue. Although men’s age has less to do with birth defects than women, the age of the father can also result in more birth defects. See this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/health/06sper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
Of course, men’s and women’s ages are not always the cause of birth defects, and I have known children who were born to older parents and ended up fine. Plus, their mothers did not suffer severely during the pregnancy, and I have also heard of perfectly healthy, young parents who gave birth to unhealthy children. However, a lot of the time, older maternal ages do cause some issues. Interestingly, a paternal age of nineteen or below can also cause birth defects. In addition, I’m aware that there is always going to be one person who says, “My mother had me when she was fifty, and I’m giving birth to my baby in a few months and I’m forty-five. How dare you!” Well, I’m sorry, but this is medical fact and right now that’s all we have to go on. There are also people, like my great-grandmother, who smoke their whole live and live till ninety. Does that mean an article about cigarettes being unhealthy would be inconsiderate or misinformed?
First of all, why do you think menopause happens? A woman’s body after the age of fifty is usually not in the right state to be going through pregnancy. With hormone levels fluctuating, especially estrogen, it can result in breast cancer or death. Other complications of pregnancy over fifty include gastrointestinal diabetes, cesarian section, and low birth weight (three times more likely than the babies of women in their twenties). If nature is making it so you can’t have children after fifty, there is probably a reason why. Of course there are some women who unfortunately never are able to, physically, and I don’t think that’s the ‘way it’s supposed to be’, because those are outliers. Using in vitro fertilization when you are an infertile woman at thirty-two is different from doing it when you are just fifty-five and menopausal. One is correcting a little error in nature, and the other is trying to combat nature completely.
I am aware that I will receive a lot of criticism for writing this. But of course, everyone will always have different views, and this is a controversial subject that is constantly being debated, especially since celebrities like Nancy Grace and Elizabeth Edwards have gone into the public sphere with their late-in-life pregnancies. Keep in mind, however, that Elizabeth Edwards is suffering from a serious form of cancer. Perhaps the unnatural hormone changes in an over-fifty-year-old woman’s body caused that to happen, or at least exacerbated it. I also acknowledge that I am not a sociologist or a doctor. I am on my way to an undergraduate degree in sociology, but not in medicine. So if you want to read the most well-informed piece about this, you are reading the wrong article. This is my opinion, and I am willing to admit that if new findings are discovered, my opinion could be wrong. But judging from medical articles I have read, it seems to be the truth.
So we have already covered the medical effects of late pregnancy. Other genetic defects can also happen in very young pregnancy, especially when the mother is not finished with puberty, which usually ends at around seventeen. My mother chose to have her first child at thirty, and her second child at thirty-six. My aunt had her first child at twenty-seven and her second child at thirty. These are standard ages, for both physical and emotional reasons. While a twenty-year-old woman (like myself) may be physically able to have a healthy child, she would not be emotionally stable enough for it, or mature enough. So while I am against having children over the age of fifty, I don’t think kids should be having kids either. But that gets into completely different territory.
On the emotional side of having children over the age of fifty, many women do this thinking only of themselves. Their kids have gone off to college, and they want another baby. What they are not considering, other than the health effects, is the emotional stress that the situation would put on the child. Imagine you’re ten, and you’re at your friend’s birthday party. Your sixty-five-year-old mother comes to pick you up and everyone thinks she is your grandmother. Now, on a more serious note, pretend you are thirty and have just started a house of your own and are taking care of your own first child. But your eighty-year-old parents are suffering from serious health issues that come with age, and you need to set aside even more time and money to take care of them. Even if you end up living until you are one hundred, which is more possible than ever with modern medicine, you will still not be able to do the same things with your child as he or she gets older. And no matter what, your child will feel left out and different. Also, I’ve noticed that it’s more important for kids to have young moms than young dads. I can’t really explain this phenomenon, but kids are usually more attached to their mothers, especially little girls, and perhaps that is why. Also, in society men tend to be a little older when they have kids than women are, so it’s more acceptable to have an older father, depending on how old.
Now, what if an older woman became pregnant naturally? There are cases of this, such as fifty-nine-year-old Dawn Brooke, the oldest mother known to have conceived naturally. She was undergoing hormone replacement therapy, which could have contributed to this instance. According to Wikipedia, she had not been trying to get pregnant, because she originally mistook her large belly for a tumor and was shocked to find out that she was pregnant. She gave birth to a son on August 20, 1997.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476452/The-British-woman-worlds-oldest-natural-mother-59.html
Although the article above shows just how happy Ms. Brooke was to have the child so late in life, it also showed a remarkable situation in which her entire family had fabulous genes, hence naturally conceiving a child at that age. I believe that it was irresponsible of her to encourage more women to go her route. It is not something that should be aspired to, but rather something that should be accepted if it happens. I do not think that women over fifty who become pregnant naturally should terminate their pregnancies. But they should not attempt to become pregnant. The link below shows a news report that even says having a child at forty-five is plausible. However, the study they cited found that “pregnancy risk skyrockets after age 50″.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229059,00.html
I think this also sheds some light on the romanticized “older woman, younger man” phenomenon. Although hit shows like Desperate Housewives, and even movies like Harold and Maude, have made it seem romantic, it could result in serious problems down the road if the couple chooses to marry and have children. For a fling, it doesn’t affect anyone, but to end up in a relationship that way, and bring children into the mix, is selfish. Imagine being a child whose mother is sixty and whose father is thirty. It’s almost more embarrassing than the other way around, given society’s limitations and rules, which, although unfortunate, are very present in the minds of children. Modern medicine is a fine way to fight nature’s unfortunate actions. Getting pregnant after menopause is not.
Liked it













October 11th, 2009 at 6:59 am
Pregnancy Over 50: A Medical and Moral Issue
May 10, 2009 by Lexi Borowitz Published in Motherhood
In vitro fertilization made it possible. Notables like Elizabeth Edwards made it mainstream. But is it morally acceptable?
Comment: When I read this article I was mildly amused but mostly annoyed over the judgmental superiority of the question. What does morality have to do with becoming pregnant at 50?
For some reason our overly regulated intellectual citizens allow themselves to be taught out of the reality of the natural state of being in the human being.
It was only after the country was settled and medicine became the domain of MEN that women began to question their own validity as acceptable age was decided for them, childbirth years and when and why they became unattractive as parenting partners for their equal-aged male counterparts.
Women were told they were old and over the heel at 40, never mind that just a generation earlier (before modern medicine) women (especially your frontier’s and back woods women) were easily having babies into their 60’s). Do the research.
People view this question in the context of: Well, don’t older women have more of a risk for Down syndrome babies? The answer would be NO! First time moms who conceive after 40 (which now many of them do) run a higher risk of Down syndrome babies pushing the ‘medical statistics’ for warning away older women to the roof.
Actually women who have already had children and are fertile and conceive babies into their 50’s and 60’s have less of a risk for Down syndrome babies than do women 28 years old (who are the highest risk mothers).
Now you want to ask if it is moral for a woman to give birth (my support is for those who naturally conceive) after 40+? If a woman naturally conceives at 60, it’s moral. Since 28-year-old women are more at risk for Down syndrome babies – should they not have babies for moral compass?
Ridiculous!
Jazzybella
October 11th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Washington Post
For reference read: Older Moms Linked to Longer Lives – The Checkup – May 7, 2009 … By Rob Stein | May 7, 2009; 7:00 AM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2009/05/older_moms_linked_to_longer_li.html
Older Moms Linked to Longer Lives
If a woman in your family gave birth naturally relatively late in life, that may bode well for longevity running in the family, according to new research.
Previous studies have found that women who remain fertile into their 40s and 50s tend to live longer than other women. The new study, published in the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, found that their brothers also live longer, suggesting that the same genes prolong longevity and fertility.
Ken Smith of the University of Utah and his colleagues studied data from the Utah Population Database at the University of Utah, which has records of 1.6 million Utah Mormon pioneers and their descendants. They also used the the University of Montreal’s Program on Demographic History Research, which has records on 400,000 people who lived in heavily Catholic Quebec between 1608 and 1850. (Researchers used the historical sources because of the high quality and breadth of the data.)
The researchers focused on the records of 11,604 Utah men who were born between 1800 and 1869 who had at least one sister who lived at least to age 50 and 6,206 Quebec men who lived between 1670 and 1750 and had at least one sister who lived to age 50 or older.
They found that women who gave birth at age 45 or older were 14 percent to 17 percent less likely to die during any year after age 50 than women who did not deliver a child after age 40, which is consistent with previous studies.
But the researchers also found that brothers who had at least three sisters, including at least one sister who give birth at age 45 or later, were 20 percent to 22 percent less likely to die during any year after age 50 than brothers who had no sisters who remained fertile until late in life. They found no increase in lifespan among the men’s wives, indicating that heredity was playing more of a role than something in the environment.
That indicates that the same genes may influence lifespan of both sexes and women’s ability to give birth to older ages, the researchers say.
Is this a phenomenon you’ve noticed in any of your families?
| View or post comments | Category: General Health , Motherhood
Previous: Proton-Pump Inhibitors and Plavix Don’t Mix | Next: Nourishing Gifts for Mom
October 20th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I appreciate your insight! The point remains that only having a mother for twenty years is hard. I’m twenty, and my mother is fifty. If she were eighty, I would already have to start saving money to take care of her, and right now my job is to take care of myself. I’m not saying you’re an awful person if you wait that late to have children, and if it happens by accident, so be it. But what I’m getting at is the fact that it could be seen as selfish to have children incredibly late, knowing fair well that despite any motherhood stats, people are more likely to die at 80 than they are to die at 60, and women who do this are putting their children in a situation where they will be burdened with taking care of ailing parents before they have any money of their own, or any emotional support system. If one parent is younger, this helps. I apologize for offending you, if you are one of the people that has done this, but it’s just my opinion, and I’m entitled to it, the same way you’re entitled to yours.