A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT- Pregnancy after 40



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 31st 04, 02:06 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

Ben D wrote:

-and her boyfriend too


Um, well. If we're discussing the well-being of the child, may I point
out that people who are not in committed relationships tend not to have
thriving children?

Also, adoption is not a significant option to single women.

My advice is to enjoy her active life-style and sublimate her interest
in children in some way.

And may I please suggest you google "Murphy Brown" and we can just skip
this whole thread?

Dally

  #22  
Old July 31st 04, 02:14 AM
elzinator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:33:20 -0500, Ben D wrote:
Dally wrote:
The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

Dally wrote:


Lee Michaels wrote:

"Dally" wrote


Your last sentence makes my case.

"Waiting to have kids until everything is perfect is a fool's notion."

That is the whole point. NOT to wait till you are 40. If you are
going to
have kids. Have them when you are young and healthy.


And if you happen to be 40 and didn't get around to it and badly want
children? What then?



adopt.



[piggybacking because, for some strange reason, I didn't get Queenie's post]

Certainly an option that has been considered, and one that I respect.
However, there is something *different* about ones one child that must
be considered when considering the people involved.

I should point out that the child's health is concern number one here,
not the woman's.

I understand all the arguments to *not* have a child, but to tell
someone not to is to go against millions of years of evolution that
drives people to procreate. Someone's got to have children and if
everyone didn't because of possible consequences we'd be in dire straights.


Instead we are in the opposite reality: runaway procreation.
Unfortunately, a large number of the population of parents should not
have been parents. We are currently in a society (the Western world)
of reverse Darwinism.

There many reasons people choose to have a child or children, some for
the money (public welfare, tax credits), artificial gratification of
self-worth, enjoyment of rearing children, etc. And many reasons not
to have children.

But there is no 'drive' to procreate. It's mostly a function of
expectations influenced by society, religion, extended family, a need
of something to love or be loved, and a basic enjoyment of rearing
children. But there is no irresistible heritable 'drive' to procreate,
and that it is your obligation to humanity to procreate, so get that
out of your head. That is the most selfish and stupid reasons I've
ever heard to have a child/children.

there are enough homeless children in this world, we don't each have
to contribute to ensure the existence of Homo stupidness. We are a
virus.

Which is why I'm asking about the risks, so a better decision can be
made if the risks are *too* great. Frankly, I think that the debate
ought to be about what risks are *too* great as well, but then we need
to determine what the risks are.


Adopt...


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.
  #23  
Old July 31st 04, 02:21 AM
elzinator
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:06:38 -0400, Dally wrote:
Ben D wrote:

-and her boyfriend too


Um, well. If we're discussing the well-being of the child, may I point
out that people who are not in committed relationships tend not to have
thriving children?


That's bull****, Dally.
BTW, times have changed since 25 years ago.

Also, adoption is not a significant option to single women.


It is in many situations; I know a few single men and women who have
adopted and successfully provide for their adoptees. I know two gay
couples who have adopted, also.

Get with it; this is the 2000's.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.
  #24  
Old July 31st 04, 02:25 AM
The Queen of Cans and Jars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

Dally wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

Dally wrote:


Lee Michaels wrote:

"Dally" wrote

Your last sentence makes my case.

"Waiting to have kids until everything is perfect is a fool's notion."

That is the whole point. NOT to wait till you are 40. If you are going to
have kids. Have them when you are young and healthy.

And if you happen to be 40 and didn't get around to it and badly want
children? What then?



adopt.


Fine, go ahead. Or stay child-free, your choice. We'd all appreciate
it if you wouldn't procreate. I'm totally into people choosing not to
have kids. Makes me feel better about choosing to have four.

Dally, a selfish bitch (who only wound up with three)


and there you are, right on cue with the Sanctimonious **** Act. you're
so predictable.
  #25  
Old July 31st 04, 05:10 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

Dally wrote:


The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:


And if you happen to be 40 and didn't get around to it and badly want
children? What then?


adopt.


Fine, go ahead. Or stay child-free, your choice. We'd all appreciate
it if you wouldn't procreate. I'm totally into people choosing not to
have kids. Makes me feel better about choosing to have four.



and there you are, right on cue with the Sanctimonious **** Act. you're
so predictable.


I won't argue ****, but I don't see the sanctimonious part. I'm
serious. All of my vested interests involve other people NOT having
kids. I don't look down on people for wanting kids - I understand that
choice - but I prefer it when they don't.

As far as I can tell your only gripe with my position is that I
hypocritically, selfishly had three. That's not sanctimonious.

Dally

  #26  
Old July 31st 04, 05:14 AM
Ben D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

Dally wrote:
Ben D wrote:

-and her boyfriend too



Um, well. If we're discussing the well-being of the child, may I point
out that people who are not in committed relationships tend not to have
thriving children?

Also, adoption is not a significant option to single women.

My advice is to enjoy her active life-style and sublimate her interest
in children in some way.

And may I please suggest you google "Murphy Brown" and we can just skip
this whole thread?

Dally


Someone needs to get a Tom Petty album... or learn when a joke is a joke.

Ben
  #27  
Old July 31st 04, 05:19 AM
Ben D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

elzinator wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:33:20 -0500, Ben D wrote:

Dally wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:


Dally wrote:



Lee Michaels wrote:


"Dally" wrote


Your last sentence makes my case.

"Waiting to have kids until everything is perfect is a fool's notion."

That is the whole point. NOT to wait till you are 40. If you are
going to
have kids. Have them when you are young and healthy.


And if you happen to be 40 and didn't get around to it and badly want
children? What then?



adopt.

[piggybacking because, for some strange reason, I didn't get Queenie's post]

Certainly an option that has been considered, and one that I respect.
However, there is something *different* about ones one child that must
be considered when considering the people involved.

I should point out that the child's health is concern number one here,
not the woman's.

I understand all the arguments to *not* have a child, but to tell
someone not to is to go against millions of years of evolution that
drives people to procreate. Someone's got to have children and if
everyone didn't because of possible consequences we'd be in dire straights.



Instead we are in the opposite reality: runaway procreation.
Unfortunately, a large number of the population of parents should not
have been parents. We are currently in a society (the Western world)
of reverse Darwinism.

There many reasons people choose to have a child or children, some for
the money (public welfare, tax credits), artificial gratification of
self-worth, enjoyment of rearing children, etc. And many reasons not
to have children.

But there is no 'drive' to procreate. It's mostly a function of
expectations influenced by society, religion, extended family, a need
of something to love or be loved, and a basic enjoyment of rearing
children. But there is no irresistible heritable 'drive' to procreate,
and that it is your obligation to humanity to procreate, so get that
out of your head. That is the most selfish and stupid reasons I've
ever heard to have a child/children.


I guess I disagree with this. I think that some people don't feel the
obligation to procreate, but some do. We are not so different than
animals that that need exists in us. Just like the need to evolve to
adapt to our environment or the need to survive. Procreation is one of
the things that drives animals.

I'm curious is you believe that we have evolved beyond that, and not in
a sanctimonious way. Have humans left their animal urges behind.

there are enough homeless children in this world, we don't each have
to contribute to ensure the existence of Homo stupidness. We are a
virus.


Which is why I'm asking about the risks, so a better decision can be
made if the risks are *too* great. Frankly, I think that the debate
ought to be about what risks are *too* great as well, but then we need
to determine what the risks are.



Adopt...


Certainly an option that's being considered. I guess it depends on what
the risks and the odds are. There's *always* a risk, no matter the
health or age, and the risks go up as a woman gets older, but is there a
magic number or point where there are diminishing returns? Can we even
look at it like that. It seems a slippery slope to me. At what point are
the risks *too* great to warrant not having children. Who decides and
for what reasons?

Ben

Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

  #28  
Old July 31st 04, 05:23 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

elzinator wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:06:38 -0400, Dally wrote:

Ben D wrote:


-and her boyfriend too


Um, well. If we're discussing the well-being of the child, may I point
out that people who are not in committed relationships tend not to have
thriving children?



That's bull****, Dally.


Cite, please.

BTW, times have changed since 25 years ago.


Oh, no question there. It's much easier in society. Hell, having a
father with the same name in the household is positively freakish.

But it's harder to parent a kid when you are doing it by yourself. You
necessarily have less resources; less time, less money, less nearby
relatives, less patience than two people.

And parenting a kid is not a hobby for the faint of heart. If the
couple don't have a solid relationship before they bring kids into the
mix it's pretty unlikely it'll last past the stage when the kid is three
and has been clingy/needy 24/7 for three full years now.

Also, adoption is not a significant option to single women.



It is in many situations; I know a few single men and women who have
adopted and successfully provide for their adoptees. I know two gay
couples who have adopted, also.

Get with it; this is the 2000's.


Have you tried adopting a baby lately? Some friends from church
recently did. They hit the jackpot: a newborn of a fairly simiilar
genetic make-up. It took them four years and there was just no
certainty that they'd ever get a baby, and they're practically Ozzie and
Harriet.

The overseas adoptions are getting very, very stringent about home
visits with an eye towards making sure no babies go to gay couples. I
know three couples with Chinese-adopted daughters and all three are
hetero married couples with established marriages that went through
grueling home inspections (and follow up inspections before the adoption
was finalized.)

I don't know how 40 year old single women are doing at adopting babies -
I don't know any who have done it. My sense is that the adoptable
babies are going to church-related organizations. Everyone else just
gets an abortion.

I'm not really against single parenting. But the question is how would
this affect the baby. Well, it does. Longer hours in daycare, a more
tired Mommy, less money, less opportunity, less of everything. Yes,
kids can muddle through. But it certainly deserves at least as much
attention as the possibility of the kid being premature.

Dally

  #29  
Old July 31st 04, 05:27 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

Ben D wrote:

There's *always* a risk, no matter the
health or age, and the risks go up as a woman gets older, but is there a
magic number or point where there are diminishing returns? Can we even
look at it like that. It seems a slippery slope to me. At what point are
the risks *too* great to warrant not having children. Who decides and
for what reasons?


This isn't settled. Women turning 40 with a history of reliable birth
control behind them are not the norm in the history of the world.

I think you've got to do each case on a facts and circumstances
situation. Honestly, I think you need to NOT have a baby unless you
absolutely can't be talked out of it. In which case it's decided.

In my case I put 38 as my deadline. Fourth kid by then or we took
permanent action. My husband is 10 years older than I am and has a
kindergartner at the age of 50 as it is. We just drew the line there,
but it had more to do with the impact on the entire family than my
concerns about aging eggs.

Dally

  #30  
Old July 31st 04, 06:25 AM
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT- Pregnancy after 40

"Ben D" wrote in message
...
I've been doing some research on this and I was just curious what the
health experts here think about the risks of a woman in good health
getting pregnant after 40. At what point are the risks so great it's

not
a good idea?

Figure she's about 10-15 years from menopause given her family history
and has never had any problems with her menstrual cycle or health
problems or surgeries in the pelvic area, all of which are risk

factors
for late pregnancies.

From what I gather Down's Syndrome is the greatest risk, but how much
is that effected by the health of the woman?

Thanks for your thoughts.


I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I'm pretty sure that having a
child if you're over 40 isn't precisely the high risk factor - it's
having your _first_ child over 40. I believe the numbers support the
idea that women who had children earlier and continue to have them past
40 are at only a slightly higher risk of complications for themselves
and/or their children, while women who have their first child after 40
are at a higher risk level still.

I can't cite anything - I just remember this because my wife and I did a
fair amount of investigating and talking about it when we were planning
to have our children and we did have them fairly late - my wife was 39
when our last child was born. If anyone knows more on this, please
post it.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 7 April 11th 04 01:09 PM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 7 March 13th 04 10:34 AM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 7 December 31st 03 02:35 AM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 6 December 16th 03 12:59 PM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 5 December 2nd 03 12:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.