If you’re a follower over on Facebook, you know that we’ve been talking about the recent New York magazine article, “Parents of a Certain Age” today. The topic of age and parenting is clearly an interesting topic to me, considering younger moms (previously the norm) are quickly becoming the minority. And even though yesterday we discussed whether or not that’s just a regional issue (the average age for first-time U.S. moms is 25 years old), New York magazine confirmed the statistics:
The age of first motherhood is rising all over the West. In Italy, Germany, and Great Britain, it’s 30. In the U.S., it’s gone up to 25 from 21 since 1970, and in New York State, it’s even higher, at 27. But among the extremely middle-aged, births aren’t just inching up. They are booming. In 2008, the most recent year for which detailed data are available, about 8,000 babies were born to women 45 or older, more than double the number in 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Five hundred and forty-one of these were born to women age 50 or older—a 375 percent increase. In adoption, the story is the same. Nearly a quarter of adopted children in the U.S. have parents more than 45 years older than they are.
So there you have it. The numbers are steadily creeping up towards 30 years old, especially if we look to Europe for an example of the trend. And although the article starts off by posing a simple question (Is there anything — ethically, biologically — wrong with being over 50 and pregnant), it quickly bleeds into a war on the ages.
The question of whether an older woman should use modern resources to parent a child is a weighted question on its own. Of course the issue gets muddled when talking about genetic abnormalities, but to simply assume that an older woman won’t be healthy enough or active enough treads into dangerous waters. I find it similar to how society tells younger women that they’re not mature enough or financially stable enough. And as far as the life longevity issue, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and my son would lose me at 2 years old. Yes an older parent statistically has less time to live, but no one can know for certain. There are also good chances that a 50-year-old parent will be around for the next 30 years, possibly long enough to see their grandchildren.
But what’s interesting to me is why parenting over 45 is booming more than any other age range — and why biology seems to be disregarded more than ever.
The author — a first-time mother at 40, by the way — starts off with the scientific facts:
- After 35, the risk of preterm labor increases by 20 percent, and preemies can have lung problems, digestive problems, brain bleeds, and neurological complications, including developmental delays and learning issues, depending largely on their gestational age at birth.
- After 40, a pregnant woman is likelier to become afflicted with preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and hypertension — the worst outcomes of which can result in the death of the fetus and occasionally the mother as well.
- It is also after 40 that the risk of having a child with autism increases — by 30 percent for mothers and 50 percent for fathers, says Lisa Croen, a senior scientist at Kaiser Permanente. Advanced paternal age is likewise associated with miscarriage, childhood cancer, autoimmune disease, and schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders
But in the next breath, she goes on to say that this is a case of ageism — “the last form of prejudice acceptable in the liberal sphere.”
Here is why the arguments against old parents put forth by this article thus far are actually all bunk: They rest on the assertion that people above a certain externally imposed cutoff should not have children because it is not natural—and nature is a historically terrible arbiter of personal choice. American states used to legislate against interracial couples on the basis that miscegenation was “unnatural.” Some conservatives continue to fight gay marriage and gay parenthood on the grounds that homosexuality is “unnatural.” Broad-minded people see these critiques for what they are: bias and personal distaste hiding behind an idea of natural law. And yet some of these same broad-minded people still feel comfortable using chronological age to sort the suitable potential parents from the unsuitable.
I would argue that it’s not discrimination, it’s science. It’s reality. Not because older parents aren’t capable of loving and caring for a child — plenty of grandparents have sole custody of their grandchildren — but because chronological age dictates the safety of procreating. So perpetuating this idea that women are better off waiting — See there are more 40+ women than ever giving birth! We’re all doing it! You can do it too! — is actually borderline irresponsible. And delusional. Science and medicine may have extended our lives, but they haven’t been so successful when it comes to fertility. (Reports say it will take another million years or two for our biology to catch up to our extended life span.) Sure IVF can help with fertility issues — which is wonderful — but there are real genetic risks to waiting. It can take endless dollars and years for it to happen. It might not happen at all.
Why are we ignoring these facts? Why are so many women taking the risks? Why push past our biological clocks? It’s one thing for women who haven’t found the right partner, but it’s another issue when society — when women like this author — tell us that it’s a financial, professional necessity. Society has made 20-somethings stereotyped as dependent and immature. Society has labeled young mothers as unambitious and unsuccessful. When mentioning that the “ideal” age is now around 30, the author says: But a certain kind of woman—an ambitious woman—is just getting started at that age. And a baby will cost her. (Just getting started at 30? Is this indicative of first-time maternal age being delayed even further?)
To further drive home the point of why women should put off childbirth:
Most delay children because they want the independence that comes with work as well as the nontrivial benefits of professional success: a good salary, health insurance, and a stable place in the world. The economic trend lines indicate that the ranks of these women will increase going forward, their decision to put work before childbearing for some period of time not “a lifestyle choice” but a necessity.
But I’d argue that if you want to be sure you’ll have the healthiest child — or even just a child at all — then putting childbearing before work is not a lifestyle choice, but a necessity.
How long can these societal norms hold any weight? How long until we realize that money, success, shouldn’t be the reason to delay having children? How long until we stop treating pregnancy and motherhood as something that stalls our life, but rather something that immeasurably enriches it? Being a 20-something (and apparently 30-something, according to the author) mother might cost her the promotion, but maybe she won’t want it. Motherhood gives us more balanced priorities and a more refined focus. And what about all of the working mothers making a decent living, carving a place for themselves in the world? There are plenty of younger moms who go on to be wildly successful. Younger moms who go on to change the world. Younger moms whose highest ambition is to raise the best children they can.
How long until we recognize that fertility is something to value, not something to put on layaway? That sometimes nature knows what it’s doing?
Listen, I think there certainly are 40+ women who are biologically able to produce healthy and happy children, as well as be phenomenal parents. My aunt and a friend of mine both fall into this category (after “oops” pregnancies, not IVF) and I couldn’t imagine their children not existing. But it’s the trend of delayed parenting becoming the norm (fueled by society’s misconceptions about motherhood and younger women) that I find unsettling.
If becoming a parent is important to you, then know that there is an expiration date — as unfair as that seems. And coming from a younger mom, an ambitious woman, I’m just as professionally and personally fulfilled as I’ve ever dreamed to be.
17 Comments to Age and Parenting: How Far Can This Go?
Dwija {House Unseen}
September 28, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Beautiful and honest post, Michelle. I absolutely agree.
Jennifer Sami
September 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I was 21 when I gave birth to my daughter, and I am 23 now. I am pregnant with our second child and will give birth to our second child a month after I turn 24. Young, yes I know. However, my husband (who was 22 when we had our first, and will be 25 when our LO is born) has had a wonderful job and a stable career since he was nineteen years old. He makes more than enough money to support all of us, and we have incredible health insurance. Unlike some of the references above stated, we didn’t get on our feet and get going at age 30. It was much earlier for us. And we’re happy! Both pregnancies were planned! As for me, I never wanted a career. I wanted to be a mother. That was my calling. I think that there is truth in the statement that you should be responsible and wait until you are ready and financially stable. However, who is to say that’s after 30 years of age?
christina
September 28, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Its a sticky situation, but I agree with you that its irresponsible for women who are past the age of being naturally fertile to try to become pregnant. There was recently a New York Times Magazine article about many women who chose to “reduce” a twin pregnancy (all of them older, claiming age as the main reason for why they decided to abort one of their perfectly healthy babies, saying that they were either worried about the health risks of carrying multiples or that they didn’t have the energy/time to take care of more than one child). The likelihood of becoming pregnant with twins is really pretty high when you go through fertility treatments, and having carried triplets I can tell you that its no cake walk on your body…I can’t imagine being 50 and going through all that I have physically on top of the normal health issues that a 50 year old woman has. Whereas there is a lot of judgment on younger mothers based on assumption, the question of women in their 40s and 50s having babies is not as much about their ability to care for children, but the health and safety of them during pregnancy and birth. I will make the argument though that even if a 50 year old woman can be expected to live 30 more years and we could all die tomorrow in some tragic way, that doesn’t mean she’s able to provide constant care for small children at that age. I’ve seen my mom and mother in law with my kids and there is no way that they are physically able to keep up with toddlers and keep them safe when they are running in every direction and pose a safety threat to themselves with just about every move they make.
christina
September 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?pagewanted=all
Michelle Horton
September 28, 2011 at 3:46 pm
I DID read that article Christina, and it’s heartbreaking. Unimaginable, even. And while I do think it can be irresponsible for a postmenopausal woman to get pregnant, I meant that it’s irresponsible for society to keep perpetuating the idea that it’s better to wait and to make older motherhood the norm. I’d even go so far as to say it’s genetically dangerous. We see older celebrities pushing strollers and read about IVF success stories, but most older women are at risk for serious complications or the inability to conceive at all. And why? Because society is now saying that it’s professionally and financially irresponsible to get pregnant when we’re biologically ready to? Because if you’re “ambitious” then you can’t possibly be ready to give up your life? Because we have fertility treatments to fall back on? It’s just not realistic.
michellehorton
September 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm
There aren’t enough examples of young mothers who are financially stable and secure. The problem is that most young women are told that pregnancy/motherhood is a daunting task that will hold them back from anything they want to do in life. Traveling, making money, sleeping, having a good sex life — these will all completely go out the window forever. And in many cases (as we all have shared on this site), that’s just not true.
celeste
September 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I am due any day. My body can’t take it. My legs are swelling and I have to have c section. She is in her 50-60′s that grandparent age. The dad is 66 years! These kids will be very fortunate if either parent is present at a graduation, wedding of a child’s birth. Especially if these kids wait as long as their parents did.
Cindy
September 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I had my kids a 22, 25 and 32 (6 weeks before my 33rd birthday). My personal cut-off was 35 because I didn’t want to increase the risks to my child. Is it fair to conceive a child after 35 knowing that he/she could have a compromised life due to your choice to wait? This actually is the first decision of many to come parenting decisions that will be made over the years. After the child is born, would a mother intentionally place her child in harms way? I think most would not…but it’s okay to do so prenatally?
Anita
September 28, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Well I was 38 when I had my first child and I am now 46. I became pregnant with my daugher when I was 41. I actually couldn’t get pregnant with my first husband and never actually went to find out why. I then became divorced and met my second husband. At that time I really decided I wanted to try and also had a difficult time. I then finallly went to find out why and then started therapy with a fertility specialist. Low and behold after the 4th try of fertility shots, etc., my son was born! Although I might be somewhat older, I believe sometimes things happen for a reason. I wouldn’t get pregnant now (for me, too old!
Tiny Blue Lines
September 29, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Really interesting post Michelle. It’s tough, because I want to sing the praises of motherhood for any age, but you’re right. Science is science. Maybe it’s time we all stop fighting our bodies and the way they work..in more ways than just in parenting.
Tiny Blue Lines
September 29, 2011 at 8:23 pm
P.S. That picture is so creepy.
H.S. I'm a Teacher
October 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I appreciate the honest in your post.
I have two major concerns with older parents. One relates to the inherent risk in conceiving, carrying and birthing a child when the parents are 40+ (or even 35+). The second concern is simply that these parents will not be around for very long. In an ideal situation, dear old Mom & Dad will live and thrive well into their 90′s, but what if health starts to decline at, say, 65? The reality of caring for an aging parent is always challenging and heart-wrenching, no matter the child’s age, but feeling the weight of this responsibility at age 25 or 30 seems far worse than at age 45 or 50. (Perhaps the rebuttal from mature parents is that, because they delayed parenthood so long, they already have funds stashed away for their elder-care at some senior facility?)
My issue with this article is quite different. I’m not even an Early Mama yet… simply a TTC Young Woman. I am 25 and my husband is 28. We are young professionals with careers and graduate degrees. I want to grow, excel and thrive in my career field, but I also want to expand my family and celebrate as many years as I possibly can with my future children. Why must these things be mutually exclusive?
I can already hear shouts from mothers in the peanut gallery: “Because children are expensive! Because parenthood is draining and exhausting!” Perhaps it is… But when are we going to change this ethos that parenting is a time/money/brainpower-suck and that it puts lives and careers on hold? Our society does not support mothers at ANY age or stage of life. Motherhood should be celebrated and supported by most employers. Instead, pregnancy announcements are akin to placing a target on one’s back and a new mother must “prove” she is still capable of success.
My desire to be a young mom does not mean that I have given up on all other aspects of my professional and personal life. It means that things are going well, I love where I am at, and I feel children will enrich my life even more. I hope to show my children (especially if there are any daughters in the bunch) that professional growth and personal fulfillment do not stop with the birth of one’s child.
Ugh!
Emily
October 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Amen!
michellehorton
October 5, 2011 at 2:15 pm
AMEN. That’s exactly what I said over at Being Pregnant, and 90+ commenters (mostly non-parents/non-breeders) had something else to say. You have to read the comments, because I can’t adequately describe their attack. http://blogs.babble.com/being-pregnant/2011/10/04/u-s-fertility-crisis-real-and-growing/
Nicole
January 20, 2012 at 5:08 am
Does that mean ‘old maids’ of 23 such as myself need to rush out and find a husband and procreate?!! I think you are treading into dangerous waters. It is nice to live in a society where you aren’t stigmatized for not having found the one.
michellehorton
January 21, 2012 at 3:10 pm
There’s a very big difference between being 23 and being post-menopausal. And it’s about being realistic about fertility expirations, not about rushing out and procreating with just anyone. You have a long way to go, Nicole.
Trackbacks