fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2210 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2210 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 101 secrets from Secret Submission Post #316.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

NAYRT

Yeah, people can make their own decisions, but there's no denying that it's stupid. If you're going to have biological children, you really shouldn't be in your 40s. My second cousin was in her 40s when she had her second child, and he has Down's syndrome. Probably wouldn't have happened if she was younger, tbh.

I find the tone of this comment unsettling. :/

Yes, damn those scientific facts.

You know what's also a scientific fact?

You can screen for Down's syndrome and choose to not carry the pregnancy to term if it's unacceptable to you.

Who says the pregnancy was planned? Who says she didn't have screening? Who says she didn't ponder/understand the risks? Who says she wouldn't have lovingly raised a baby with Down's?

You do not know this woman's personal life, motivations - nor should you. It's her risk to take.

That's not the only risk, though. My parents had their last child when my mother was almost 45 and my father was 49. They were both dead before my little brother finished college.

Anybody who has a child risks creating an orphan. Death is no respecter of age.

This and plus they died younger than average age as well. Death really don't give two fucks about how old you are.

Uh, yes it does? Age is kinda a major governing factor when it comes to mortality. You can't realistically disregard it.

Indeed - I was 11 when my mother died. Like Downs, it's a risk for anyone but one which is much much more common if you have children later in life. And before death (and therefore much more commonly) the children of people who left it until late have to become carers to someone (two people, in our case) whose physical and neural health, and mobility, is declining (which can also mean children get assigned the responsibility to raise their younger siblings). Support for young carers and for bereaved children is pretty damn patchy, too.

It is only a risk, but it's a significant one - much more common than Downs - and one which society as a whole fails to face up to & offer support for. You really can't ignore the age factor here.

True, but you never know how fate will turn out. I went to school with a girl whose parents had her in their twenties, yet they both died when her 3 younger sibling were still in school, within a mere few months of each other. It increases your likelihood of you seeing your kids grow up, but it's no guarantee.

And in this case, while the mother is older, the father is in fact exceptionally young - so if you go by that logic, they'll have their dad for a very long time, even though they might lose their mum earlier.

Indeed, I just know firsthand how shit society is at support young carers and orphans, so I can't look at a new parent in their mid-forties without considering that risk of declining health and mortality - age being a primary risk factor for both of those things, which are far far more common than Downs.

(no subject)

kallanda_lee - 2013-01-21 05:51 (UTC) - Expand

Should police officers, soldiers and people in other higher risk careers not have kids?

Feel free to do the math on their risk of disability, chronic illness and death over the next 20 years and compare it to that of people in the age 45-70 age group, anon.

More like the implication that individuals with Downs Syndrome are lesser.

They're not lesser, but they're a lot more work. Normal children grow up and then you end up dedicating less and less effort into them until they become adults. With Down's kids, you pretty much have to dedicate your entire life to them, and you don't really get much downtime.

Yes. It's difficult. No one is saying that it isn't. But it's a little screwed up to suggest that it's dumb to have kids in your forties because you might run the risk of OH NO, NOT HAVING THE PERFECT NEUROTYPICAL CHILD. And if that bothers you, don't run the risk, I guess. Nothing the original Down's comment said indicated that the mother of the Down's child was miserable, just the commenter's thoughts on their second cousin's choice.

Uh, no it's not? Downs Syndrome is at least something people can function with, but "risk of disorder in your child when you get pregnant later in life" is a perfectly valid warning. It's not about having the perfect child, but some disorders lead to a very painful, short life, and the risk of that is important. If you're any kind of parent at all, you should consider it.

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-21 02:04 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-21 06:06 (UTC) - Expand

While higher than the population risk, a 45-year-old woman's risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome is only 2-4%. Meaning there's a 96%-98% chance of her NOT having a child with Down's. Hardly a "crazy" risk.

I find the phrasing "if you're going to have biological children, you shouldn't be in your forties" funny, because it vaguely suggests they could just switch their age dial to thirties or twenties instead. Just me?

Yup. It's their choice.

They're both just super fertile. They're on their second child, and her fourth.

If they don't want or can't take care of anymore kids then I'm sure they can afford some kind of birth control.

Not necessarily so. Plus these days, there's screening to see if your child has Downs that you can abort if you really unable to take care of an neuro-atpyical child. Contrary to your belief but prenatal care is pretty advanced these days that you can have a healthy baby in your 40s. Besides most of the danger lies with the mother than the baby because babies tend to be bigger in mature mothers. But the chances of mental impairments are still comparably low.

LOL

I love how some in this discussion are making the assumption that aborting a fetus in today's political climate is as easy as all that.

Not all countries in the world are like Good Old Uncle Sam jsyk.

They are where I live.

Also, while abortions can be difficult to get for some people in some places, the couple that prompted this discussion are not those people. They have sufficient wealth to travel to a doctor if they need to.