Is 55 too old to have a family?

[wu78754]

We know for a fact that Sarah at age of 90 had a child with her husband Abraham. Genesis 17:17 Abra

So, is 55 too old to have a family? If so, then I should be looking for a Mormon egg donor and a Mormon surrogate mother.

[Windseeker]

Have you considered fostering or adopting kids?

[wu78754]

I thought about it, but the adoption process is worse than getting teeth pulled.

Have you considered fostering or adopting kids?

[MarginOfError]

I do medical research in an OBGYN field, and I would suspect that the majority of the OBs here would recommend against trying for pregnancy at 55. If you are entering menopause, you are already at higher risk for bone decay, your uterus may not produce the necessary levels of hormones, and the risk of birth defects is much higher.

If you can find a willing and suitable surrogate, that may be preferable, but be warned that you're dealing with a legal minefield.

ADDENDUM: I don't mean to come of as a party pooper, but I think it's important to understand the risks and difficulties up front. You really should consult with your physician and a fertility specialist.

[Wingnut]

If so, then I should be looking for a Mormon egg donor and a Mormon surrogate mother.

Why?

[Bini]

Everyone has their own preferences and experiences, so no one can tell you whether or not 55-years old is too old to start a family as a new parent. For me personally, there are two factors that should be carefully considered when deciding to bring a child into the world: (i) am I healthy to become pregnant and carry a child to full term (or are there health risks such as disease or illness that would directly affect procreating), and (ii) can I provide for the child (is the home stable? Is my income enough to support a child and its needs, etc.). If you're speaking from a purely medical standpoint, childbearing risks increase in a woman's 30's and men can have certain health risks if they are middle-aged that may contribute to certain disorders.

[Jenamarie]

Another thing to consider is how long-lived the men in your family are. If you were to get a surrogat and she got pregnant right now you would be 73/74 when the baby reached 18. Do the men in your family typically live that long?

Also, you'll be dealing with a teenager in your 60's. What kind of life do the men of your family typically have in their 60's and 70's? Do you currently have any health issues that are likely to get worse with age? (like weak knees) Is there a family history of heart disease? Osteoporosis? Or any other chronic condition that would put limitations on your ability to parent?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Jenamarie
Didn't realize the OP was male. Whoops!

[Quin]

It's important to know, too, that surrogates all work differently.

- I have a girlfriend who surrogates (3-6mo off per pregnancy) that NEVER uses her own DNA. It's all IVF. And she, personally, will only use familial DNA (either prospective parents, or young grandparents).

But many others use their own eggs, or have preferred egg donors/sperm donors, or preferred clinics, or, or, or, or. Some will carry to term regardless of birth defect (trisomy of various numbers, spina bifida, etc.) Meanwhile others absolutely refuse testing. Some require rather a lot of genetic counseling, others won't allow genetic counseling. Some, like my friend, are near perpetually pregnant. Others take 1-2 years off in between. Some habe no kdea what or how ey'll do things as thos is their first (surrogacy). Others have very detailed contracts and expectations based off of years of experience. Some allow parents in for all medical. Some only allow skype, some only allow notes&doctor provilege, some maintain total medical confidentiality. There are no standards universally, or even generally, adopted.

So, before you start looking at donors, you would need to start looking at surrogates.

Find out what their requirements are.

Ditto... Adoption, at about 20k to 45k, is often FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than surrogacy. Each IVF round tends to cost about 10-20k, and there can be multiple rounds necessary. Similarly, many insurance companies will not pay for 3rd party pregnancies. Prenatal care + normal delivery is easily another 10k-20k out of pocket. But can jump up to 100k or more if there are serious complications. Millions, even, if there are birth defects that need surgery in utero or the surrogate needs hospital supervised bed rest (about 200k per month inpatient... & some women are stuck in hospital for 3-6mo)

Find out what (if any) your insurance will pay

Best case, is typically about 35k-45k.

Worse (normal = high risk pregnancy with lots of associated monitoring + emergency csect) about 100k

Worst is into the millions.

And thats if you know the surrogate and they're doing it for free.

If they need living expenses... Tack on 50k-100k.

So....

Adoption = 25k-45k

Surrogacy = 25k-100k-millions.

.... Whoops. Just read you're in the UK... So pregnancy & medical costs may be vastly different. I have no idea whether National Health covers 3rd party pregnancies, IVF, & associated costs... Or if you'd have to go through a private facility. But the above are the fairly standard costs for adoption and surrogacy in the US.

Q

[pam]

I think people need to realize that the OP is male.

[Jenamarie]

I think people need to realize that the OP is male.

Went back and edited my post. Whoops.

[Quin]

I thought about it, but the adoption process is worse than getting teeth pulled.

I can totally emphasize with this, though on the surface surrogacy is much more difficult in most cases.

1) Have some friends who work with NGOs dealing with human trafficking & exploited kids. So many kids are literally stolen from their parents to funnel into first world adoption rings, that it makes one physically ill. Especially light skinned, or dark skin light eyed infants & toddlers. Sold children aren't any better... As the small percentage of sold kids fuels the huge percentage of stolen kids. Of course, only the luckiest are sold into adoption. The prettiest are sold into prostitution from age 4 or so onward, and the strongest are sold into physical slavery (usually farm labor, or "mine sweeper"). Ugh. To all of the above.

2) Then one jumps into nations that abhors the concepts of raising other people's children as a cultural more (Russia is a prime example)... And the 2 problems people run into are

- orphanages lightening their load by handing off the most medically fragile children (brain damaged, heart defects, downs, autism) that are likely to live a long time and drain their funding (just in food and housing, no medical services are provided in most)... EQUALS immediate and vast associated costs.

- Neurological conditions stemming from lack of physical contact, patterning, etc.. AKA Physiological psychologists have a love/hate relationship with Russian orphanages. Because they provide unimpeachable data as to what neglect, abuse, and neglect+abuse do to the human mind at various stages of life. The BEST you can hope for is SEVERE Attachment Disorder. More commonly, sociopathy* & psychopathy*. In an "ideal" situation, one is adopting either. Medically fragile infant theyre trying to offload as fast as possible who can have surgeries to correct defects, or a "black" Russian toddler in Moscow whose parents have been killed. ("Black" Russians look Scottish. Brownish hair, light or dark eyes, tans easily). Since Black Russians in Moscow are often killed out of hand, and if their kids aren't killed as well, tossed in the nearest hole of an orphanage. Chechen babies, or babies from war stricken areas, are more often stolen and sold. Which ties right back into the human trafficking issue.

* Sociopathy & Psychopathy cannot technically be diagnosed in children, as modern testing cannot distinguish between neurology & alter able behavior. So the field gives kids the benefit of the doubt until their 18th birthday. Whether its diagnosable or not, though, one still has to deal with all the symptomology of sociopathy and psychopathy for several years, or in perpetuity.

STILL... My ideal place to look for international adoption would be Russia.

As its better than any other option.

Scary thought.

-...

Yeah. So, unlike many, adoption is something that really makes me leery.

Q

[Guest]

Americans can no longer adopt from Russia. Can Britains?

[NeuroTypical]

Is 55 too old to have a family?

If you're talking about bringing a new life into the world at age 55, and you're interested in what's best for the kid, I'd vote against it. You'd be 70 years old when your kid would be entering the teen years and needing parents to be at the top of their game. Adoption and fostering is possible, and would bless children who may or may not have any better options, but you discount it because it's not easy. Of course, if you're mainly interested in satisfying your own wants, and have the money, then sure, it's physically possible to start a family at age 55.

Are you married? Keep in mind here's something the mormons tend to believe a lot:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

[applepansy]

My husband is 56 and I'm 55. We're raising our grandson with our son. I've been co-parenting with my son for four years now. Grandpa gets to be grandpa most of the time.

Its hard to raise a child at my age. I have health issues but that's not the only reason its hard. I know other grandparents raising their grandchildren (part time or full time). We just don't have the energy to keep up with young children. I wouldn't change anything and I'm glad we have this wonderful boy, but its hard.

My sister (age 42) just had her 5th baby. Her husband is 50. The baby is 6 months old. They are exhausted. Their oldest are twin boys, almost age 17.

Children are a blessing but dang its hard and the older you get the harder it gets.

[prisonchaplain]

I thought about it, but the adoption process is worse than getting teeth pulled.

I understand that it is not bad at all if you are willing to adopt from out of the foster system (i.e. older children, often with difficult backgrounds or special needs).

[Bini]

I understand that it is not bad at all if you are willing to adopt from out of the foster system (i.e. older children, often with difficult backgrounds or special needs).

I will agree that very young children often require a lot more energy that a middle-aged or older person may not be up for. I will also say that pre-teens and teens are known to be very challenging at times, testing patience and boundaries, so a pre-teen/teen with a developmental disability or behavioural issue will be that much more challenging. You'd have to ask yourself if you're willing to give 110% to the child no matter what, and understand that instead of retirement you will probably still be supporting said child, as often times parents in these situations find themselves still parenting their grown child due to special needs.

[mnn727]

My two cents on the subject.

Having a baby at 55 means you'll be 73 when the kid graduates from high school -- sorry that's too old. Assuming you retire at full retirement age (67 currently in the U.S.) the kid would be 12 when you retire.

My parents were in their late 50's (same age I am now) when I was in high school and that was too old.

I would be against it, but ymmv

[Finrock]

To the OP. Pray and ask Heavenly Father for guidance. Once you feel you know the right decision, go with that, regardless of what science, naysayers, or human wisdom dictates.

The Spirit will reveal all things to you. This is an important decision and ultimately only you, your spouse, and God have a say in this. But, my main point is to trust in God and go with what feels right to you after you've received an answer.

Regards,

Finrock

[Backroads]

I can't tell if you're married or have some woman in your life, but in such a situation I would be more interested in her age and health than yours--though as others have said you ought to consider your own age and prospective health. If by your questions on surrogacy mean you'll be raising a child solo, again, ask yourself if you anticipate being up to it. No teenager should have the responsibility of taking care of his/her parent. Then again, maybe you see yourself as staying healthy and vibrant for the next 20 years.

Surrogacy is very expensive, and adoption is a big pain... unless, of course, you're already socially involved, which is why fostering can be an excellent lead.

Just don't fool yourself into thinking surrogacy will be simpler.

[bytebear]

I would consider foster care, or even big brother/big sister. There are plenty of kids who need parental figures in their lives. But it can be emotionally draining and there are a lot of complications when you don't have full parental rights.