Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

to lack sympathy for my friend who is unable to conceive

349 replies

babyetcetera · 14/06/2009 22:19

We went to uni together and my friend met her husband there - they've been together ever since. In the meantime, some of us had children and she went on to have an amazing career...

When she and her husband have celebrated a big milestone in their marriage they decided to TTC. This was when she was 41. It's now been two years and she is in agonies talking about IVF etc.

I'm finding it hard to keep being sympathetic. Of course I am supporting her and I am devastated for her, but I keep thinking that she chose her life and is now being really REALLY unrealistic about having a baby.

Have I lost sight of any sort of human compassion or am I being realistic at this point?

OP posts:
AitchTwoOh · 15/06/2009 21:46

it's quite simple for me, i would be able to handle my own 'damaged' child much better than someone else's. selfish? well, no, i think pretty ordinary and human, we are programmed to look after our own. i personally think people who look after those children whose carers have damaged them are pretty sainted.

AitchTwoOh · 15/06/2009 21:47

"I am also saying what do you know of my experiences?"

either spill or shut up, you can't do both i think.

chegirl · 15/06/2009 21:48

Curiosity I have read your posts and you are entitled to your opinion about fertility treatment etc. BUT you show a real lack of understanding about adoption and what it means.

Even if you do decide to adopt later you will be doing as a woman with birth children. If you do get accepted on a prep course I really think you will look back on this thread and cringe.

You may very likely find yourself deciding that adoption is not for you because its just too difficult and scarey. Not because you are selfish or a bad person, because the majority of people who consider adoption do not make it to placement.

cariboo · 15/06/2009 21:48

OP: "We went to uni together and my friend met her husband there - they've been together ever since. In the meantime, some of us had children (and) BUT she went on to have an amazing career..." Come on, this is pure envy - normal, understandable and not very pretty!

Apart from that, (btw, OP where are you??), every woman experiences the "childbearing issue" differently. Some want children and are lucky enough to have them. Some want but tragically can't have. Some choose not to have children. Some choose to adopt. And so on. But no woman has the right to judge another woman's choice and to voice that judgement.

MrsTittleMouse · 15/06/2009 21:49

How do you know that we haven't considered adoption? We knew after all our investigations that we had four options - two types of fertility treatment, adoption, or remaining childless. We carefully considered all of those options before we made the decision to have treatment.

By the way, as I mentioned earlier, both of the options that we were given were treatments that we had "decided" that we would never have, back when we first started TTC and had no idea that there would be any problems. Funnily enough, when we were actually in that situation, we had to consider our options properly and we realised that those treatments aren't actually so bad after all. We now have two gorgeous daughters.

duchesse · 15/06/2009 21:56

To answer your OP, yes, you are lacking compassion. How much of a friend are you to her?

Qally · 15/06/2009 21:59

"I am saying I think ppl who will ONLY consider IVF because they are afraid the children will be difficult should maybe question why they want a child at all."

And I'm saying what the hell gives you the right to lecture people who seek to overcome their infertility on what they should do? With your naturally conceived DC?

An adoptive parent isn't just creating a bond, as with a newborn. They're painfully unravelling years of damage loaded onto the poor kid before they ever met them. The half of adoptions that break down are those where the parents have applied, gone through the whole process, had every detail of their lives and personalities analysed, been approved - and then been carefully and painstakingly matched with a child or a sibling group by highly trained professionals. At any stage, that process can fail. So these are people who've already climbed a mountain. They are not quitters, they are incredibly able and self-aware people. And yet many, many have to return the child they so longed to have and worked so hard to reach.

You cannot reasonably compare a child who has been so hurt and damaged by their biological parents, then moved about from foster homes where the optimal outcome is that they, again, lose someone they love - before ever reaching their forever family - with a child with a stable, loving and secure home from year dot who has been abused. If my son, God forbid, is abused, he will know he has a family who adore him, who will stand by him, and we can work with that basis of trust. A newly adopted child has been given ample reason not to trust adults. Or, indeed, anyone at all. Sometimes, they more or less lack the capacity. This is not mere "difficulty".

Any parent can have a difficult child. An adoptive parent of an older child, and you are guaranteed one - the only variable is the degree of difficulty. Adoption, when successful, creates a parent/child bond as real and profound as any, and that's all you are focusing on: that eventual, positive outcome. But it is DIFFERENT, because you are dealing with a hugely vulnerable and uniquely damaged individual who is going to be even MORE screwed up if placed unsuccessfully. Thinking people are good candidates to adopt older kids purely because they are willing to try IVF is like saying, well, everyone with a red car should. It makes very little logical sense.

I am so, so grateful I was able to have ds, in my mid-thirties. But I just do not have what it takes to adopt an older child. I don't have the emotional resources to give them the best shot at a successful outcome. To think that you do, when to be blunt you don't even seem to understand what is involved, is just unfortunate.

curiositykilled · 15/06/2009 22:05

naturalrollover - I have not described adoption at any stage! I'm not sure where you get this from. People have told me I have said infertile ppl should just adopt - I have actually never said this. I would be perfectly entitled to go through the process and they would be entitled to rule I was unsuitable (anything they offered would include nothing). The point I am trying to make says nothing about adoption in reality other than the children are difficult and so is the process because I am posting on mn about IVF. I am talking about the concept of adoption, not the process in any way. Perhaps if I had discussed the process of adoption at any stage you'd be fair enough to flame me as you clearly are involved heavily yourself. The I would have taken on anyone attitude as you call it is actually because I'm aware that it is social services job to match a child to you that best matches your skill as a parent and recognises that I wouldn't know what that was. It was intended to say I felt you would be hindered in caring for any child if you would exclude certain kinds before they were even born. I'm just wondering what it is I have actually said about adoption being for everyone, being a replacement for your own child or that I thought I'd be a perfect candidate?!

It is also ridiculous to suggest I wish any dc had never been born. Clearly this is just arguing itself round in circles. Obviously the problem with MN is that you are frequently misquoted and other people interpret things you are saying in their own
way. Guess there's no substitute for conversing in person...

spicemonster · 15/06/2009 22:08

curiosity - please could you give me some statistical data to back up your repeated claims that pregnancy and labour are more dangerous post 40. Thank you.

beanieb · 15/06/2009 22:09

You may think you have been mis-quoted but this post, the first one you made, is really offensive to many posters here and on so many levels:

"disclaimer I realise this will offend you all but I just need a little vent and can't hold it back... It is just my own opinion/moral code anyway...

Why is no-one thinking about adoption, why is it ALL about IVF?!?!

There are loads of children who are already born and need families. Yes, they have problems because of the way they've ended up in care but it is very likely that a child concieved beyond a woman's natural fertility would too, that's if it and her even survived the pregnancy safe and well.

Leaving it so late then having traumatic and expensive IVF repeatedly rather than adopting is just very selfish. Yes, the adoption process can be traumatic BUT you will be making a very large difference to a child that is already born and currently unloved rather than creating another life at the end of it and you will not be risking miscarriage after miscarriage and a risky pregnancy. Do these people really want to care for a child or is it just another box to tick off? career - yes, husband - yes, baby - oops, better get trying! I mean some ppl bankers are retiring mid forties fgs...

It is sad to not be able to concieve at any age but at some point you just have to accept that is how things are and move forward. Declining fertility is not the only issue! Having a first baby at 40+, or even a large gap and another at 40+, is very risky for both mother and baby health wise.

Starting TTC in your thirties would even have been a bit dodgy where fertility and risk is concerned. The optimum physical age to carry a baby is 22 - long before the average age most ppl start at 27"

but I guess you did put in a disclaimer so you knew it was going to offend people right from the start.

MrsTittleMouse · 15/06/2009 22:09

But how can you separate the concept and the process? DH and I couldn't decide to adopt in theory. We had to do it in practice, or pick another option.

naturalrollover · 15/06/2009 22:26

Please please think before you open your mouth and upset so many people. You're still upsetting them. Can't you see that?

MrsMerryHenry · 15/06/2009 22:26

I think I can see what the OP is trying to say, and I'm hoping she's just expressed it very, very badly as it comes across as a pile of envious ill-feeling.

I think she's trying to say that her friend is basically facing the consequences of her own actions and should have made 'better' choices earlier in life. In certain circumstances I might agree wholeheartedly, but when it comes to family vs career?? My God!

Women have such a rough ride no matter what they choose. Who cares whether or not we can have it all; society (and the high cost of living) demands it of us! We have to have a career and a family, unless we are in the minority of women who are born into or marry into massive pots of money (or unless we choose to live in poverty).

Despite the fact that 21st century life places these huge demands on us, it still jumps up and stings us regardless of what we choose. I chose the opposite of the OP's friend. Pre-baby I had a great, burgeoning career which I really enjoyed, had just been promoted, and imagined that I might have a chance to climb the career ladder and become the main wage-earner in my household. I had my baby in my early 30s. Within less than a year of having my wonderful child I was out on my ear with no job prospects and a looming recession. Since then I have found it a bloody nightmare to try and claw back some vague semblance of a career - as have all my friends who did not have jobs to go back to after mat leave.

The OP's friend made different choices than I did, and though I have really struggled with my career path in the past 18 months, given the choice of my struggles versus hers, it's a no-brainer.

Acinonyx · 15/06/2009 22:27

A child conceived with your own eggs via IVF is by definition not beyond your natural fertility and if it's donor eggs then there is no increased risk anyway.

Most children conceived to older mothers are fine - it's just that the minority with problems is a bigger minority than for younger mothers.

And I also cannot see how you can seperate the concept from the process - we live in a real world, not a theoretical one.

Acinonyx · 15/06/2009 22:33

Actually I have a friend just like the op's. Married for over 20 years then had a dc same time as me after a run of m/c. I never felt as the op did - whatever she had felt before her desire for a child later was clearly very real.

Some women do not want children until their 30s. What can be done about that? Neither do many men. Is that fair? Are they not 'allowed' to have stong maternal feelings if they didn't have them young enough?

duchesse · 16/06/2009 07:09

I'm in the "had a batch in my twenties, then started again at 40+" camp". I have to say I have never felt healthier in the last 7 years than I do now, aged 41, at 31 weeks pregnant with my fourth. I have no health problems, the baby is fine. Can't quite see what that dig was about. Obviously it is suboptimal for people in poor health to have babies, both for them and potentially for the baby, but what in this life is optimal?

fircone · 16/06/2009 07:53

I feel sorry for the OP (friend must be irritating) and for the friend herself. I think a generation was sold a dream: career, nice house, great husband - now add on the kids. But no one mentioned the biological clock.

I think that some women are unreasonable talking about "infertility" when they are in their 40s. It's really declining fertility, and natural. You might as well get to age 70 and say, "I'm ready now!" and then get annoyed and frustrated that you can't conceive. I've been there, with spades, so I'm not being unsympathetic. It's just that expecting to start a family when you are the wrong side of 40 is hopeful, not a right.

BBisfinallyPG · 16/06/2009 09:10

I think OP you ar ea horrible unsympathetic cow. and i dont say tht very often. SO your saying that if she had tried to concieve sooner she'd be worthy of sympathy and compassion but because she didnt she isnt? you sound like a bitch, well and truely. I take it you never struggled to concieve, explains the way that you have no idea of the pain it causes. im only 22 and ive struggled but because she had a career first she's not worthy of your sympathy?! i hope she has better friends than you.

you should say some hail marys lady.

AitchTwoOh · 16/06/2009 10:30

let she who is without sin cast the first stone, BB.

talbot · 16/06/2009 10:33

Out of interest, if the woman had left it until say 46, to try and conceive, would the response be the same?

Morloth · 16/06/2009 10:46

I don't think sympathy should have a time limit talbot.

If a woman "misses her boat" and decides later on that she wants babies, she has my sympathy. If she then decides to do something about it, she has my support.

Should we do it earlier if circumstances allow? Probably, but shit happens and life can throw up some pretty big changes of heart.

If a friend of mine is sad for any reason, she gets my sympathy and support, I couldn't call myself a friend otherwise.

Morloth · 16/06/2009 10:47

curiosity you sound like me 10 years ago. I was adamantly pro-life and just generally a bit silly.

Life changes you and what you think matters.

Cosmosis · 16/06/2009 11:54

Curiosity you are being ridiculous when you say that doctors are not being honest about the chances of success at various age groups, and selling a dream etc. No-one goes into treatment without knowing the statistics. I know myself that at 35 the chances are it will take me longer to get pregnant, that I am more likely to need help, that the chances of miscarriage and things like DS are higher. But that isn't something that is going to stop me trying, why should it? And why should it stop me thinking positive and thinking it's going to work out for me? You don't go into something thinking it's going to fail, you go into it optimistically, and really what is wrong with that?

lljkk · 16/06/2009 12:05

I kind of understand where OP is coming from (so possibly mostly YANBU).
If someone is in agonies for an extended period about infertility, and that's almost all they have to say whenever you see them, I would struggle to be supportive for very long. I'm just not that able to cope with intense emotion about something so optional to quality of life. Having children is a privilege, not a right. We don't all get everything we want in life.

And almost every woman knows that her biological clock starts ticking at 30 or so (younger in some cases). There is a tradeoff for career women, the media has widely scaremongered this fact for over 20 years.

OTOH, IVF sucks, it really can be a horrible ordeal. I guess if it were my friend I'd listen attentively and quietly when I had the energy but I might distance myself on days when I didn't think I could take the emotional drain of it.

MrsTittleMouse · 16/06/2009 12:20

Hm, yes, I suppose that children are "optional" for quality of life. It doesn't really work like that when you're having fertility problems though. It's like a bereavement, but it's a bereavement every month. Because until you hit the menopause, there is hope every month, that is then dashed every month. It's actually the hope that kills you.

I know that, even though DH and I are insanely grateful for our DDs, we would have found a way to have a meaningful life without children. But you can't do that until you know that there is no way that you can have children. Until then, there is always the hope, and it's like grieving for someone who might not actually be dead - I don't think that you can really do it, deep down in your heart.