66 year old woman pregnant

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st-mother.html

Yet again, giving this a new thread so it doesn't take one over. XD The sterlisation thread doesn't need to be taken off on a tangent.

Personally, I think that this woman is being incredibly selfish and that the doctor who did this should be struck off. When this woman's child is a teenager, she could be dead. An innocent child could end up being orphaned at a very young age purely cuz of this stupid woman's selfishness and putting her own needs first. For the record, I'd say the exact same thing about a 66 year old father; save that if he fathered a child the normal way, ie with a young woman, the child would at the very least have its mother around to raise it. This woman is however planning to raise the child as a single mother.

Menopause is there for a reason; it's nature's way of saying, "You are too old to have kids." I don't see that there is any reason whatsoever to override nature in this way; if she wants kids around here, she could always foster them or help out at a playschool.

[blas87]

Ya know, years ago, when men and women had several children to actually help with the house and the farm and whatnot, I can understand why women had babies up until that very last egg. But nowadays, no. We do not need these large families to keep up with the family business and due to all the advances in the medical fields, there is no reason to start having babies as early as possible and to keep having them until that very last egg.

Heck, my grandma was in her 40s when my dad was born, my grandpa was 50. If grandpa were still alive today, he'd be 96 years old. But they had a farm, and all those kids were a big part of keeping that farm going.

[Lace Neil Singer]

This was not a natural birth; it was done thru IVF which is meant to be there to help infertile couples. This is not a woman who was unable to have children due to sickness, infertility, tragedy etc; this is, to put it bluntly, a pensioner who missed the boat. In ten years time she could have developed dementia; then the poor kid will be stuck as a child carer, looking after his or her senile mother. It doesn't matter a bit if she "feels 39", nature doesn't care about how old a person feels.

[blas87]

Wow. What a crazy old bat.

And yes, that'd be absolutely horrible if that poor kid/pre-teen would end up having to care for their elderly parent when they are in no position to even be taking care of themselves alone!

[DesignFox]

You know, I seriously wonder at the existence of fertility clinics. If you can't have kids, nature probably has a reason for it. Either you aren't supposed to reproduce because there is something genetically wrong with you (and evolution doesn't want you passing that on to future generations) or you're too old and you aren't supposed to be having them anymore.

Pregnancy puts a lot of stress and strain on the body. At 66, should you really be fucking around with that sort of thing? And while I agree that people are living longer, overall healthier lives, what about those people wallowing on the edge of existence...dementia setting in...crippling arthritis...medicine chests full of pills for heart problems, etc? How can someone like that keep up with a child? What happens to your child if you develop something like that in your 70's and the kid is only 4 years old???

I mean... I dunno. I guess it's your body, so your choice...but I would be thinking about the child and what kind of quality of life that kid can possibly have with a parent old enough to be their grandparent.....

And before anyone says it...I know shit happens and even kids with "normal" aged parents get orphaned or whatever... (trust me, I know, my Mom died when I was 13) but it's far different to be bearing children when you're biologically "supposed" to be- the risks and complications aren't as life threatening (in the vast majority of cases).

Just....WOW. That's all I can say.

[Boozy]

You know, I seriously wonder at the existence of fertility clinics. If you can't have kids, nature probably has a reason for it. Either you aren't supposed to reproduce because there is something genetically wrong with you (and evolution doesn't want you passing that on to future generations) or you're too old and you aren't supposed to be having them anymore.

I know several women with fertility issues, and they are not "too old". One started trying to get pregnant at the age of 25.

There is most certainly nothing "genetically wrong" with them, either. Other than the fertility concerns, they are completely healthy and have living parents and grandparents. They have a great deal to offer a child as parents.

Adoption is much more expensive than many types of fertility treatments, and it can lead to such heartbreak in those first few months before everything is finalized. There are also compelling biological reasons to want your own child. It's easy for people who don't want kids or who can easily have their own to be blase about it, but it's a different story for those who desperately want kids of their own and can't have them. And it probably doesn't help any for them to hear that nature doesn't want them to have kids because something is "wrong" with them.

I don't agree with a 66 year-old having kids, especially since she's going to be a single parent. But don't lump all people who need fertility assistance into one category.

[DesignFox]

Well I certainly wouldn't consider someone who is 25 to be "too old." But if you've reached menopause, you certainly are. At that point, you can't reproduce because your body is telling you your time is up. That is dangerous to both the mother and the baby's well being, and I think it is wrong.

*shrug* I really didn't mean to be offensive. While some people certainly are healthy, and for various reasons may not be able to have children as a couple (hey, maybe the guy's sperm count is too low...maybe motility is bad... maybe for some reason the mother is perfectly healthy, but the eggs aren't released right, I don't know, I'm not a doctor) it can certainly be argued that some people cannot have children because they should not (I'm talking severe health issues- not just that the water works need a little push in the right direction).

Either the risk of injury to the mother is too great, the risk of birth defect in the child, Mom won't survive the delivery...whatever. I get why people want their own children. In some extreme cases (like this case of the 66 year old woman) I just don't think fertility treatments are "right."

And seriously, what's the difference between adoption and delivering it yourself if it isn't your own or your partner's genetic material, anyway? Just because it grew inside of you? I suppose if I spoke to other mothers, they would say that is all that makes the difference. But personally, I don't think I'd want to destroy my body carrying someone else's genetic material (I understand why some surrogates would freely choose to do this for family members, etc. but with a complete stranger's DNA to raise as your own?).

I guess, not having much of a maternal instinct myself, I just don't "get" it.

I apologize for seeming callous. And believe me, I do find it tragic that there are women out there who want nothing more than to have a baby and by their nature are denied that desire, while there are others on the scale who want nothing to do with children and yet are "blessed" with rabbit like fertility.

I just don't think having a baby is a "right" that should be thrown about and bought and sold- same as (though fiercely pro-choice) I don't believe abortion should be some la-di-da form of birth control.

I come from a mother with broken water-works. Her doctor told her she'd never have kids. Yet, she got lucky. Without fertility treatments (and trust me, my mother was lucky- damn lucky- she was able to carry a baby) she had me and 12 years later, my brother. By all odds, I really shouldn't be here having this discussion with you guys.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I had mine at 42. It wasn't planned (well, other than the boffing with no contraceptive and figuring what happens happens part) and frankly I didn't think I'd get pregnant because I'd had fertility issues my whole life. I haven't had another one becaue of my age. A 66 year old woman isn't even likely to carry a child to term. Hell, at my age I'm not likely to, either, at this point.

And that's not even the main reason I haven't had another one. I live in constant fear that something will happen to me and leave my child without a mother. I mean, anyone can die at any age, but let's face it, at my age, my chance to have any number of age related calamities befall me is a bit higher than if I were younger. Seriously, it really eats at me.

And another thing, I am young for my age but I have nowhere near the energy levels I'd like. I cannot even begin to IMAGINE running after a toddler at that age. How is she going to manage that child when that child is a teenager? I'll be that old when mine is a teenager, and I can only hope I am strong enough for it.

[tropicsgoddess]

Wow.....that's incredibly late to have a child. My aunt married at 32 (and still is to the same man for 13 years), had her first child at 36 and then had her last child at 40, both were NOT elective cesareans. I'm 25 right now and I know that the biological clock is ticking for me to start having kids, but I'm not ready for one yet since right now I'm not ready for one at all, especially in this economy. That would be unfair to the child to have to deal with having to take care of it's mother at a young age and the death as well. Besides that, how would she even have the energy to play and keep up with a young child?!! She could've adopted, become a foster parent or volunteer in a school or something.

[Cats]

I said it in another topic, and I'll say it again...while I know adoption is costly, I find it pretty selfish for people to not be willing to try love a child that isn't of their DNA; especially when they're messing with fertility treatments when there is many risks to the mother and potential child (I know pregnancy itself carries risks, I'm talking the non-normal ones)!

While I know it's not black-and-white, I'm with Fox here, if you're unable to reproduce on your own, chances are, that's natures way of saying you shouldn't. Now of course for young people who just need a little help, I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't breed. But for older couples who spend tens of thousands of dollars just to TRY to get pregnant (and can end up with mutiples in the process)? No, just...no. Menopause exists for a reason.

IMO, after early 40s, baby bank should be closed. Who would want to be nearing retirement when your kid is just graduating from high school?

I think it's partially the fault of these crazy old bats who want to have children after nature says "stop" that are the reason doc's tend to refuse to sterilize woman until later in life. After reading this article, I have to say, while I don't like it, I kinda can't blame them entirely either, maybe they fear they'd become a woman like this one!

[DesignFox]

Thank you, Cats. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say!

[MannersMakethMan]

It's as much for the sake of her own health that it's not to be advised at her time of life. Heck, they were telling my mum at age 35 when she was having me that she ought to be thinking whether having me was a good idea, due to the strain on a woman her age and the increased potential for birth defects. Same thing again 2 years later when she had my sister, only more serious. You can only imagine the risks she'll be putting both herself and her baby through, and that's just during the birth.

[AFPheonix]

I don't know if she's using her own eggs or not, because that can have some detrimental affects on the potential baby too.

My mom had me when she was 44. More commonplace now, but back in 1980, it was kind of a big deal. I was the only kid out of 6 they knew the gender on because they had to keep more of an eye on me to make sure I wasn't going to turn out to have issues or have Down's. The chances of defects on the baby goes up with the age of the mother, too.

[Flyndaran]

To rock all your minds, my great great aunt had kids well until her 50s with no complications or birth defects.
Imagine having a 30 year difference between siblings from the same mom.

Also for those saying that there must be a reason for infertility. Would you say that about any other physical limitation?
Besides, we are humans, the poster child for arguing with nature.

[DesignFox]

To rock all your minds, my great great aunt had kids well until her 50s with no complications or birth defects.
Imagine having a 30 year difference between siblings from the same mom.

Also for those saying that there must be a reason for infertility. Would you say that about any other physical limitation?
Besides, we are humans, the poster child for arguing with nature.

Hey. If you can do that naturally, more power to you. But if you've gone through MENAPAUSE and only NOW want kids? No. Just no. Your body has told you your time is up for a reason. Most of those reasons are unnecessary risks to both you AND the baby.

As for infertility, like I said, I take a middle ground on this. If something just needs a little help, hey, I've got no problem with it. If there is a serious medical reason WHY your body won't let you reproduce, and you go through leaps and bounds to do so anyway...I have a problem with that.

There are plenty of children in need of loving homes. I don't understand this selfish need to make sure you bore it yourself when the risks to yourself or the child are high. Especially in the cases where you aren't even using your own genetic material. What's the point? The whole point of having your own is that it's your DNA being passed on to the future generations. Like I said, never having wanted to experience pregnancy myself- maybe I don't understand it, but that's all these women want. And they feel the child is "theirs" simply because they baked it and delivered it.

But if I'm going to put my body through that torment, I'd sure as hell want it to at least be to pass my own or my partner's genes. Not a combination of a total stranger's. If that's the case, why not adopt? The child is just as much "yours" either way.

And you're right. We are the poster children of arguing with nature. A lot of us sit here and block nature from taking its course, the other half is nudging or forcing nature to allow them to do it.

We're never happy as a species are we?