Older parents (I mean OLDER)

Christina - posted on 04/26/2011

With as sick as that poor woman is, a pregnancy is likely to kill her AND the baby before she is far enough along to deliver safely. Sounds like this guy wants to knock her up, have her push the kid out, and then she can die immediately afterwards.

Maria - posted on 04/22/2011

Ditto AMBER exactly. Why be selfish and bring a child into the world that you wont see grow up wont be able to raise on your own and put that burden on them. Poor little baby! Its future is already destined before it is even born :(

There is a reason that women cant have children after a certain age . . .

Jodi - posted on 04/22/2011

That article HAS to be a joke.......
Sorry, but no 94 year old should be allowed to be a parent. IMO, this isn't a matter of her having that choice, is anyone thinking of the CHILD here? This child will NEVER know its mother (let's be realistic - at 94, it is statistically unlikely), and yes, may know its elderly father (just in time to look after him in his incapacitated old age), and is likely to be really fucked up. Sorry, I can't condone this. Of course it is going to be a surrogate, but that doesn't make it right. This man is proposing this purely for the publicity value.......

Laura Zoey - posted on 04/22/2011

If it's a donor egg, and a surrogate to carry it, then it's no more her baby then if she adopted a baby! Then it's just selfish to create a baby.

Susanne - posted on 04/22/2011

Charlotte they are having a surrogate to carry it

Charlotte - posted on 04/22/2011

even with a donor egg, she can't carry it, it probably won't even take, so if they want to waste money let them.

Sherri - posted on 04/22/2011

You are too old when you can not actually have a baby the natural way or by simple IVF.

Laura Zoey - posted on 04/21/2011

That's sad,
Aren't there enough babies being born without a 90 year old having another one? No matter whose idea it is, it just sounds wrong.

Susanne - posted on 04/20/2011

If you look at Zsa Zsa she cant look after herself at this point she cant walk or talk anymore so she cant even give consent to this mad idea. Her daughter even says that this is all her stepfathers mental idea. The bloke is a crackpot.

Teresa - posted on 04/20/2011

Why the hell would you want to have a baby in your 90's? Or even 60's? I could see MAYBE in your early 50's if you had never had a child before cuz you might reasonably expect to be around for another 20-30 years and see the baby become an adult... and maybe meet a grandchild or two.. But what is the point of intentionally having a baby that you know you won't be around to raise? To populate the earth? It's populated enough..... ;)

Toni - posted on 04/20/2011

I think that is incredibly selfish, even if she manages to live to over a hundred it is very very likely she will die before the kid is 10, it is unfair for a 10 year old child (or younger child) to have to deal with the fact their mum has died - even if they do have a nanny who cared for them!

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 04/20/2011

Oh for petes sake are you KIDDING ME?! That's obnoxious. How can you sanely give birth at that age and expect to live even 5 minutes longer to take care of your kids. Not like we can all predict how long we are going to live, but that's just dumb. Wow.. .....wow.. dumb.

Rosie - posted on 04/20/2011

crazy old people. have they been checked for dementia yet???

Angela - posted on 04/20/2011

If you read the article it's the 67- year-old husband who wants the child, and they would use a donor egg, (I don't think they could get an egg from a 94-yr-old if they wanted to!) I have an uncle who had a baby in his early 60's, however that was with his younger wife, so it's not the same thing, at least one of them should be around for a long while. I agree that a baby is not a good idea at that age, If he really wants a child he should adopt an older one, there are plenty of kids out there without parents already, why not help one of them? On the other hand, hard as it would be to lose one's parents as a child, is it worse than never having been born? Life IS a gift and if they actually did this I wouldn't waste too much energy feeling sorry for the child, who will after all, be provided for. The world is full of people in much worse situations, better to spend our sympathy and energy helping them than worrying about the foolishness of rich celebrities.

Susanne - posted on 04/20/2011

These are celebrities with too much time and money on their hands,they dont want a kid they want publicity. Its just sad.

Johnny - posted on 04/19/2011

I suppose if you think that knowing your parents is a luxury kids don't need, and that the potential birth defects from ancient eggs is no big deal, then go for it. I think it's irresponsible and selfish.

Joy - posted on 04/19/2011

Yeahhhh....I'm just gonna pretend that I didn't read that article lol
I wanna know how old Zsa Zsa's husband is. I don't remember seeing it in the article.

I think 94 is far too old, no matter how much money you have.

Allie - posted on 04/19/2011

I think I agree with Amber.. to knowingly bring a child into the world when you're a century old? My grandfather is in impeccable health for an 80 year old but he wouldn't DARE bring a child in (knowingly) because he wouldn't be able to care for it the way a child needs...



I guess I think in terms of if I were a child would I want my parent to die of old age when I was two? I would almost feel robbed of never getting a chance to get to know my parent(s).



I get what Amy says about having a nanny but still.. I just think its kinda.. for lack of a better word, selfish?





(and Amy I totally laughed out loud when I read "as long as she doesn't slap the kid's face"!!!)

Amber - posted on 04/19/2011

I think it's irresponsible. Regardless of having a guardian after they die, the child will still not have it's parents.
Yes, you may have an accident and die at any time. But when you are in your 90's you can guarantee that you will not see your child very far into their life. Sure, maybe an accident will happen to a young, healthy mother. But it's less likely than somebody in their 90's dying because it's their time.
It's more probable for a 90+ year old to die than a person in their natural child bearing years.

Amy - posted on 04/19/2011

As long as they have a will/guardian in place in case they die...Eh, doesn't bother me. I mean, she's not likely the one actually raising the child, but a nanny hired and the surrogate mother will likely be involved. Maybe she's just trying to cut hiltons somehow. social cut. As long as she doesn't slap the kid's face [get it,anyone?] it doesn't bother me.

I've heard of a couple in India that were in 70s - to be without children in that culture is devastating. They conceived and had a beautiful child. Children are a blessing. If you can financially do it, have someone to care for the child, then I don't see any age limit. People say "oh well they'll die before they're in high school...."etc. Hell, I don't know if I'll survive the weekend. You just never know.

To me there isn't a too old.