Pregnant 66 year old...

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Absolutely not right at all! This is the problem with this situation. The woman has done it because SHE wants to without a thought for the life that the child will have with a geriatric parent. It's so not right!

Terry - posted on 05/20/2009

To each their own, although thought needs to be given to the child and what will happen to that child in years to come. Carrying a child for someone else at this age is fine, I would have done that in a heartbeat, if I were still able to have children (my choice). On the other hand, I went to high school with a girl at 14 she was taking care of her parents as they were 70+ yrs old. She absolutely had no child life to speak of, she woke up early in the morning to make sure her parents had everything they needed while she was at school and there was no after school sports, play time, nothing for her because she had to take care of her parents...in the meantime, keep her grades up. Mind you she was extremely intelligent, but where did it get her? Can you honestly say that at 14 years old this is the life you would have chosen for yourself? Being the caregiver of your parents when you should be out enjoying your teens. It is because of her situation, I made the decision that I wouldn't have children after a certain age. Personally, I think it is very selfish, and had I not been able to conceive a child before the age that I had set for myself, we would have adopted...fostered...anything else but get pregnant at 50+ years old.

Also, while I knew this girl's situation at home, I couldn't help but notice that she actually looked way older then an average 14 yr. old...she really honestly looked more like 35 to 40 years old...is that right?

Terry - posted on 05/20/2009

To each their own, although thought needs to be given to the child and what will happen to that child in years to come. Carrying a child for someone else at this age is fine, I would have done that in a heartbeat, if I were still able to have children (my choice). On the other hand, I went to high school with a girl at 14 she was taking care of her parents as they were 70+ yrs old. She absolutely had no child life to speak of, she woke up early in the morning to make sure her parents had everything they needed while she was at school and there was no after school sports, play time, nothing for her because she had to take care of her parents...in the meantime, keep her grades up. Mind you she was extremely intelligent, but where did it get her? Can you honestly say that at 14 years old this is the life you would have chosen for yourself? Being the caregiver of your parents when you should be out enjoying your teens. It is because of her situation, I made the decision that I wouldn't have children after a certain age. Personally, I think it is very selfish, and had I not been able to conceive a child before the age that I had set for myself, we would have adopted...fostered...anything else but get pregnant at 50+ years old.

Also, while I knew this girl's situation at home, I couldn't help but notice that she actually looked way older then an average 14 yr. old...she really honestly looked more like 35 to 40 years old...is that right?

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

It's about whether you can give your child everything they need, mentally, physically and emotionally, to become a well-rounded individual who can contribute positively to the world.

~Jennifer - posted on 05/20/2009

I was reading about this on another forum prior to it becoming a topic on COM. What someone had said on that forum was what made me want to consider this in more depth. Here is the quote:

*"Should this woman's right to become pregnant be limited because of her ability to raise it?"
because if that's a fair question to ask a lot fewer people will be allowed to have babies.*

The key word is 'ability'. That word crosses age, financial status, intelligence level, moral compass, maturity, etc...
Just one example: Think about welfare / assistance programs. Do those people have the 'ability' to raise a child? Maybe yes mentally, but certainly not the financial ability to do so. Are they to be told they're not 'allowed'? What exactly defines 'ability'?

For me, I guess it comes down to wondering exactly how much or what we are being told that we can do with our own bodies; our own lives. I'm wondering where we draw the line on thinking that what we believe to be right or wrong is right or wrong for someone else, and who is the person that should make that decision. Everyone has their opinion, but if it's 'your' opinion, in essence, it's you saying what's right for you. Why should we have the right to say what's right or wrong for someone else, just because it wouldn't be the choice we would make?

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

To repeat myself, where I live, it is illegal to have sex before the age of 16. This is because under this age (and for a few years after in my opinion) you are a child and therefore too young to bring up a child yourself.



Also, girls tend to hit puberty earlier than they used too because they are over-fed, overweight and are eating food with all sorts of nasties in (growth hormones, steroids etc) so therefore, Mother Nature has been tampered with and it.



It comes back down to ethics and morals again. It's not ethical or morally right to have sex with a child and rightly, that is against the law. It isn't, however, against the law for a child to give birth and this too is right.

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Hey, what can I say? Great minds think alike!

~Jennifer - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Ruth:

When I said the law, I was referring to minors. Mother Nature already determines when a woman is too old to reproduce so we don't need a law for that.

Mother Nature also determines when a woman IS old enough to have a baby (1st menstrual cycle?)

So do we believe Mother Nature, or the law?

Esther - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Ruth:

When I said the law, I was referring to minors. Mother Nature already determines when a woman is too old to reproduce so we don't need a law for that.

Ruth - you're my kind of woman. And I see your son & mine share the same name - Lucas.

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

When I said the law, I was referring to minors. Mother Nature already determines when a woman is too old to reproduce so we don't need a law for that.

Joy - posted on 05/20/2009

I don't think there should be any laws about when is too old or too young to have children. To me, that's just having the government's nose in my personal life more than I'm comfortable with. I think that with minors, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Was rape or incest involved? Is the girl's family able to help? Is adoption an option? That's for a child. But to say someone is too old? Where do you draw that line? And who is anyone to draw that line? Laws were meant to protect us...not to dictate such a personal decision. If we start letting the government make such decisions for us, we open ourselves up to a whole mess of other issues that they will try to govern next.

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Exactly. She should know better. And that's why I think she has more money than sense. She's doing it simply because SHE wants to, with little regard for the child or the future.



At 16, you're still a child and make stupid mistakes. A woman of 66 should be more responsible.

Esther - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Ruth:

Simple. Whatever Mother Nature deems it to be (or the law). Yes, girls as young as 10 have become mothers, but where I come from, it's illegal to have sex before the age of 16. If you can't naturally produce children because you're menopausal (not sure if that's how it works - not at that stage yet!) then that's your body saying you're physically too old.

I agree. Also, I expect a 66 year old woman (especially one as educated as this one) to make better choices than a 16-year-old and seriously consider the consequences of her actions on others. Also, most 16-year-olds who get pregnant did not set out to do so, unlike this woman. Further, a young girl at least can still grow up and mature. A 66 year old cannot get younger.

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Simple. Whatever Mother Nature deems it to be (or the law). Yes, girls as young as 10 have become mothers, but where I come from, it's illegal to have sex before the age of 16. If you can't naturally produce children because you're menopausal (not sure if that's how it works - not at that stage yet!) then that's your body saying you're physically too old.

~Jennifer - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Jennifer:

 

If you were this child in the future....would you rather never have been born at all, or would you rather have a long fulfilling life because someone was selfless enough to give it to you?

Try to look at it from both sides.

I would rather have my life, my children and their future....than to never have been here because my mom thought she was 'too old'.  As much as I would miss my 'older' mom....I would remember that one of the last things she did before leaving this earth, was to leave ME here.

What if this woman's son is the man that brings peace to the world?

And what if this woman's son is the next Jack the Ripper (thought I'd go with a UK figure) because his mom died when he was 6 years old. That is such a nonsensical argument.

And as for "nobody is guaranteed tomorrow", that's true, but the odds of a 28 year old having a few more tomorrows are far greater than those of a 66 year old.

It's a selfish act.

Alright, so what should be the cut off age for having children?  What's the top end number at which a woman should be told " No, you're not allowed...."? 

(.....and if there's a case of being 'too old'  then shouldn't there be a case of 'too young'? - who decides where that line is?)

Esther - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Ruth:

Sorry, but I think this is a silly lady with more money than sense.

No-one says that using a nanny is wrong but she's using one because she NEEDS to because she's physically too old to look after the child by herself.

No-one can say for sure that they'll be around for another 10, 20 years to look after their child, but a parent aged 25, 35, 45 is far more likely to see their child grow up than a parent of 66.

Everyone says it's her choice or right, but with rights come responsibilities. Even alcoholics and drug addicts have the 'right' to get pregnant but it's not morally correct or ethical to do so.

Yes, we'd applaud her if she was looking after her grandkids at this age because that WOULD be a selfless act which she would be doing out of duty. It's completely different to being artificially inseminated because you feel like you might like a baby.

Getting pregnant isn't a right. It's a huge responsibilty and you have to think about the future. If I was alcoholic, a smoker, or would pass on a crippling diasabilty to my child then, despite my being within my rights to get pregnant, it would be morally wrong and very selfish of me to do so.

There are so many children out there who have nothing and no-one and would love to have a rich lady look after them. It's seems a shame to artificially produce more children when she could give so much to children who are already born.

Well said

Esther - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Jennifer:

 

If you were this child in the future....would you rather never have been born at all, or would you rather have a long fulfilling life because someone was selfless enough to give it to you?

Try to look at it from both sides.

I would rather have my life, my children and their future....than to never have been here because my mom thought she was 'too old'.  As much as I would miss my 'older' mom....I would remember that one of the last things she did before leaving this earth, was to leave ME here.

What if this woman's son is the man that brings peace to the world?

And what if this woman's son is the next Jack the Ripper (thought I'd go with a UK figure) because his mom died when he was 6 years old. That is such a nonsensical argument.

And as for "nobody is guaranteed tomorrow", that's true, but the odds of a 28 year old having a few more tomorrows are far greater than those of a 66 year old.

It's a selfish act.

Natalee - posted on 05/20/2009

i personally think that to have a baby at 66 is a bit too old. but on the other hand i was a mum at 16 which some people could argue is too young, it works both ways! i think if she has the support from friends and family then she will do as good as job as a mother at 30. good luck i say xx

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

I'm undecided on IVF. I understand a woman's need to be a mother, really I do, but I think if you're infertile and able to adopt (and I understand it's hard to adopt as there is very strict criteria that you have to fit into), then I think you should.



I just don't think it's right to artificially create more children when there are millions across the globe who could benefit from your wealth and love.



For the same reason, I don't agree with huge families where parents have 10 kids etc. just because they want to.



This is a massively over-populated planet. Everyone has a responsibilty to make the world a better place. We should look at the big picture - the whole world - and not just our individual wants and 'rights'.

~Jennifer - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Ruth:

Sorry, but I think this is a silly lady with more money than sense.

No-one says that using a nanny is wrong but she's using one because she NEEDS to because she's physically too old to look after the child by herself.

No-one can say for sure that they'll be around for another 10, 20 years to look after their child, but a parent aged 25, 35, 45 is far more likely to see their child grow up than a parent of 66.

Everyone says it's her choice or right, but with rights come responsibilities. Even alcoholics and drug addicts have the 'right' to get pregnant but it's not morally correct or ethical to do so.

Yes, we'd applaud her if she was looking after her grandkids at this age because that WOULD be a selfless act which she would be doing out of duty. It's completely different to being artificially inseminated because you feel like you might like a baby.

Getting pregnant isn't a right. It's a huge responsibilty and you have to think about the future. If I was alcoholic, a smoker, or would pass on a crippling diasabilty to my child then, despite my being within my rights to get pregnant, it would be morally wrong and very selfish of me to do so.

There are so many children out there who have nothing and no-one and would love to have a rich lady look after them. It's seems a shame to artificially produce more children when she could give so much to children who are already born.

So what about IVF for a couple in their 30's?  Should they not 'artificially' produce a child because there's already too many adoptable children in the world?

Where do you draw the line?

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Sorry, but I think this is a silly lady with more money than sense.



No-one says that using a nanny is wrong but she's using one because she NEEDS to because she's physically too old to look after the child by herself.



No-one can say for sure that they'll be around for another 10, 20 years to look after their child, but a parent aged 25, 35, 45 is far more likely to see their child grow up than a parent of 66.



Everyone says it's her choice or right, but with rights come responsibilities. Even alcoholics and drug addicts have the 'right' to get pregnant but it's not morally correct or ethical to do so.



Yes, we'd applaud her if she was looking after her grandkids at this age because that WOULD be a selfless act which she would be doing out of duty. It's completely different to being artificially inseminated because you feel like you might like a baby.



Getting pregnant isn't a right. It's a huge responsibilty and you have to think about the future. If I was alcoholic, a smoker, or would pass on a crippling diasabilty to my child then, despite my being within my rights to get pregnant, it would be morally wrong and very selfish of me to do so.



There are so many children out there who have nothing and no-one and would love to have a rich lady look after them. It's seems a shame to artificially produce more children when she could give so much to children who are already born.

Shannon - posted on 05/20/2009

I think this is a stupid QUESTION>>get on here and talk about your children. Dont worry about what other people are doing with their life! Its her life, her baby and her V! Who cares! Let the lady be!

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

You can't naturally have a baby at that age - it's your body's way of telling you you're too old!



As for her being selfLESS as she's giving someone life... that's a stupid argument! Before a person is conceived, they don't exist. It's like saying male masturbation is wrong because of all the potential people you're murdering!



If she's so concerned about giving life, how about being a foster-carer to all of the unloved, unwanted, uncared for children in the country who are already born?



Never mind this woman's 'rights', what about moral and ethical responsibilties to herself and others?

Sharni - posted on 05/20/2009

personally i don't think that she has made a very smart decision but each to their own. my concerns are not only for the childs health as it develops in her body, but her own health as she progresses through the pregnancy. i know that being pregnant took a big toll on my body and i'm a very healthy 23 year old. women's bodies are built for child rearing but there is a limit to how much a body can take and i just wonder at that age, will her body (or her mind for that matter) be able to cope with the stress and strain of being pregnant. she may be a fit and healthy woman but pregnancy can soon change that and it can become life threatening if things don't go according to plan. not to mention actually giving birth which has an element of danger even if the pregnancy has been a breeze. i believe that it's possible that both their lives can be in danger and she might not have to worry bout how she will cope running after a toddler. as awful as it is to think about but this pregnancy could really ruin her health. i just hope that she is smart about taking care of herself and focuses on bringing that baby into the world safely for both of them.



people are right in saying that she might not see that child grow up, as are people right in saying that young parents might not make it to tomorrow. the only difference with the young and the old is that in leiu of there being some terrible accident or health problem, the old are enevitably going to die first. sad but true. i wish her all the luck in the world and just hope for her child's sake that she survives the pregnancy, birth and has happy life with her baby.

Esther - posted on 05/20/2009

I think it's horribly selfish and any doctor who assisted her in getting pregnant should have his license revoked.

Joi - posted on 05/20/2009

I just hope that the baby is born healthy.....my thoughts on her age, well alshiemerzers (spelling) must have hit in and she thinks shes younger

Selina - posted on 05/20/2009

I think it will make her happy, but I also think it is very irresponsible and selfish of her. She should have thought about what her child will have to go through emotionally when he/she looses their mother at a very young age. The baby will basically be growing up without a mother. I think it is sad.

Agnes - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Sarah:

I wonder if she has put much thought into the future, she will be 77 when that child is 10, the baby will end up looking after mum when they should be being a kid. It's putting alot of responsiblity onto a child having a mother at that age.

excellent point to consider.

I wish her and the father the best of luck & a happy and healthy baby! But indeed, I do wonder how it must be like for a child to be picked up at school by a mother who looks like her grandmother, knowing that it is very likely to loose her parents at a relatively young age, that her(his) own kids will never know their grandmother (unless they plan on being teenage parents, as a way to compensate maybe).  But the point Sarah is raising, didn't even occur to me until I read her post. Indeed: at some point, the parents will be in need of help. Ok, some 80 year olds are amazingly fit and modern and whatever but most become dependant on all sorts of help.Is it appropriate to burden your child with this or having it grow up with this kind of experience?

Are we not tolerant enough that we already have a judgment ready for someone we do not know, except for her age and condemn her choice just based on this one fact? Or should society indeed be alert to these kind of individual choices that can affect the lives of unborn children in a dramatic way? The truth is that we do not know this woman, her spirit, her energy, the social community around her, if she already had other children or whether this will be her first, how she has thought about it and how she has planned to deal with certain issues. Perhaps she is a very responsable person, inventive, creative, energetic, healthy and with the best intentions in the world.

I am not sure whether we should debate this. should we?

Agnes - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Sarah:

I wonder if she has put much thought into the future, she will be 77 when that child is 10, the baby will end up looking after mum when they should be being a kid. It's putting alot of responsiblity onto a child having a mother at that age.

excellent point to consider.

I wish her and the father the best of luck & a happy and healthy baby! But indeed, I do wonder how it must be like for a child to be picked up at school by a mother who looks like her grandmother, knowing that it is very likely to loose her parents at a relatively young age, that her(his) own kids will never know their grandmother (unless they plan on being teenage parents, as a way to compensate maybe).  But the point Sarah is raising, didn't even occur to me until I read her post. Indeed: at some point, the parents will be in need of help. Ok, some 80 year olds are amazingly fit and modern and whatever but most become dependant on all sorts of help.Is it appropriate to burden your child with this or having it grow up with this kind of experience?

Are we not tolerant enough that we already have a judgment ready for someone we do not know, except for her age and condemn her choice just based on this one fact? Or should society indeed be alert to these kind of individual choices that can affect the lives of unborn children in a dramatic way? The truth is that we do not know this woman, her spirit, her energy, the social community around her, if she already had other children or whether this will be her first, how she has thought about it and how she has planned to deal with certain issues. Perhaps she is a very responsable person, inventive, creative, energetic, healthy and with the best intentions in the world.

I am not sure whether we should debate this. should we?

Ruth - posted on 05/20/2009

Disgusting, self-indulgent and selfish...Yuk :-(

Agnes - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Sarah:

I wonder if she has put much thought into the future, she will be 77 when that child is 10, the baby will end up looking after mum when they should be being a kid. It's putting alot of responsiblity onto a child having a mother at that age.

excellent point to consider.

I wish her and the father the best of luck & a happy and healthy baby! But indeed, I do wonder how it must be like for a child to be picked up at school by a mother who looks like her grandmother, knowing that it is very likely to loose her parents at a relatively young age, that her(his) own kids will never know their grandmother (unless they plan on being teenage parents, as a way to compensate maybe).  But the point Sarah is raising, didn't even occur to me until I read her post. Indeed: at some point, the parents will be in need of help. Ok, some 80 year olds are amazingly fit and modern and whatever but most become dependant on all sorts of help.Is it appropriate to burden your child with this or having it grow up with this kind of experience?

Are we not tolerant enough that we already have a judgment ready for someone we do not know, except for her age and condemn her choice just based on this one fact? Or should society indeed be alert to these kind of individual choices that can affect the lives of unborn children in a dramatic way? The truth is that we do not know this woman, her spirit, her energy, the social community around her, if she already had other children or whether this will be her first, how she has thought about it and how she has planned to deal with certain issues. Perhaps she is a very responsable person, inventive, creative, energetic, healthy and with the best intentions in the world.

I am not sure whether we should debate this. should we?

Cathy - posted on 05/20/2009

I have very young Grandparents. My Nan is only 67. They've always been very active and fit but my Grandad now in his 70s is slowing down fast.

Just because she feels very fit and active now doesn't mean the same will be true in five years time when she has to run around after a five year old.

What about the health risks to both mother and baby at 66? There are reasons the cut off age for IVF in the UK is 50. In the Ukraine, where she recieved the treatment, they don't assess the womens health, age or fitness. You just have to have the money !

I personally don't agree with adoption or fostering laws that exclude people on age. There are great women out there raising their grandchildren out of neccessity but this is choice. And a dangerous choice.

Kate - posted on 05/20/2009

I don't know, my mother is three years younger than her and she is a grandmother of 8! If she put off having kids on purpose until her working life was over, and is now trying to make up for it, then she should have thought about it before putting her career before having a family. In my opinion IVF should not be given to women who are beyond the natural child-bearing age, its just not natural.



It is very unfair on the child that she will have, when he/she starts school they will have a 71 year old collecting them at the gate. It is unlikely that she will see them graduate or get married or ever become a grandmother. When the child is still young they may end up responsible for a physically or mentally inpaired parent. Not really fair on them.

Kate - posted on 05/20/2009

I don't know, my mother is three years younger than her and she is a grandmother of 8! If she put off having kids on purpose until her working life was over, and is now trying to make up for it, then she should have thought about it before putting her career before having a family. In my opinion IVF should not be given to women who are beyond the natural child-bearing age, its just not natural.



It is very unfair on the child that she will have, when he/she starts school they will have a 71 year old collecting them at the gate. It is unlikely that she will see them graduate or get married or ever become a grandmother. When the child is still young they may end up responsible for a physically or mentally inpaired parent. Not really fair on them.

Judy - posted on 05/20/2009

i think it is great if she wants a child then why can`t she

Rachel - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Joy:

I was just sitting with my husband discussing how each other's days went and I told him about this thread. We talked about it for a few minutes and something dawned on me that no one has mentioned so far. Why is it ok for men to create children well into "old" age, and yet it's not ok for a woman to do the same? You're thinking, well if a man makes a baby at 66, chances are that he's with a younger woman who will still be there to raise the child if or when Daddy dies, right? Does that make losing Daddy to old age any less painful? No. But it happens all the time and no one ever blinks an eye. An old man becomes a father and people pat him on the back and say "Well done!" In my eyes, it's no different than this 66 year old woman. She has the right to do whatever she wants to and just because some of you don't agree with her decision, doesn't make it wrong. Personally I would not have made that same choice but then again, I'm not in her shoes either so I can't say what I would do if I was. And if the docs are right and she has the body of a 39 year old (which is what they said on the news here last night), then who's to say she won't out live us all? God, I HOPE I have the body of a 39 year old when I'm 66.....dream on Joy, dream on lol

Rachel - posted on 05/20/2009

I think it is, selfish, irresponsible and wrong. We go on about teenage pregnancies, whats the differance? Ok so she may be mature enough and be able to support child financialy, but who is going to support/look after child if her health fails her? And at that age there unfortunatly is a high risk of it doing so!! I do not think it should have been allowed, i believe it was through IVF? Well it is her choice, it is happening so i wish her all the best as i think she is going to need it. I just hope for the childs sake that she has thought this through and has a plan in place if things go wrong for her!! She will be 80 when the child is only 14 years old, lets hope that the child does not end up being her carer as it is unfair and jolly hard work!!!!

Rachel - posted on 05/20/2009

I think it is, selfish, irresponsible and wrong. We go on about teenage pregnancies, whats the differance? Ok so she may be mature enough and be able to support child financialy, but who is going to support/look after child if her health fails her? And at that age there unfortunatly is a high risk of it doing so!! I do not think it should have been allowed, i believe it was through IVF? Well it is her choice, it is happening so i wish her all the best as i think she is going to need it. I just hope for the childs sake that she has thought this through and has a plan in place if things go wrong for her!! She will be 80 when the child is only 14 years old, lets hope that the child does not end up being her carer as it is unfair and jolly hard work!!!!

Sarah - posted on 05/20/2009

i don't think it's right that she was given IVF at 66. (and neither did the UK as she had to go to the Ukraine to get it done) women's bodies are not supposed to produce children after a certain age, that's the way nature intended it. now i know some people will say that nature didn't intend for IVF at all, but the way i see it, the younger women who receive IVF have been trying for years and years to conceive and due to whatever medical problems have failed but they yearn for a baby so opt for IVF. so far as i know, this woman has been too busy being a career woman to worry about having kids, she's had a good 30yrs to decide whether or not she wanted kids, and to me the fact she got to 66 seems to suggest she wasn't that bothered til she started to think she might die a lonely old lady! As for the point people keep raising about 'at least she's financially well off' since when is the amount of money you have an indication of how much you will love and care and provide for your child?? so there's my two cents worth! :)

Letitia - posted on 05/20/2009

sorry just read thro some of the other posts. It makes me angry to think there are people out there that are younger, couples and more able to give a child a stable surronding that are finding it hard to concieve or can not concieve that are not helped or have to be on a very long waiting list and a 66 year old women gets to have a child where is the sence in that???????????????

Laura - posted on 05/20/2009

I noticed that a lot of people are quick to judge. But someone on here made a good point- There are many of us that are less equipped to have children, and yet, we still did. How is it any better for a 15-17 girl to have a baby- living out on the streets, welfare, food stamps, etc...She, at least, has the financial support, to raise a child no matter what happens. Just because she waited so long, or God decided to finally let it happen (because if it wasn't suppose to happen, nothing would've let her conceive- no matter how much money or donor embryos) doesn't mean we need to start judging and saying stuff.



I'm 18 years old, I have a 3 1/2 month old baby... I get exhausted sometimes too, but because I work 10 hours a day, and sit on my butt all day. Therefore, when I get home I am tired and lazy, and will get exhausted caring for a child. But I can't put my lifestyle in her context. How do I know, or you for that matter, know how she lives? My mom is 55 years old, and she probably has more energy to care for my child than I do. Because the love for a child will give you the energy to care him or her.



So the first one with "no sin" throw the first rock. None of us can do that. What if you were in her position? How would you like it if everyone said so much 'crap' about you? And don't say you'd never do this (have a child)so late in life), because you don't know whats going to happen in 5-10 years.



Just don't put yourself in the position to swallow your own words- because its going to be rough going down. Be open minded, and if you can't support her. Don't say anything at all. Karma will bite you in the ass.

Laura - posted on 05/20/2009

I noticed that a lot of people are quick to judge. But someone on here made a good point- There are many of us that are less equipped to have children, and yet, we still did. How is it any better for a 15-17 girl to have a baby- living out on the streets, welfare, food stamps, etc...She, at least, has the financial support, to raise a child no matter what happens. Just because she waited so long, or God decided to finally let it happen (because if it wasn't suppose to happen, nothing would've let her conceive- no matter how much money or donor embryos) doesn't mean we need to start judging and saying stuff.



I'm 18 years old, I have a 3 1/2 month old baby... I get exhausted sometimes too, but because I work 10 hours a day, and sit on my butt all day. Therefore, when I get home I am tired and lazy, and will get exhausted caring for a child. But I can't put my lifestyle in her context. How do I know, or you for that matter, know how she lives? My mom is 55 years old, and she probably has more energy to care for my child than I do. Because the love for a child will give you the energy to care him or her.



So the first one with "no sin" throw the first rock. None of us can do that. What if you were in her position? How would you like it if everyone said so much 'crap' about you? And don't say you'd never do this (have a child)so late in life), because you don't know whats going to happen in 5-10 years.



Just don't put yourself in the position to swallow your own words- because its going to be rough going down. Be open minded, and if you can't support her. Don't say anything at all. Karma will bite you in the ass.

Letitia - posted on 05/20/2009

I think its sick what kind of life is that child going to have ??? My little boy wears me out and i'm only 21 how is she going to cope ????

does anyone know how she concieved???

Amie - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Liz:

She conceived someone who was going to be very important at the age of 80, but people also lived quite a bit longer then and that was up to God's discretion. This woman used drugs to help her conception along at an age that is too old for our time period! Senior citizen discounts start at 62...

With some companies senior discounts start at 50. Found very few of those, the average seems to be 55 or 60 here.  =) Depends on where you shop and where you live. lol!

Liz - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Trish:

God Bless her! I certainly wouldn't suggest an abortion, but if she cannot handle a child, maybe keeping the baby in the family with an open adoption or just a lot of help from family members... either way babies are a miracle... look at the Bible and when a REALLY old lady had a baby and he became the father of nations...

She conceived someone who was going to be very important at the age of 80, but people also lived quite a bit longer then and that was up to God's discretion. This woman used drugs to help her conception along at an age that is too old for our time period! Senior citizen discounts start at 62...

Amie - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Natalie:

out of interest, does anyone know the situation with the dad hear ? is she doing it alone ?

Nope, no dad. It's not even her egg being used with donated sperm. She had to use a donated embryo.

She's completely alone, she may have extended family in the states but that's all I've been able to find out.

Her, the baby and the nanny.. that's about it.

Sarah - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Amie:

I was watching this on The View today. Interesting topic for sure.
I don't agree with her decision in the slightest. She is loaded and has admitted she will be hiring a nanny to help her out since she won't be able to do it all. If you can't do it all for your child why would you have a child? How utterly selfish. Yes she can take care of the child financially and I don't doubt love it unconditionally but what about keeping up with said baby? How in the world is someone that old going to be able to run after their baby and keep an eye on it 24/7 as a parent should? Oh right she won't be... she's got a nanny for that! Now nothing against nannies, I'm sure their great people but they shouldn't be leaned on so heavily in the care of your children. Especially for such a stupid reason. If people hire them so they can continue to work outside the home ok that I can understand.. but to help with the day to day things because your too old. Like come on, really, give your head a shake.
What guarantee is there even that she'll live long enough to see her child graduate? Hell never mind graduate make it to high school period. During a time in a child's life that they go through enough turmoil as it is, this one may have to be dealing with an aging parent that he/she has to help take care of for one reason or another. She may think that's fine because she has all this money and can pay for care.( Might as well right she's paid to get invetro and is paying to have a nanny's help.) Money only goes so far though it will not ease the pain of watching your parent go through the ravages of old age. Maybe with luck she'll go like my grandfather did, no long drawn out process of the body shutting down but a quick heart attack in her sleep. Her child may be set in the money aspect for when she kicks the bucket but that money will never ever replace having a parent in your life, never, not even once.

i absolutely agree...

Amie - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Joy:

I was just sitting with my husband discussing how each other's days went and I told him about this thread. We talked about it for a few minutes and something dawned on me that no one has mentioned so far. Why is it ok for men to create children well into "old" age, and yet it's not ok for a woman to do the same? You're thinking, well if a man makes a baby at 66, chances are that he's with a younger woman who will still be there to raise the child if or when Daddy dies, right? Does that make losing Daddy to old age any less painful? No. But it happens all the time and no one ever blinks an eye. An old man becomes a father and people pat him on the back and say "Well done!" In my eyes, it's no different than this 66 year old woman. She has the right to do whatever she wants to and just because some of you don't agree with her decision, doesn't make it wrong. Personally I would not have made that same choice but then again, I'm not in her shoes either so I can't say what I would do if I was. And if the docs are right and she has the body of a 39 year old (which is what they said on the news here last night), then who's to say she won't out live us all? God, I HOPE I have the body of a 39 year old when I'm 66.....dream on Joy, dream on lol

It's not ok for men to do it either but that's just me. My grandfather (I use this term only because it's a genetic fact) has 21 children with 4 different women. His last child was born when he was 62! It was just as wrong for him to be doing this as it is for this woman.

Brenda - posted on 05/19/2009

Everything happenes for a reason i always say God wouldnt deal you anything you cant handle but oh my gosh what is she thinking i am 22 almost 23 and i get out of breathe with my daughter so can you imagine her at 66 or older. wow is all i can say i cant judge her cause we arent suppose to judge people but again wow what is she thinking

Amie - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Jennifer:

It's not 2 different situations, because the age would be the same regardless.  What you're saying, bottom line, is that she is too old.   If she's too old to RAISE a baby / child , then there  should be age limits on anyone who can care for a child, regardless of the situation. 

Maybe the idea doesn't work for you and it's something you wouldn't do....but let's face it.....Many  'older' people are raising their grandchildren with no biological parent in sight.  If you try to place a limit on age, what do you do with the children that are already in this situation? 

What if someone told you that because of your family's medical history, regardless of your age, that you couldn't have a child because you would pass on the possibility of them having the same condition?  Would you still have a child?  How would you explain to the child that although there's a family history of...let's say....cancer.....that you decided to let them take their chances of becoming sick later in life simply because you wanted a child?  Look at it from other standpoints before you condemn a HEALTHY woman of slightly advanced age for doing what comes naturally to most women; wanting children.

I am saying she's too old. I haven't denied that. There are age limits in place for people who can adopt, foster, etc. She traveled to another country to get her invitro because in the UK they will not give fertility treatments (that didn't work for her) nor will they give invitro (she had to use a donated embryo) to anyone over the age of 50.

Yes there are older people raising children just fine but there are very very few raising them at her age. For those ones I'd like to know why social services isn't involved to find someone else. For the kids that are already in that situation there are many many people out there that would love to adopt a child. There's even such a thing called open adoption so the biological family can still be involved.

I don't get the correlation either between disease and old age. They are two different topics. If someone wants to tell me I can't have kids, fine, that's their opinion. (I have a family history of heart disease btw if I live to see this woman's age yay me.) No one has said anything about making her decision (or others like hers) illegal just that it is a very ill thought out idea.

I have tried wrapping my mind around why this woman would want this child now but I just can't figure it out no matter how I look at it. She's single, no family (maybe some extended in the states from what I've read) has the means yes but why in the world would she not do this sooner? Because she was too busy being a career woman. She spent her life striving to be a success and she's done it. Now she decides she'll do this? What a load of hooey. Wanting children comes naturally yes but for the vast majority it comes before retirement.