I saw this article (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090517/tuk-age-irrelevant-says-mum-to-be66-6323e80.html) yesterday about a 66 year old woman who is due to be the UK's oldest mother. I saw it was posted in the News Thread and thought I'd start up a discussion about it, for those who wanted to comment.

I do find it shocking that someone at the age of 66 wants to become a mother. I wouldn't say it's a negative shock though. Just shocked. I've read a lot of negative comments towards her on the net, and I'm quite disgusted. Normally, people who want to become parents so badly, end up being great at it, so I say to myself:

1. Why are people questioning her age thinking that she'll die some time soon. Who are we to know when someone will die? She could live up to 100 for all we know. Plus, there are mothers out there who are dying very young. For example, on my road, a mother passed away with cancer (she was in her 30's) and she left behind a 2 year old son.

2. There are children out there being born to parents who are in their 20's (as an example) and are being neglected and abused. Surely that alone causes psychological problems, right?

3. There are children being born to mothers who are as young as 12 (again, just an example) who probably don't even know how to be a mother because they're not mature enough. So again, maybe the child isn't having the best life.

4. People have given up on children because they haven't wanted them, and have given their children up for adoption. Again, I can see that causing psychological problems.

5. What if this child (to this 66 old mother) finds that she has the most amazing mother ever, and has a great upbringing until the mother dies (that is if the child doesn't die before the mother). For me, that's better than being born to a mother who doesn't want you, or abuses you, or does drugs, etc.

I've mentioned psychological problems because the article ends with: "It is possible to give a child to the mother up to the age of 83 but it is medically criminal to do this because the likelihood is the child will lose his mum and suffer from psychological problems."

I just can't comment negatively on yet, 'cause we don't know how much of a great mother she'll be. And I have to say that's a big factor.

Anyways, i wanted to know what your thoughts were on this pregnancy.

I think it takes the average human 20 years to progress from a child who is dependent on someone else for everything, to an adult who can stand on their own two feet and contribute to society.

For this reason, I would prefer to see parents who reasonably expect to have a good 30 years in their life left before they decide to bring someone into the world.

The lady may well be a brilliant mother who lives to be 100, and the child may well be unusually brilliant, and also not suffer from any trauma if the mother passed away early, but in my opinion, when you're about to bring a new life into the world you don't base it on exceptions and luck.

Ahem... I misread the title... replacing the word 'Mum' with 'Admin' in my head - hehe

I look at it from this viewpoint. She had many years when she could have tried for a child naturally (when she was producing her own eggs). Why wait so long? I am assuming here that she chose her career (as a Factory Owner) before having a family. Now at 66 years old, she decides that she wants a baby?! She was declined fertility treatment in this country - so she went abroad and got what she wanted.

Adoption would have been a more moral route - but of course, in this country she would have been denied this right due to her age (but that is another debate and one that I think should be changed).

I really do hope that she will be happy and healthy and that the child thrives and has a great support network. It was hard enough having a child in my early and then late twenties (sleepless nights, constant crying).

Argghh... it's a double edged sword.

Nature says no.

Seriously, there's a reason for that. Older people are just not MEANT to have babies. It's a young person's game.

She might be a great mother, but it goes against nature. IVF is there for people who would otherwise be conceiving naturally at around that same time in their lives - yes, ok, it also goes against nature, but at least they are the right age to be naturally having a child.

I think there's a time in life when people need to accept that certain things belong to their pasts and not their present. THAT'S one type of maturity - accepting what we cannot change. I think this woman is being selfish.

... I think there's a time in life when people need to accept that certain things belong to their pasts and not their present. THAT'S one type of maturity - accepting what we cannot change. I think this woman is being selfish.

Good point about the maturity and selfishness. What are the chances she's going to be an exceptional mother if she can't think beyond her own wants?

Also... I forgot to mention in my original post - children can be very cruel... I am hoping that this woman's child will be fully prepared for the predictable comments/insults about how they were conceived, how old their mother is, etc.

...and yes - I also forgot to state that I believe this woman to be selfish.

Lol i posted about this topic in the news thread as Bune had mentioned it in there, i dont suppose our mods would like to merge my post from there in to here would they????.

My thoughts are mixed but ultimately I feel she is being quite selfish...although we can hope she does live to a great old age and is healthy for all the rest of her years...it is not very likely is it? Chances are she will only live 10-15 years more as a national average. As Budden said losing a parent at any age is truly difficult...losing them at around 10ish would be even more so. Also I find it hard work in my 40s looking after kids, the sleepless nights, the stress, the worry, the tantrums etc...how on earth would a woman 20 years older than me cope?
I agree with the points made that a "good" parent is better than lots of the "bad" parents we often read about, however I am not sure she can guarantee that she will be a good parent given her age.
Its not up to us to decide who can and cannot be parents...but as Vik says, nature sort of gives you a clue eh?

Nerd, I don't see a whole lot of difference between assuming a 12 year old won't be a good mother, and assuming a 66 year old won't be able.

Sure, most 12 year olds won't be mature enough, but a few could be. I don't really think that the "few" are a reason to say that as a general rule, 12 year old pregnancies should be encouraged.

In the same way, I reckon that the majority of 66 year olds wouldn't be suitable long term mothers (not just from a lifespan point of view, but from the health conditions that come with age), but some can be. Same idea as with the teen pregnancies.

Also, pointing out negatives in other scenarios doesn't really balance out the negatives in this one. You can be an abusive parent at any age, so it's not a factor. You've basically pointed out bad things that can happen to/with a parent of any age, 26 or 66. This still leaves the 66 year old at a "disadvantage".

To take the age-factor out:

Personally, if I was told that I had a reasonably high chance of not living more than 20 years or so from now, and also of having health issues in those years, I'm pretty sure I'd say that becoming a single parent would not be the best idea for me; regardless of there being a chance I'd be fine.

My opinion: Perhaps it's right that age is irrelevant, but the factors which come with age are definitely not.

I'd also like to add that the older a woman gets, the higher chance her baby has of having some kind of disability.

Over 35 and the risk increases. Not that a 35 - 45 year old woman shouldn't have a baby just for this reason, but throw into that the other factors in this particular case - life expectancy, illness etc and things really start to weigh against it.

That's a good point Vik.

I think disabilities linked to maternal age tend to be due to the age of the egg though, not the age of the "mother"; so it's probably less of an issue in this case where it's not the woman's own eggs being used.

That's a good point Vik.

I think disabilities linked to maternal age tend to be due to the age of the egg though, not the age of the "mother"; so it's probably less of an issue in this case where it's not the woman's own eggs being used.
You sound very well informed nohints and of course the above post is 100 percent right it is the age of the egg not the mother.

That's a good point Vik.

I think disabilities linked to maternal age tend to be due to the age of the egg though, not the age of the "mother"; so it's probably less of an issue in this case where it's not the woman's own eggs being used.


Ahhh..... that may be NoHints... but also consideration needs to be given to the age of her body too. Physical symptoms of pregnancy for women of 'child-bearing' age can be extreme - let along someone who is either younger or older.

I suspect that she would be given a c-section when it comes to delivering the baby. The risks of this procedure alone are high. The placenta is her own too (you can't donate one of them!) and the chances are that it probably won't be as efficient as a woman even 20 years younger than her.

So whilst true that the 'egg' will probably be of a high grade - the woman's body may indeed fail to provide the baby with the essential nutrients etc., thus increasing the risk of disability in child-birth.

My mum's 68, so she beats her easy!

Ha. :razz:

Lol, deadlock. I knew I should have reworded that title :P

But yeah.. thinking about it properly, Vik's first post pretty much sums it up. Nature doesn't allow it. I guess that's why women are made to have menopause as well. We're just not meant to go on breeding forever. It all falls into place. There's a reason why it happens.

Also, TF, your point about her not having a baby in her earlier stages of life got me thinking. When I first read that she was having treatment, I figured that she couldn't actually have children, that's why she resorted to this option. I didn't take into account that she could have put career first, and that she may have been able to have them before, etc. If that is the case, then yes, I would argue that it was selfish of her to do so. Without doubt.

My main problem is that people just keep going on about psychological problems the child might have (despite the fact that babies are born into other terrible situations and DO have psychological problems, and maybe these aren't taken into consideration too much. For example, a baby being born to an alcoholic mother, etc). I think that's a wrong way of approaching it - for being against it. I'd rather argue that like Vik said, nature hasn't allowed.

My main problem is that people just keep going on about psychological problems the child might have (despite the fact that babies are born into other terrible situations and DO have psychological problems, and maybe these aren't taken into consideration too much. For example, a baby being born to an alcoholic mother, etc). I think that's a wrong way of approaching it - for being against it. I'd rather argue that like Vik said, nature hasn't allowed.

Sure, children born into alcoholic families are likely to experience a bad childhood, but so is a child born to a mother who is much past her prime and cannot be reasonably expected to live a healthy life for another 20 years. I wouldn't encourage either of those two situations because of the psychological impact on the child (amongst other reasons).

I don't think the psychological impact of losing a mother should be ignored or played down, because in her case, her mortality is a very real factor, and it can have a very real impact.

I think that's a wrong way of approaching it - for being against it. I'd rather argue that like Vik said, nature hasn't allowed.

I personally think it's better to have an actual reason for having a point of view which isn't just "it's not natural".

I think that just saying "nature hasn't allowed" absolves people of thinking about it for themselves.

I don't feel that if you said to this mother "nature hasn't allowed" she'd see it as a valid point. Whether it's natural or not really shouldn't enter into moral discussions, in my opinion.

Since when did humans just go along with nature anyway? Most of the things we do everyday aren't particularly "natural".

Also, this point of view isn't as opposed to older fathers, which I don't particularly agree with either.