Elizabeth Adeney the 66yr old having a baby. The Sun Telegraph want to know what Mumsnetters think

But why? I really don't understand why. The evolutionary argument I'm not sure hold water because back in the Era of Evolutionary Adaptedness or whatever it's called, women would surely have died much younger than they do now. We have an artificially increased lifespan if you like, so why not an artificially increased fertile period?

Anyway, as I said below, I don't think it;s a great plan. But I don't now why I should be allowed to impose that on other women, particularly when I'm not even being asked to fund it.

IMO the cut off age should be at the point at which a woman can no longer naturally conceive. Provided she doesn't have a medical condition that prevents her conceiving iyswim.

And also, human evolution has valued technological innovation as a survival tool. This ability to mould our environment to our wills is fundamental to us as humans.

Its very hard for our current generations to catch up emotionally and pyschologically to the changes our innovative brains lead us to. The gap is enormous.

We can all cite many instances of biology being given the runaround by medical advances, improved mortality, prem babies surviving at younger ages, stem cell usage, drugs to prolong life, heart transplants. All these things throw up challenges to our overworked pysches, and we all struggle with it.

But its kind of cool that we have these opportunities now.

Wannabe, I think that is a whole different thread, though.

This one was asking
"They're interested to know what folks think the 'cut off' should be in terms of age, or whether there should be no cut off, if you can fund the treatment yourself."

I wish her and her baby health and happiness.

However, I think the cut off age for IVF should be around 45 yrs old.

so is it right to defy nature just because we can? Personally I don't think it is.

But this is about so much more than one woman's desire to have a baby. It's about the fact that she's had to go abroad to achieve that desire, to a country where fertility treatment is largely unregulated.

There was discussion about this on the radio this morning, and a lot of the countries that have unregulated fertility treatments also exploit the women who are the egg doners. Most of the egg doners are paid and donate for money, but they receive very little support and are often over stimulated in order to produce the maximum number of eggs so that the fertility clinics can impregnate the maximum number of women in order to generate the maximum amount of cash.

This has nothing to do with giving a woman treatment who is unable to have children, it's about exploiting people, anyone, for money.

Is that right as well then? as long as a baby is the end result?

This is about so much more than just one woman..

But that's a fact. The vast majority of lone parent benefit is paid to females.

I'm not in favour of any legislation here.

But I wouldn't think that I could bend the norms of nature, just by wishing them changed.

I think missmaggie some of the earlier posts did suggest women should not be allowed to have babies over 40 which is understandly annoying to us older gals who are as healthy as most women in their 20s and 30s, and just as capable as raising a child to adulthood without resorting to zimmer frames.

Now don't take it so personally, MsMaggie.
Seriously, if you thought I was being nasty, I didn't mean it that way. It's just the way some of your posts were coming across.

"although there may be a few thousand Dads left minding their babies there are millions of mothers left alone minding theirs."

By the same reasoning most women will not want a baby past menopause. But for the few who might why legislate a 'cut off' age?

Well, 44 is not old. You shouldn't take this so personally. You will be around to see your youngests 30th no doubt. And the odds are, 40th too.

I am not having a pop at women who have babies at 44.

It was a stupid comment because although there may be a few thousand Dads left minding their babies there are millions of mothers left alone minding theirs.

It was also nasty though. "were you left holding the baby and that is why you resent it?"

This is nothing to do with me. I'm able to separate biology from social mores. The World is a different place to when women gathered nuts, but if you are looking for a reason why women don't have children beyond 40+ then you've heard those reasons, loud and loud, several times now. You just don't like them.

"but there are reasons why women usually stop having children beyond 40+"

Well yes there are. But that's no reason to legislate against it for women who would like another child.

"Now answer my question, what age were you when you had your child?"

Well as you ask so nicely, I was 27 when I had my first child and almost 44 when I had my last.

Juuule, it's far, far less likely though. Millions of women are no doubt left pregnant and alone... It is not abnormal in biological terms.

I'm not saying that it's right or it's fair!! But this is biology. Human physiology. Life expectancy. Death.

This is what I'm talking about. IF you want to swim upstream against mother nature then I'm not stopping you, or anybody else, but there are reasons why women usually stop having children beyond 40+

You accused me of being dumped and resentful basically!! Now answer my question, what age were you when you had your child?

Me too, LilianGish.

Why was it a stupid comment. Obviously I didn't mean that men become pregnant. But I have known instances where the mother has left the dad with the baby and gone off with someone else.

Worldsworstmummy I love your post.

NICE guidelines are maximum maternal age of 39, obviously this is a recommendation as opposed to a law though.

Juuule, that was a stupid comment. A woman can't leave a pregnant man. It's not about any one person. I'm not struggling to accept the usual norms of nature and human biology.

I left my x. But it wouldn't have made any difference if he left me. The children would still almost certainly be with their mother. So in evolutionary and social terms, the Mother's age is much more significant. It's not something I'm resentful about. I have no difficulty accepting that the end of reproductive phase is 45ish. It's biology. No more.

It is legislated for already though isn't it? Hence why she had to go abroad for it?

I just can't understand why she would leave it so late.

I don't like it. No. 80 is in my personal opinion ridiculously old, as I said, but I cannot find any logical reason to legislate against it. I think these cases of very old mothers are so few and far between, we can only hope she proves to be a marvellous mum who gives her child the best kind of childhood possible.

as mentioned earlier, women used to be thought well over the hill by having babies in their thirties, then it got pushed to 40s, who is to say that in ten years time we might have had a shift of opinion that says 50s is okay? increased health, longevity and technology points to that being possible.

Evolution was designed over hundreds of thousands of years to deal with an extremely hostile environment and exceedingly low life expectancy. We are now in unknown territory.

For example, our teeth were designed to last 40 years max (according to my dentist) because for millennia that was the limits of life expectancy.

We already mess with biology all over the place, this is just one more. And to be honest, if we are going to be unrigorous in this, I'd rather a woman desperate for a baby who finally gets the technology to achieve it, perhaps for infertility issues previously untreatable, than some other medical procedures funded by the NHS.

"The argument against late parenthood would surely be that that parent is closer to the end of their life."

But none of us know how close to the end of our lives we are.

The chances of a 40 yr old still being around in 25 yrs time are significantly higher than a 55 yr saying the same thing.

I could have been hit by a bus, but I'm more likely to die at about 76 of old age

"which is that mothers are the ones left holding the baby. Two to tango and the father may or may not be significant."

Not necessarilly. You seem to be building your whole argument on this. Were you left holding the baby and resent that?

And once again I am not taking this personally. I just want to make sense of some of the arguments.

40 - to concieve with medical intervention

Unlimited - to concieve naturally

60 - to adopt (if couple and one partner is under 55)

55 - to foster/adopt if single

Juuuule Can I refer you back to an inconveniennt truth, which is that mothers are the ones left holding the baby. Two to tango and the father may or may not be significant.

I can't believe how personally you are taking this!!

I was happy for SJP recently. She is only 44. Good for her, but she'll still be around in 30 yrs time, or at least she is statistically likely to be.

What age were you when you had your children?

"The argument against late parenthood would surely be that that parent is closer to the end of their life."

But none of us know how close to the end of our lives we are.