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

"I don't like it either that women have biological clocks and men don't so much (it isn't fair) and I don't like it.
But it's not something that arguing, debating or negotiating or a PR campaign will change."
Isn't that exactly what this woman has done? And that's what some people don't like - she's cheated the system!

wwm, of course I would not fall out with her when she reaches a certain age, it is not about the numerical age but the gap in my opinion.

An 80 year old woman with a 14 year old child just sits really uncomfortably with me.

I don't object to a 45 year old woman having a child, whilst I wouldn't do it myself, I do however feel that there needs to be a cut off point for women having IVF. As by your logic it would be acceptable for an 80 year old woman to have a child, as it is her choice?

Juuule, you're confusing biology with equality then. I don't know.

I don't like it either that women have biological clocks and men don't so much (it isn't fair) and I don't like it.

But it's not something that arguing, debating or negotiating or a PR campaign will change.

The argument against late parenthood would surely be that that parent is closer to the end of their life. How can you not understand that or be so obtuse as to claim it doesn't make sense to you?

This isn't your company's handbook. It's nothing to do with equality or misogynism. It's nature.

DoNotAnnoy - evolution probably doesn't intend us to do a lot of things but we ignore it anyway.

Well said Juuule - the thing is most people are so used to this double standard they don't think anything of it.

"I don't know how any intelligent person can reasonably claim not to accept this as a valid reason not to enter in to parenthood beyond 50."

Well given how many older men have been applauded for fathering children at a great age there are probably fewer intelligent people about than we think.

Juuule, if it's insulting to Des O'Connor that I (and many others) thought "he'll be dead by the time that child leaves school", then he'll have to suck up that insult.

I can't stop 50+ bringing babies into the World, but the 50+ can't stop people thinking 'ho hum'.

"You take offence at common sense."

I've not taken offence I just think that some of the arguments against this don't make sense.

And I agree with WWM's posting of
"And to clarify, of course I think 80 too old. I even think 66 is too old. But thats not my decision, its her life and her body. And her baby. "

I have my opinion. You have yours. They differ but at the end of the day that is what makes me me and you you.

TBH neither of us a wrong.We just have differing opinions.

Being a biologist....I am fully comfortable saying that evolution does not intend a woman of 66 having a child.

"If we want to bring in the fact that the rapid rate of industrial, scientific and medicical advances have caused evolution to lag behind it is a whole new story."
Isn't that precisely the point - the story is changing.
It's the thin end of the wedge as far as the Daily Mail is concerned - if women can wait as long as men to have their babies we might eventually be able to have true equality between the sexes.
As for how old is too old - it's very difficult to draw a line. My mum's generation thought she was getting on at 30, but its by no means uncommon now for women to have their first child in their 40s so who who knows what our children's generation will think when they get round to it.

juuule, you're taking this way to personally.

We humans are mammals, animals, and we will all die. Unlike animals however, we feel pain when our loved ones die and our young take longer to rear.

I don't know how any intelligent person can reasonably claim not to accept this as a valid reason not to enter in to parenthood beyond 50.

Are YOU a much older mum by any chance?

I don't believe for a second that this woman wanted a baby for years, as the article said.... If she did, why didn't she have one? I don't mean to say that its magically that easy for everyone, but she could have had IV YEARS ago. She could have adopted YEARS ago.

Seems to me like she's someone who put it off juuust a little too late.

I agree about the evolutionary differences between men and women reproducing - ie men spreading their seed etc.

Babies need mothers more.

That might be so, DoNotAnnoy, but whether evolution is behind or whatever, I don't think it's a good reason to say 'there is a good reason why nature makes women infertile at a certain age'.

Well Juuule, it doesn't matter, I don't have to decide it. It happens so rarely, it's not something that should be legislated.

You take offence at common sense. I'm not actively trying to prevent any 66 yr old from conceiving a child (through ivf, or donor eggs or surrogacy) but it isn't a brilliant idea.

If you think it's a fabulous idea to bring a child in to the World 50+ then we'll agree to disagree.

I'm very happy that my mother is still around even though I'm in my late 30s.

As I say....evolution has not kept up with the Western way of life.

MsMaggie - I think that's quite insulting to all the men who are bringing up their children on their own for whatever reason.

DoNotAnnoy -"Evolutionarily the females role is to nuture. The males role is to spread his genes as far and wide as possible."

Bit of a sweeping statement. Lots of monogamous men not fulfilling nature's directive there then.
And now in the days of egg donation maybe women are catching up on the spreading the genes angle. Older women having babies.

Maybe we are now aiding and abetting the original plan of nature

ps Juuuule, the reason (in purely biological and evolutionary terms) is that the woman is left holding the baby. The father may or may not be significant. There's your answer. Harsh but true.

Whether it's right or not (for men or women) in your opinion, MsMaggie, it isn't for you to decide what is right for someone else.

It isn't a human right's issue, or a case of sexism. It's common sense, maths even.

50+ is too old to have a baby. It may work out alright, but it's not advisable.

You need to bare in mind that in my original post the emphasis was on evolutionary and biological.

If we want to bring in the fact that the rapid rate of industrial, scientific and medicical advances have caused evolution to lag behind it is a whole new story.

Adoption falls outside of pure biological/evolutionary arguments

Evolutionarily the females role is to nuture. The males role is to spread his genes as far and wide as possible.

I am not sterotyping anything. I am sticking to evolution and biology. Cultural changes have distorted biology to the point that it is not soley the mothers role to nuture. It is not (generally) acceptable to be polygamous. But evolution has not caught up with that yet.

And to clarify, of course I think 80 too old. I even think 66 is too old. But thats not my decision, its her life and her body. And her baby.

Ewe, I am 45 and young enough to be totally hands on with my own daughter if I were lucky enough to have another now.

And your mum is your mate. How lovely. Do you anticipate falling out with her when she is in her sixties? Or will she always be your mum whatever her age?

My mother is 75. she didn't turn into a mardy old bag the day she turned 50!

I am friends with women my mothers age and my grandmothers age.

Clearly you are quite young, and I do remember thinking then that 40 plus was really old. I think you will find age differences tend to melt away the older you get.

Regarding successful delivery at term - do we know that this wouldn't be possible/safe or whatever.
Are IVF babies delivered by CS as routine (I've no idea, genuine question) because there is a preference to medically manage the birth in order to reduce risk as much as is possible?

It might be preferable for it to be the mother's role to nurture in the early years but even then adopted children do well without birth mothers.

And long-term monogamous relationships in humans are not unheard of. Also I think that you are stereotyping the roles of the sexes.