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

You need to read the Daily Mail more often -the reason it doesn't apply to men is because they should be the bread winners and not concern themselves with nurturing and child-rearing which is after all women's work.

What about without medical intervention? I am not convinced that a succeessful delivery at term (I think the emphasis here is on delivery rather than pregnancy)

It is generally the mothers role for nuturing in all mammals. Obviously science and technology has skewed this too...but in the eyes of nature it is the womans role to nuture and the fathers role to shag as many women as possible to be brutally frank. A lifelong monogamous relationship isn't that common in nature.

MsMaggie - yes it is the 2nd time I've said that because as I said I'm curious. People say that nature has a reason for making women sterile at a certain age, I wonder what the reason is that it doesn't apply to men. That's all.

DoNotAnnoy - 1. Not sure about this reason as these older women have shown that carrying a baby to term isn't necessarilly a problem, it's the conceiving in the first place.

1. Nurturing to 16. The mother isn't essential for this, though, is she?

Just a bit of research supports what I said above. In addition research in Africa (apparently) suppports a theory that it is important for a woman to reach grandmotherhood - to help nuture her grandchildren and therefore gene pool (after all evolution is all about the maintance of your gene pool not a body).

worldsworstmummy - do you think that a woman should be allowed to conceive and have a baby at ANY age then? So an 80 year old could have IVF and have a baby. If so, that is crazy.

My Mum is 49 and I love the fact that she is still young enough to be totally hands on with my daughter, she still works FT in a very successful career in the city, we have SO much in common and enjoy going out for a bottle of wine, going to the gym together, weekends away etc. She is my best friend.

IMO the generational gap between a 14 and an 80 year old would be a HUGE barrier to cross during the teenage years and beyond and the woman is unlikely to meet her Grandchildren, see her child get married etc etc.

Look at this. Men shouldn't delude themselves that they can go on having children into their late 50s, 60s and beyond

look

juule 2nd time you've said that, and I think the fairly obvious reason would be that they are much closer to death. You know that really though I suspect, you just don't like it!?

Without researching it I would suggest

1. Ability to carry a healthy child to term with a successful delivery (which will be circumvented by medicical monitoring and probably a c section)

1. The period of nurturing intended by NATURE for humans is in the region of 16+ years...something which (without medical intervention and care - which obviously is available - but no gurantees) is unlikely to be acheived

"There is a biological and evolutionary reason why women loose the natural ability to bare a child "

What are they?

I meant families with autistic children! not families with autistic shoes (although autistic shoes sound interesting).

I'm not sexist on this matter Miyazaki I didn't think, oh well done Des, when Des O'Connor bacame a father at 72. I thought fgs Des, what a ludicrous decision.

My son has autism and his father was not 'old' exactly but older when he was conceived. ONe thing I've noticed when meeting other families with autistic shoes, quite often the dads aren't in the first flush of youth.

BUT..... crucially, the blunt truth is that often, for whatever reason, the woman is the one left holding the baby! So I think it's more important that the woman is 20 yrs away from life expectancy.

Ms Adeney doesn't even have a younger partner.

There is a biological and evolutionary reason why women loose the natural ability to bare a child between the age of 45ish and 55ish.

Just because medical science can circumvent that doesn't mean it should.

This story appears in the Daily Mail - a newspaper whose raison d'etre is to champion the traditional family where mum stays at home to raise the kids. How dare this woman have a job and be a divorcee and somehow manage to circumvent the system and have a baby?!? She should be paying the price of going out to work and letting her husband go with her just desserts of a lonely old age. Funny they don't make such a song and dance when it's an old man becoming a father.

I'm not sure the argument that it is different when men have babies at a much advanced age as they have done it naturally stands. Altho they are less likely to need medical intervention they do need a much younger woman to do so. Presumably this woman has also used the eggs of a much younger woman to have a baby at this age. I'm musing aloud really... but I do feel uncomfortable about the level of scrutiny on women who do this, compared to men.

Juuule Obviously no guarantees with anything at all in life, but having a child younger does increase that mother's likelihood of being around for more of her child's life.

LilianGish and Juuule Most people are upset when their mother dies.

Oh and there were 25y between my mother and me. She died when I was 29y. So no guarantees about how long someone will live.

"the longer you have your mother around, the better"

Surely that depends on the mother. Sadly it might not be true for everyone.

Unless of course she's a violent and abusive mother - in which case social services would have to intervene.

I'm glad my mum is only 26 yrs older than me. I feel bad that I am 32 and 35 yrs older than MY children.

Not saying that I wish I'd had children at 26 but from the (grown up) child's perspective, the longer you have your mother around, the better.

Surely it's the quality not the quantity of the parenting - if we want to talk about who should and shouldn't be able to become parents. There are sadly all too many unfit parents out there - men and women - and it has nothing to do with their age.

They are babies for such a short time. The telling question is whether you really want to deal with a stroppy 14yr old when you are 80? I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to be lying in bed waiting for my 17yr old DC to come in from a night out when I am 83yrs old.

ps, reading back other people's comments, I want to add that I thnk men trying deliberately for babies much past the age of 45-48 is a bit

Exactly. an argument for IVF over a certain age.

But as has been said, an older woman wouldn't be using her own eggs but younger eggs without any of those problems.

Eggs get older,dna starts behaving badly in them, risks of abnormalities are higher in women over 35.

In a funny way, it is an argument for IVF, as opposed to natural conception as the eggs used are from much younger women and so much less likely to develop abnormally.