Tina Mallone Pregnant at 50

[Lickitysplit]

AIBU to think it is crazy that Tina Malolne (from Shameless) is pregnant at 50 by donor egg?

diplodocus - I couldn't agree more.

She'll have a ball ...its the second time she's done it, she was 65 last time

I think people have an odd idea that 60+ is somehow decrepit and helpless!

I am sorry for what happened to you everlong, it has clearly had a big impact, but its not everyone's experience. I just wanted to highlight it isn't the definitive way things go for everyone who loses a parent at an early age.

That is why, although being an older mother is not for you, that shouldn't mean other women, with different experiences,

Feegle is spot on (and possibly less emotive than me) in her last post.

If you chain smoke and are 5 stone overweight is your cancer risk at 35 lower than a fit, healthy none smoker of 60?

Everlong - of course it does and I'm very aware of it, but so do many other, inter-related factors. I am at risk of developing some forms of cancer and heart disease than a woman 10 years my junior who is morbidly obese and smokes. What I am saying is age isn't the only issue.

gordy - depends on the cancer.

Feegle - I completely get what you are saying and the questions I have asked are me trying to understand your side better because we obviously have very different views on this particular subject. I dont feel I have the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, and there is a huge chance that by having the 'play it safe'/'what if' attitude I could be missing out on some amazing experiences in life. But in this case I feel after looking at the facts, that is still the choice I would make.

Perhaps some of us older mothers have made sure there is a back up plan and lots of support, set out our wills and appointed guardians, while perhaps younger mothers think they will live forever. Sweeping generalisation, but so are yours about age.

tcd - You paint a very gloomy picture of quality of life for people in their late sixties! I'm 56 and have a number of friends in the 60-70ish age bracket and they tend to be very active and fit, quite a few compete in our local half marathon, most are keen cyclists and they sail, go on walkiing holidays etc. Surely if you have a child at 50 and are reasonably affluent you will not be a couch potato with age related health problems in your 60's

On the contrary, I'm saying this as the daughter of two non-smoking, reasonably active people of 54 and 57 who are now on medication for heart conditions. Mum's also dealing with the hot flushes and mood swings associated with the menopause. Dad had a double heart bypass last month and has also been recently diagnosed with asthma. He's on so many tablets I'm surprised he doesn't rattle as he walks! And they are not unusual or particularly sickly amongst their affluent, middle class circle of friends. I can deal with this, I'm an adult and I understand why Daddy was in hospital with drains coming out of his ribs. Would a 7 year old be able to process that?

They're grand now like, but if you press "fast forward" ten or fifteen years down they're not going to be running half marathons. Most 70 year olds wouldn't be, especially ones with teenagers.

Yes, Heff, what you've just said is exactly what I'm asking for people to consider. Your life, your choices. Although, there are many other posters who've very plainly suggested that not everyone (dependant on age) should be afforded the same control over the big choices affecting their lives.

Debate is great though

everlong - no child chooses their family, we can only hope that when people (regardless of age) who are bringing a life into being, accept that they are responsible for considering all of these relative factors and make, or a least discuss in great detail, provision for such an eventuality as their death.

I wouldn't choose them for my parents but it's hard because they obviously want it so badly, how can you say they don't deserve it. I wonder what her reasons are, maybe she is desperatley trying to keep hold of her youth or something or maybe she is having a crisis but they must be sure of their decision and are both obviously happy so I won't go all judgy and will just say good luck to them.

Definitely feegle, I like a good debate! Funnily enough I asked my DH what he thought when he got in from work and he was on the complete opposite side to me! But I am definitely the worrier in the relationship and he is the live in the moment guy!

You could have a baby at 30 and die from a heart attack or a road accident five years later, leaving your child without a parent very young.

You could have a baby at 40 and die at the average age of death 80.

You could have a baby at 50 and live to be 95.

Whatever age you die, your child will still have the support of their other parent, extended immediate family, siblings, friends, partner or work colleagues if older. Everyone dies, older new parents are the norm now, and very rarely are children left totally orphaned.

If you have the energy and finance to support a child, I don't think your age matters.

This however comes from a 44 year old sometimes broody woman with two healthy young children already (4 and 6) whose new partner adamantly doesn't want children because he is too old at 44, so I'm probably not being rational, given my baby making days are now over!

Do people really live their lives according to statistics, excluding all other factors? I once had a pregnancy scare when I was very young, single, and virtually penniless. There are some pretty sobering statistics about the lives of children in poverty and children raised by single parents. But when I was weighing up my options I didn't spend much time agonizing over potential statistical outcomes. Instead I considered my own individual circumstances WRT family support, educational opportunities, employment possibilities, etc. As it turned out I wasn't pregnant after all, so no decisions were necessary (huge sigh of relief for me).

I would imagine that anyone who chooses to have a child later in life goes through a similar process of weighing options based on their own particular and unique circumstances (general health, financial situation, support network, etc.). Bringing a child into the world should not be undertaken lightly for anyone, regardless of age. But relying solely on some generalized abstract numbers without thinking about the individuals involved strikes me as a very limited view.

Christ!! 50 isn't nearly dead!!

I lost two friends in their forties, leaving behind young kids. You don't have a crystal ball, you have no idea what the future holds. There are currently many families relying heavilly on the help of grandparents every day.

People may have a valid point if Tina Malone was 70 and in poor health. I have no idea what she's like as a person and what kind of parent she will be but i happen to not write off other women if they are fifty and over.

Shit happens, irrespective of whether mum is 20 or 50.

Ah. Well, this thread went well not in places .

As I said above, there is NO arguing with biology.
Our bodies age and work less well and we die.
Wanting a child is always selfish - no child has ever asked to be born. There is nothing wrong with wanting children, and I fail to see how age alone makes a difference?

Yes, the risk of illness/dealth gets higher as we age, so it depends what risk you are prepared to take. And that is a personal decision. My decision for me, and your decision for you. And TM's for her.

I fail to see the need for vitriol.
And much as we are ALL guided by our own experiences, the plural of anecdote does not data make .

Feegle, if you are still there, if I ever, ever considered having another baby, it'd be with you

My mum died at 32 leaving behind a 5yo, 4yo and an 18mnt old. I personally dont agree with having a baby at 50 but if she feels she can cope with it, more power to her I couldn't!

PacificDogwood

Going public at five weeks?

I was so cautious I didn't announce until after the 20 week scan...

Congratulations to her I say. I think it's brilliant news. xx