To think becoming a first time mother in your 60s is the height of selfishness?

[CounsellorTroi]

www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/julia-peyton-jones

Had a baby alone at 64. She’ll be 80 years old when her daughter is 16. There’s a good chance she’ll be dead by the time the child is 30. She could well die before the child reaches 25. So very selfish.

@futureghost

Hardly irrelevant. Go to the Relationships forum here and read about all the women who hate their mothers who are alive and well

Its utterly irrelevant, as this was not the choice being made.

Its also bollocks as its argument that rests on ' Look they are doing something EVEN WORSE so its totes fine for me to do this less shitey thing' which is a warped moral philosophy to say the least.

You are missing the point.

@JinglingHellsBells yeah sure you do 🙄 I’ve never once come across someone in their 80s who has enough energy to look after a child.

Absolute bullshit

@SweetBabyCheeses99

Having read the article, I think it’s wonderful. This woman has an abundance of love, energy and let’s face it - resources! to put into parenting. I think it’s a very slippery slope to say that some women shouldn’t be mothers because of a certain factor. Would we do the same for obesity? Poor health? Addicts? Teens? Poverty? Criminals?

I listened to her talk about this on Woman’s Hour and agree. She has also been thoughtful in supporting the child with a huge network of godparents who are presumably all signed up to be there when she is no longer around.

I agree that though not ideal, age is no more or less important that other factors that could inhibit the stability a parent can offer a child - I’d far rather be / have a living, supportive mother for a shorter period than a toxic or damaging one for longer.

[quote HermioneKipper]@JinglingHellsBells yeah sure you do 🙄 I’ve never once come across someone in their 80s who has enough energy to look after a child.

Absolute bullshit[/quote]
Where did I say an 80 year old was looking after a young child full time?

There are many women in their 80s living very full and active lives.
You only have to look at people like Judi Dench, performing Shakespeare twice a day to see that women with energy exist.

Theresa May was PM in her mid 60s.

And the woman this thread is about will have help.

She will be 80 when her daughter is 16.

@TeloMere

Having a baby at any age is a selfish act.

Yep. We had ours because we liked sex a lot ( and also like a lot of sex) then I went uncontrollably broody so we stopped contraception.Rinse and repeat. Luckily we liked a lot of children.

Decades later we discovered the REAL purpose of having children is to provide the even greater joy and delight of having grandchildren.

Exactly this

@EmeraldShamrock

Very selfish of her. There is no excuse for it surely she had her career, travel etc the usual reasons for a late baby well done by 40. Some ppl think they're entitled to experience every part of life.

Some of us are lucky enough to have the opportunity to experience every part of life.

Don't tell me you would turn down the opportunity.

I think you are missing the point of this and my posts. They are lost on you . And many women of 70 do not decline rapidly. I know 85 and 90 year olds who have more energy than some women of 50

The arrogance of ' they are lost on you' actually made me laugh out loud!. So thank you. I needed a laugh.

All your post says is that you know some extremely unfit 50 year olds.
My ex is an exceptionally fit 52 year old. There aren't many 52 year olds as fit as him. Even he is aware that his physical ability is declining. You do get some genetic outliers who manage to remain physically fit and active well into their 80s but they are outliers and there are not many of them. They are likely to be people who were outliers in terms of their physical activity and capability all their lives and I haven't read that this lady is one of them. There is a huge difference in the ageing process in the decade between 30 and 40, compared to 70 and 80 and we all know this. Pointing to the odd 90 year old who still line dances doesn't really change the facts for nearly all of us.

@flowerycurtain

I would have agreed with you until I heard her interviewed recently on Women's Hour. I was struck by how much thought and dedication she had put into her decision.

It was clearly a lot more thought out than a lot of people do when they have kids.

Exactly.

Pia won't grow up resented and neglected by a mother who never wanted a baby, just a drunken ONS with a creep whose name she forgot.

There are many who would argue that this thread is incredibly ageist. She’s in her 60’s and? That’s pretty much the only thing you know about her and everything is being judged solely on her age in this thread.

[quote snowqu33n]@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g
We aren’t mind readers so we can’t say for sure what her motivation is.
In any case, many people have children for non-altruistic reasons, don’t they? To get married, stay married, get child support and keep a house, prevent a partner leaving etc. etc.[/quote]
I think we can say in this case what her motivation is for suddenly giving a great many interviews to the media. She has a book out and her publishers are keen to maximise sales. In this case there is a very unusual human interest story behind the book, so the media has been keen to do these interviews.

Haha ageist 🤣 Another good laugh gained.

She’s in her mid 60s and …. USED ANOTHER WOMANS BODY TO GAIN A BABY. It’s disgusting and frankly an abomination of nature.

I don’t understand how anyone could support this.

@futureghost you've summed up my thoughts exactly! 100% agree

*Some of us are lucky enough to have the opportunity to experience every part of life.

Don't tell me you would turn down the opportunity.*

Well I suppose that, instead of accepting I was unlikely to have a child of my own and getting on with my life, I could have gone to the Ukraine or somewhere and had IVF using the eggs of some young student who needed the money, but I chose not to and have no regrets on that score.

I know 85 and 90 year olds who have more energy than some women of 50.

All your post says is that you know some extremely unfit 50 year olds.

I agree. You'd have to be a pretty unwell and unfit 50 year old to be in the same physical condition as an 85 year old, even if that 85 year old is incredibly fit for their age.

I wish people would stop pretending that age doesn't exist. It isn't ageist to point out that people's physical abilities, fitness and health decline with age. The rate of decline varies from person to person, sure, but an 80 year old is a very long way away from being in their physical prime.

Agree with posters saying this isn't something most people would ever really do. The very wealthy have resources and networks that the rest of us can't even imagine. Whilst it's unusual, if you have the means to manage it (including from the grave, worst case scenario), its a personal choice I guess. Wouldn't Elton John have been the same age when his twins were born? Is he a "selfish father"?
The argument that the mother will probably be dead once the daughter is 30 is a bit weak. We could all die, at any point, and all we can do is make memories, nurture, and try our best. I'm sure that's what this woman is doing.

From an ethical point of view what those who think JPJ has done something very wrong, what you believe is:

The right of a child to have a parent until they are 40, 50, 60, 70 years old, overrides the right of an older woman to be a loving parent for 20 - 35 years.

I don't see how anyone can make that call.

The women who choose to do this are not going to burden society (they have the means to fund their own care in old age) and will have a network where there child will have 'family' to love them even when they die.

How does any women here think they have the right to call another woman 'selfish' because she can 'only' parent for 20-30 years?

What you are saying, is the child has a 'right' to their parent being around until they reach XXX years old.

@Silverswirl

There are many who would argue that this thread is incredibly ageist. She’s in her 60’s and? That’s pretty much the only thing you know about her and everything is being judged solely on her age in this thread.

Yes, that is indeed the point of the thread. It isn't ageist to acknowledge that people get old and eventually die. Every year you live the chance that you will be die during the next year goes up.

My parents are in their late 80s and every time I see them it's at the back of my mind that it might be the last time. I am 60 and hard as it is to contemplate losing them I recognise that I am actually very fortunate to have had them in my life as long as I have. They are in comparatively good health, but I have watched them slowing down year by year. Their cognitive abilities are still excellent, but they have arthritis in every joint, they're both very deaf, and they have all sorts other ailments, some moderately serious. Their mobility issues restrict what they can do. Nevertheless, they are doing incredibly well for their age, managing with no domestic help at all and only now contemplating getting someone else to do the gardening. Most people of their age I meet are a lot less active and need a lot of help.

If this woman makes it to her late 80s her daughter will be 25.

@BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand

I know 85 and 90 year olds who have more energy than some women of 50.

All your post says is that you know some extremely unfit 50 year olds.

I agree. You'd have to be a pretty unwell and unfit 50 year old to be in the same physical condition as an 85 year old, even if that 85 year old is incredibly fit for their age.

I wish people would stop pretending that age doesn't exist. It isn't ageist to point out that people's physical abilities, fitness and health decline with age. The rate of decline varies from person to person, sure, but an 80 year old is a very long way away from being in their physical prime.

But this is twisting what I said.

JPJ is 64.

There are MANY women of her age child and older minding their grandchildren. I know them! They are looking after toddlers (often more than one) while their daughters (in their 30s) are working.

When JPJ is 85, her daughter will be 21.
I don't think she will need hands on child care then somehow.

I am confused about why people are angry about this woman “selfishly” having a well provided-for child.
There are many kids (290,000) in the UK whose families are soon to lose 20 quid to support basic needs, but people are really bothered about just this one child that was born more than four years ago.

I often see threads about people leaving multiple young kids all day with grandparents (usually grandma) so they can work without paying for childcare.

Yet this one woman bringing up a child with her friends and family is making people outraged.

All the "wealth, resources and privileges" that will (hopefully) make it easier for her daughter losing her parent at a young age would presumably have been available to her 10 years earlier though. It doesnt suggest she became a millionaire overnight at 60, so I'm not sure why she would have waited so long if her yearning to be a parent was so great - she would still have had a long and successful career retiring at 55.

Pia won't grow up resented and neglected by a mother who never wanted a baby, just a drunken ONS with a creep whose name she forgot

No but she was essentially bought and taken away from her mother because a rich woman wanted a shiny new baby in retirement.

Minding their grandchildren is an optional, part time thing though. There is a world of difference between that and being the sole carer of a young child.

The fact is that many people start to decline pretty rapidly once they get past 70 or 75. Some are lucky and it happens a bit later, but this lady has no idea at what point she will start to lose her mobility or suffer from health problems that prevent her from actively parenting her daughter. She does know it's not that far off though.

Yes, that could happen to a 40 year old with a young child too, but the odds are vastly lower.

@LolaSmiles

Pia won't grow up resented and neglected by a mother who never wanted a baby, just a drunken ONS with a creep whose name she forgot

No but she was essentially bought and taken away from her mother because a rich woman wanted a shiny new baby in retirement.

I agree with this too. It's pretty despicable.

Well put Jingling. And if she was overwhelmingly likely to be there for her child until they were twenty I'd agree with you. The problem when you're in your sixties rather than forties is the very high risk of deserting your child while they're still a child. Yes I do think a child's interest in having their parent there for them until the age of eighteen outweighs the prospective parents' desires.