70 year old has baby after ICSI treatment

[georgimama]

what do we think about this then? I'm thinking not to be encouraged (and I know this would not be allowed in the UK), although I have immense sympathy and it probably is true that they have a huge estended family to help out...

MMJ, then what about a 70 year old man fathering a child. Mother nature says this is totally acceptable - no need for any fertility intervention! So is this just as wrong? If so, why is it natural? If not why is a father's role different to a mothers?

"We are designed to reproduce." Not at 70 we're not. This woman physically could not have had her own child - it would have had to be a doner egg (don't know about sperm), but nature says that it is not possible for a reason.

It is totally wrong on every level. This child will probably be an orphan by the time he/she is 10.

It's outragious and i'm sorry the arguments of "well the karen matthews of this world shouldn't be having children" are just totally invalid because we're not talking about Karent matthews we are talking about a 70 year old woman who was probably at quite high risk of dying from the birth alone.

utterly utterly selfish.

and what are they potentially subjecting this child to?

Becoming a carer for his/her elderly parents by the age of 5 perhaps? dealing with all the issues that come with being elderly while he/she is still a child?

It should never have been allowed to happen.

"Husband Ram said he wasn't worrying over who would look after the child if they died.

"The upbringing of the child is not a problem. We have a joint family as is common in rural Haryana," he said."

I think this couple's situation is different to a couple of a similar age in the UK. It sounds as though the baby is a welcome addition to an extended family.

I think it's wrong from a biological pov.. Women become less fertile with age for a reason. Also, it just seems so selfish, to have a child knowing you will soon leave them an orphan - hell, this woman may not see the child's 1st birthday. Now I know you can die any time, but an accident is a maybe, death from old age is a certainty and I think you owe your child more than to have them knowing you will not be there for them.

However, reading the article, it seems they live in some form of extended, or group family, so I assume there will be shared parenting and may be younger people there who will care for the child when the parents die.

But --- I think also that there are many people who 'shouldn't' have had children - me for example, I'm very fat so not able to run round after them, or do lots of things that a mum should - in total fairness to THEM, should I have had them? Financial - hell we couldn't afford to have kids but we did! Really, we should not have had children until or unless financially secure. I have periodic depression - should I inflict how that makes me, on children? Logically? No....list goes on.

(I am using my personal examples so people can't jump down my throat with the I AM THAT how very dare you imply I shouldn't have kids! )

My point is that I'm firmly on the fence.

"Who are we to say that you are too old to have kids?"

Well, nature says that at 70 women are too old to bear children so I'd go with that.

I don't have a problem at all with fertility treatment within normal reproductive years, I'm not saying that if it can't be done naturally it shouldn't be done at all. However, this is completely wrong.

So what is the reason that women become less fertile with age?
And nature doesn't always get things right, does it?

Because you are born with your lifetime supply of eggs. As you get older, these age and are not as good.

Of course nature doesn't always get it right and fertility treatment is available for those cases. I just think it should be restricted to natural childbearing years.

At 70, this woman is well past her childbearing years. Medical science is a wonderful thing but there have to be limits applied IMO.

I know the physical reason that women's fertility reduces with age
I thought wannabe might share why "nature says that it is not possible for a reason"

Sorry Doesntchristmasdragon. That was a bit rude of me regarding the info on fertility.

I think the theory is that evolution favours genes for stopping your own reproduction and focussing your attention on grandchildren and nieces and nephews, to improve your genes being handed on to new generations in that way. Because of the statistical risk of dying before your child is even weaned (thinking here of nomadic hunter/gatherer communities where children won't be weaned till they can walk as fast as the adults ie about 4) you are more of an asset to your genes by not producing another baby yourself but by increasing the chances of survival for your other young relatives by helping find food for them and caring for them in other ways.

I've heard that theory before. I'm not sure that I buy into it, though.
Isn't that saying that the younger person has a higher chance of dying than the older person? Which is contradictory to what was said earlier in this thread.
And considering that until relatively recently women would die before reaching menopause anyway, I'm not sure how the theory holds with that.
I don't know, maybe there is a point in that if a family did include post-menopausal women then the children had a higher survival rate.
Not sure how relevant that is to this situation as it seems to be saying that if a mother dies or becomes ill then another female member of the family would be on hand to raise the child. Surely that's what is a possibility for this couple - just not the generational way round that a lot of people seem to be comfortable with.

The advantage would be that she would be an additional person to help with grandchildern, not that she would be replacing a dead mother - I think the theory is that your probability of helping your genes to be passed on is higher statistically by being a "helpful granny" than by being a "potentially dying" mother. Not that either of those will necessarily happen, but if you take a million women around the age of the menopause, then they are more likely to die than a million 20-year old women.

It may simply be something which evolution has never had a chance to work on anyway - as you say, for most of the time that evolution would have been affecting human development, few women would have lived past menopausal age, so there wouldn't be any evolutionary disadvantage to running out of eggs and stopping reproduction.

AMIS - I thought you were talking about the grandmother possibly replacing the mother when you said " Because of the statistical risk of dying before your child is even weaned".

Oh right, no, I mean if the 50 year old had a baby she would be at a higher risk of dying before it was weaned.

Ah I see, that makes more sense

well, lets use the religious argument here for a minuter.
if God didnt want this child born, then He woundnt have let it be a successful pregnancy. therefore, how can anyone say things like its 'plyaing god' it very obviouly isnt.

No one has actually mentioned God in the entire thread.

I don't think anyone has mentioned "playing god" have they? You could equally say "If God didn't want people to molest children, He wouldn't let them do it" Even as a Christian, I believe we have free will and are very capable of doing things which God would prefer we chose not to.

I don't believe in God but I still think it is stupid to have a baby at 70.

Puzzled as to why they waited so long to seek help but pleased for them.

the problem I have with this is that it reinforces prejudiced negative attitudes about fertility treatment
my ds2 was born following donor egg treatment as I had an early menopause
people having this sort of intervention at 70 turn it into a freak show which then reinforces the view that ivf is somehow wrong
and makes it more difficult for people like me who are withnin their normal child bearing age range and just got unlucky

It sounds like they got unlucky, too. But maybe they didn't have access to the resources you did at an earlier age. Surely you don't begrudge the happiness this child seems to have brought this couple and their family.