mum at 66?

[ilovesprouts]

sorry if this has been done allready .. mum at 66 after ivf what do you think ..

poor child

I am absolutely certain there is a good reason for women not to be able to conceive naturally after a certain age. I am sure that this child is going to be loved but the day to day routine with a baby that keeps you awake all night, child that will need to be active most of the time, teenager that will need a compassionate but strong and ferm hand... Well, all those things that are exausting even in the prime of youth are going to be even harder for her. She is older than my mum and although my mum is still a very active person, I cannot imagine her starting all over with a little one.

It's ridiculous. No doubt the woman will love the LO but my Mum is nearly 60 (she'll kill me for that- she tells people htat shes only 55) and she won't take my DS for an overnight (2.4) as she finds it too tiring. And it is. Even for me and I'm only 31!

this entire subject is getting me really angry. everyone going on and on about this woman 'should not be allowed' to have a baby at this age and the babies life beingput down as reasons... and natural age limits to conception.
have none of you ever stood outside a school gate, and seen haggard looking grandmothers, whose full time job is taking care of the children whilst mom anddad go to work, and then again babysittingon the weekend. or grandmothers who have to care for grandchildrenbecause their own children are unable to, or wont?

older people looking after young babies is nothing new. it has been happening ever since people began. it may not be a desirable state of affairs, but it is a fact of life. the only difference is that before recent years, older people werent able to be pregnant and carry the children. if there is anythig to be worried about, it is this, older mom gestation that we should be concerned about. will she be able to survive the pregnancy etc?

But stitch surely difference between grandparents picking up the pieces and actively plannning to have a baby?
MIL and FIL looks after dd one day a week and they go to bed early afterwards, they enjoy it but are shattered.
I also think that the actual pg would take a lot out of her, don't understand why it would be desirable to be able to be pg at 66

Stichtime, looking after someone else child, even if it is all day, is not quite the same IMHO as you still get to give child back to his own parent every now and then.

You say "haggared looking" (I had to google it as I had no idea wht it meant.) The definition I got from the urban dictionary is Surely that means exactly what me and other posters have said, It does not get any easier the older you get?

stitch - your argument goes to prove that it's not reasonable for people of this age to be looking after babies and young children all day - never mind giving birth!!

I agree that I am shocked by the amount of grandparents who seem to be dumped on as cheap childcare - but that's a separate argument.

Issue here is whether a 66 year old should be allowed to get pregnant and give birth through IVF. I think definitely not. Very unfair on the child.

Before the 'you never know what might happen' argument gets dragged out, I would like to point out that statistically the likelihood of an older parent dying when their child is young is much higher than that of a younger parent. It is selfish to have a child that old as you know that there is a high probablility that they will not have you into their adulthood.

I do accept that there must be many emotional advantages to someone having a child when they are 66 but surely the physical argument can't be ignored.

grandparents looking after a child usually hand them back part of the time - and yes they can find even that hard.

My children are teenagers now and it is really hard work at any age. This child will go through their teeange rebellion when their mother is even older. Then she will die and the teen will grow up, be unable to make up for what they put her through and possibly feel guilty for life. They will have no grandparent to help with their own children.

The older I get the more strongly I feel that this is a very selfish thing to do and that the natural limits to conception make very good sense. And I wish I'd had mine earlier!

Violethill, I do not mean to stop your thread, but there is another one on the same subject that seems a bit busier if you want to join in?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/756807-Elizabeth-Adeney-the-66yr-old-having-a-baby-The-Sun

That is only if you want to though!

my point is, that you cant use the 'should not be allowed to have a baby' argument. why on earth can she not have one? if she is physically capable of carrying through with a pregnancy, then what gives us the right to stop her? are we some sort of nazi state? into eugenics and that sort of morality?

grandparents shouldnt have to look after grandchildren, and it isnt desirable to look after young children at an older age, but, it happens. its a fact of life, in the same way the night andday follow each other.

if we are going to start deciding who can and who cant have children, then can we please start with the child abusers, like baby p's mother and step father, or drug addicts, or alky's. or girls who go and get sloshed till they are puking their guts out on a regular basis when they are eight months pregnant.... obvioulsy we cant do that. so why pick on someone who has a good plan in place to look after the future child?

tatt, not all grandparents can hand the kids back. someo f them have them 24 7, and with far less back up arrangements than this woman has.

stitch...I'm sure many people share your sentiments that we would rather child abusers and drug addicts didn't give birth to babies who from day one are being brought into dysfunctional, damaging families.

But surely you can see that there is a fundamental difference between people getting pregnant naturally, and doctors actually choosing to create a baby who would not otherwise exist??

violethill - are you opposed to all infertility treatments?

no I'm not.

selfish wopman imo

violet, so do yo upropose a society in which we choose who can, and who cannot procreate? because that is eugenics. and i find that repugnant.

stitch - I haven't got a clue where you got that idea from! Have you been reading the same thread?!

I said I would prefer that child abusers and drug addicts did not procreate while they are abusers/addicts and bring a child into a damaging family. I am sure many people would agree with those sentiments. I would rather Baby Peter's mother hadn't continued to have children to abuse. That is not remotely the same as saying that as a society we should decide who can procreate.

Selfish selfish selfish.I am an older mother and I worry all the time about being in my 60s when my girls will be in their 20s,if I am still around!To be in your 80's with a teenager is insane,if she wants a child why not foster teenagers or older children now? They are hard enough to place.She is only thinking of herself and what she wants.

violeet, this thread iscondemning this woman for daring to try to procreate at her age. it is damning the doctor for helping her. phrases like 'should not be allowed' are being bandied about all th etime.
yup its the same thread. i think people need to realise the slippery slope this is, and where it leads to.

an nhs that doesnt deliver free care at the point of delivery? even if they do charge a fortune later on? perhaps we should stop treating certain 'types' of people in and e? well, its not much of a jump tothe woman delivering a baby in the car park on her own, with frantic dh, because the hospital wont take her, as they dont have the payment methods then and there. that happened to a woman in our local hospital in saudi arabia. one, where i might add, my father had heart surgery, and they were fantastic.

let me qualify, this thread, and the other one, the longer one. i'm sort of treating them as one big amalgam.

The woman isn't being treated for some injury or illness. She has had IVF to artificially create a baby at way past natural child bearing age. I can't quite see the parallel with expecting a woman to give birth in a car park!!

the parallel is with people s reactions to it.
when people start saying that someone cant do something because they dont fit into their little groupings, for whatever reasons, you end up with that situation

i understand that i am quite emotional about htis topic, and am not being quite as eloquent as i would like to be, but, i'm not that hazy either.

just because it goes against the idea of what some people consider that natural order of things, doesnt mean that it should be banned. that leads for a society that isnt civilised inany sense

men have babies at all sorts of ages and are never condemned like this

men can naturally procreate at age 66. Women can't. Whether it's a sensible idea for a man to father children at that age is another matter.