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

[carriemumsnet]

Hi all

The Sun Tel are doing an article on older mothers based on this story

They're interested to know what folks think the 'cut off' should be in terms of age, or whether there should be no cut off, if you can fund the treatment yourself. And what about men - there's no cut off for them, so should women have the same rights?

They're keen to have feedback in the next hour or so, so let us know what you think

Thanks

MNHQ

I don't think you can put a cover-all age limit on these things. I'm 37 and completely knackered by DD, this woman might be far more energetic. We don't know what her back up system is like. The 21 year old down the road may have less support. There is always the possibility of a parent dying. Equally, DH's grandmother is 96 this year. She would have seen a child well into adulthood. I think it has to be a case by case decision.

And it does annoy me that the likes of Des O'Connor can parade their aged fertility when a woman considerably younger than him is slated. As applies to a lot of things, just because men possibly could father a child at 90, doesn't meant they should.

I think you haev to think of the kids when you have a baby. If i was utterly broke I personally wouldnt have had one, and wouldnt have had more than one if I worked very long hours or was away a lot. SO to that end i wasnt selfish.
I knew i had to be able to do what I precieved to be a good job.

Men can have babies pretty much all their lives, if the technology is there to enable it then why shouldn't women get to do the same thing? Seems pretty sexist to suggest otherwise IMO.

I personally wouldn't want to do it, but who am I to dictate how other people live their lives.

I don't think that men should be elderly either.

I don't think men or women should have babies when they're in their 60's - i don't think its fair on the children or them.

So for me i guess the cut-off would be around 50.

WWM - If you were answering my posts, my point was I have no problem with women conceiving naturally at any age. It is having help in your 60s which is wrong imo. What have you been doing for the last 20-30 years to leave it until then to seek help? I never said you shouldn't be allowed to naturally* conceive over 40!

Will you try for another baby?

I think it is very unfair on the child and to be honest selfish of the mother.
Just because we are trying to have equal rights for women, doesn't mean that babies should have to suffer.

I think there is a valid point to be made about societies finite resources being used for this kind of personal choice activity, and indeed within those constraints, a pragmatic cut off point is sensible. We can't all have the things we want, and expect others the pick up the tab., if the statistical chances of success are extremely small.

If however, it is self-financed, I can't see how there can be an ethical or moral objection. If I had a child now, I could reasonably expect to live to my mid-eighties, and my child would be 40 when I died. Grown up enough to cope, I should think.

And the quality of their earlier years would surely depend on my parenting, not my age? I have an 8 year old now. I have no intention of ever kicking a ball around with him, and he would be mortified if I tried. He does however have a rich and active life.

It's a difficult one but I think that menopause should be the cut off for IVF since it's a clear indicator that your body can't/doesn't want to sustain any more pregnancies. For those unfortunate people who suffer early menopause perhaps taking an average menopausal age would work. A bit of a moral dilemma isn't it. 66 is way too old IMO though.

why would you not want to have a kickaround with your child? blimey

no-one is talking about enforced sterilisation or an arbitary cut off , but trying to see if tehre should be a boundary around the time a woman would naturally be menopausal.

if you are 45, fertile and able to conceive, go for it.

but teh NHS cannot fund unlimited IVF for all without any upper age limit

the fact this woman oculd bypass the NHS does not necesarily make it right, but as i said before, i thikn there are many, many shades of grey

the toll pregnancy and birth and the early days with a baby takes on a woman in her 60s will surely be different to a woman in her 20s?

oh BALDY

becuase she is the worlds worst mummy

dur brain

i spent way too long bowling to ds. Then i read that some England cricketer attributes his sucees to his mum bowling with one arm holding a baby in another.. that is me!

Hi FBG. No, I don't think I will. Because amazingly enough, I do kind of agree that its much harder all round, and would be unfair on my ds.

But its a terrific sadness that having found lurve finally I will never know the joy of having a baby with a man l loved. I could make that choice, but for all of us its not right.

But thats about my particular circumstances. If I were rich, could afford all the help (thinks ironing, cleaning, going to work etc) then I would be very tempted.

Also the risk of foetal abnormality plays on my mind, having lived through the tragedy of that with a sibling. But I beleive most IVF for much older women usually involve eggs of much younger women, so a moot point of the IVF slant.

I think Lulu covers the points I agree with most succinctly.

Early, please stop baiting me, its just silly.

And was it my post you were getting het up about?

Reading your last post I can't see a reason not to try that wouldn't bring a benefit over a negative for your reasons tbh. And I mean that in a nice way.

I think 50 is about as old as any woman should be. I am 45 and would love another baby, but I'm single so the likelyhood of another in the next couple of years is slim to say the least.
If I met the love of my life tomorrow, I'd want to see how we went for a couple of years, so I'd have to be 48 and that would have to be with so much luck in early conception...so, I'd realy have to say 50 wouldn't I.

I do think 66 is daft and can't imagine my own 67/68 year old mother having a baby at her age.

I do think it's very selfish tbh. Just because you have the money to fund IVF doesn't guarantee you'll live long enough to see your child into the school gates.

yes big diff to late 40s and 66 I agree.

another one who would say up to menopause age. IMO nature does this for a reason.

it is an interesting point lenin, but just because the parents can pay for the IVF, birth etc privately does that detract from other issues? what if there are massive problems post birth due to her age? the NHS will surely have to pick up the pieces

i honestly don;t know what i think, but i don;t think i can make up my mind either way yet

i do think it is a slippery slope saying who can and can't have children, but i do really thikn 66 is too old to have your first child.