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 was just about to write pretty much what BCNS has just said.

To be honest FBG, I'm not sure! there were several, so apologies if I seem undirected. I hope I have addressed the points though.

Society does self-regulate, and I think the instances of women of 66 becoming parents are so rare, that is why we all know about it.

But I don't see how in a liberatarian society we can legislate for this, only for the allocation of societies resources. If she can afford it, well, we might disapprove for all sorts of reasons that are meaningful to us, but it is her choice. And I stand behind a woman's right to parenthood even if I disapprove of it - and there are many many people out there that I think should not be parents, but not actually because of their age.

no, i agree. that is why it is so difficult. i thikn i am thinking aloud really..

I agree with worldsworstmummy and dizietsma.
Particularly this post of dizietsma's.

"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."

As for funding by the NHS then each case should be assessed individually. No doubt some restrictions would have to be in place as it would be impossible to give unlimited treatment to everyone who asked. But I don't think one of those restrictions should be based on age alone.

If a woman or couple could afford it themselves then that should be be able to make the choice for themselves after taking into account any medical recommendations.

There are no gurantees that you will live to see your DCs growing up. However, people very rarely reach a grand old age and then drop down dead. It is a gradual decline. The likelihood of developing Alzheimer?s doubles about every five years after age 65. After age 85, the risk reaches nearly 50 percent. I don't think she has been fair on her baby.

Agree with Leningrad's posts, too.

BALD and Early, just to put the record straight, I used that phrase because it is one often used in discussions about late parenting.

Fyi, I take ds swimming, cycling, walking, and yes, even bowling. And have kicked a ball around with him on plenty of occasions. He also goes to cubs and football club.

if however I had not done that, it would not actually make me a bad parent. It would simply mean I parented differently to those people who do a lot of physical activities with their children, one of the arguments, as I say above, against older parenting.

Leningrad, absolutely.

I think that nature prevents us having children at a more advanced year for a reason.
if she were able to fall pregnant herslef then it would be no ones business but hers. but i do thin it is a very selfish act to try and concieve at such an age.

that doesn't mean she will not love this child like any other mother nor will it mean she is incapable of parenting adequately.

I think 45 would be a good cut off, as it can and does happen naturally at that age. Maybe the age limit could be pushed up a bit if the woman was living a very healthy lifestyle (as a kind of reward or acknowledgement of her life expectancy!).

The likelihood of a 45 yr old seeing her baby's 21st birthday is (barring accident) high.

The same can NOT be said for a 66 yr old.

My Mum come to think of it was 66 in March and it would be so funny to think of her having a baby!! She can't cope with a 7 yr old and a 3 yr old for very long. (although she is sensible enough not to want to try for toooo long)

"I think that nature prevents us having children at a more advanced year for a reason."

But what reason would that be?

great number of smaller insignificant reasons that bundled together make it not such a great idea.

Such as? Just curious.

Eggs get older,dna starts behaving badly in them, risks of abnormalities are higher in women over 35.

In a funny way, it is an argument for IVF, as opposed to natural conception as the eggs used are from much younger women and so much less likely to develop abnormally.

But as has been said, an older woman wouldn't be using her own eggs but younger eggs without any of those problems.

Exactly. an argument for IVF over a certain age.

ps, reading back other people's comments, I want to add that I thnk men trying deliberately for babies much past the age of 45-48 is a bit

They are babies for such a short time. The telling question is whether you really want to deal with a stroppy 14yr old when you are 80? I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to be lying in bed waiting for my 17yr old DC to come in from a night out when I am 83yrs old.

Surely it's the quality not the quantity of the parenting - if we want to talk about who should and shouldn't be able to become parents. There are sadly all too many unfit parents out there - men and women - and it has nothing to do with their age.

I'm glad my mum is only 26 yrs older than me. I feel bad that I am 32 and 35 yrs older than MY children.

Not saying that I wish I'd had children at 26 but from the (grown up) child's perspective, the longer you have your mother around, the better.

Unless of course she's a violent and abusive mother - in which case social services would have to intervene.