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

"the longer you have your mother around, the better"

Surely that depends on the mother. Sadly it might not be true for everyone.

Oh and there were 25y between my mother and me. She died when I was 29y. So no guarantees about how long someone will live.

Juuule Obviously no guarantees with anything at all in life, but having a child younger does increase that mother's likelihood of being around for more of her child's life.

LilianGish and Juuule Most people are upset when their mother dies.

I'm not sure the argument that it is different when men have babies at a much advanced age as they have done it naturally stands. Altho they are less likely to need medical intervention they do need a much younger woman to do so. Presumably this woman has also used the eggs of a much younger woman to have a baby at this age. I'm musing aloud really... but I do feel uncomfortable about the level of scrutiny on women who do this, compared to men.

This story appears in the Daily Mail - a newspaper whose raison d'etre is to champion the traditional family where mum stays at home to raise the kids. How dare this woman have a job and be a divorcee and somehow manage to circumvent the system and have a baby?!? She should be paying the price of going out to work and letting her husband go with her just desserts of a lonely old age. Funny they don't make such a song and dance when it's an old man becoming a father.

There is a biological and evolutionary reason why women loose the natural ability to bare a child between the age of 45ish and 55ish.

Just because medical science can circumvent that doesn't mean it should.

I'm not sexist on this matter Miyazaki I didn't think, oh well done Des, when Des O'Connor bacame a father at 72. I thought fgs Des, what a ludicrous decision.

My son has autism and his father was not 'old' exactly but older when he was conceived. ONe thing I've noticed when meeting other families with autistic shoes, quite often the dads aren't in the first flush of youth.

BUT..... crucially, the blunt truth is that often, for whatever reason, the woman is the one left holding the baby! So I think it's more important that the woman is 20 yrs away from life expectancy.

Ms Adeney doesn't even have a younger partner.

I meant families with autistic children! not families with autistic shoes (although autistic shoes sound interesting).

"There is a biological and evolutionary reason why women loose the natural ability to bare a child "

What are they?

Without researching it I would suggest

1. Ability to carry a healthy child to term with a successful delivery (which will be circumvented by medicical monitoring and probably a c section)

1. The period of nurturing intended by NATURE for humans is in the region of 16+ years...something which (without medical intervention and care - which obviously is available - but no gurantees) is unlikely to be acheived

Look at this. Men shouldn't delude themselves that they can go on having children into their late 50s, 60s and beyond

look

juule 2nd time you've said that, and I think the fairly obvious reason would be that they are much closer to death. You know that really though I suspect, you just don't like it!?

worldsworstmummy - do you think that a woman should be allowed to conceive and have a baby at ANY age then? So an 80 year old could have IVF and have a baby. If so, that is crazy.

My Mum is 49 and I love the fact that she is still young enough to be totally hands on with my daughter, she still works FT in a very successful career in the city, we have SO much in common and enjoy going out for a bottle of wine, going to the gym together, weekends away etc. She is my best friend.

IMO the generational gap between a 14 and an 80 year old would be a HUGE barrier to cross during the teenage years and beyond and the woman is unlikely to meet her Grandchildren, see her child get married etc etc.

Just a bit of research supports what I said above. In addition research in Africa (apparently) suppports a theory that it is important for a woman to reach grandmotherhood - to help nuture her grandchildren and therefore gene pool (after all evolution is all about the maintance of your gene pool not a body).

MsMaggie - yes it is the 2nd time I've said that because as I said I'm curious. People say that nature has a reason for making women sterile at a certain age, I wonder what the reason is that it doesn't apply to men. That's all.

DoNotAnnoy - 1. Not sure about this reason as these older women have shown that carrying a baby to term isn't necessarilly a problem, it's the conceiving in the first place.

1. Nurturing to 16. The mother isn't essential for this, though, is she?

What about without medical intervention? I am not convinced that a succeessful delivery at term (I think the emphasis here is on delivery rather than pregnancy)

It is generally the mothers role for nuturing in all mammals. Obviously science and technology has skewed this too...but in the eyes of nature it is the womans role to nuture and the fathers role to shag as many women as possible to be brutally frank. A lifelong monogamous relationship isn't that common in nature.

You need to read the Daily Mail more often -the reason it doesn't apply to men is because they should be the bread winners and not concern themselves with nurturing and child-rearing which is after all women's work.

It might be preferable for it to be the mother's role to nurture in the early years but even then adopted children do well without birth mothers.

And long-term monogamous relationships in humans are not unheard of. Also I think that you are stereotyping the roles of the sexes.

Ewe, I am 45 and young enough to be totally hands on with my own daughter if I were lucky enough to have another now.

And your mum is your mate. How lovely. Do you anticipate falling out with her when she is in her sixties? Or will she always be your mum whatever her age?

My mother is 75. she didn't turn into a mardy old bag the day she turned 50!

I am friends with women my mothers age and my grandmothers age.

Clearly you are quite young, and I do remember thinking then that 40 plus was really old. I think you will find age differences tend to melt away the older you get.

Regarding successful delivery at term - do we know that this wouldn't be possible/safe or whatever.
Are IVF babies delivered by CS as routine (I've no idea, genuine question) because there is a preference to medically manage the birth in order to reduce risk as much as is possible?

And to clarify, of course I think 80 too old. I even think 66 is too old. But thats not my decision, its her life and her body. And her baby.

You need to bare in mind that in my original post the emphasis was on evolutionary and biological.

If we want to bring in the fact that the rapid rate of industrial, scientific and medicical advances have caused evolution to lag behind it is a whole new story.

Adoption falls outside of pure biological/evolutionary arguments

Evolutionarily the females role is to nuture. The males role is to spread his genes as far and wide as possible.

I am not sterotyping anything. I am sticking to evolution and biology. Cultural changes have distorted biology to the point that it is not soley the mothers role to nuture. It is not (generally) acceptable to be polygamous. But evolution has not caught up with that yet.

It isn't a human right's issue, or a case of sexism. It's common sense, maths even.

50+ is too old to have a baby. It may work out alright, but it's not advisable.

Whether it's right or not (for men or women) in your opinion, MsMaggie, it isn't for you to decide what is right for someone else.

ps Juuuule, the reason (in purely biological and evolutionary terms) is that the woman is left holding the baby. The father may or may not be significant. There's your answer. Harsh but true.