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

Juuule, that was a stupid comment. A woman can't leave a pregnant man. It's not about any one person. I'm not struggling to accept the usual norms of nature and human biology.

I left my x. But it wouldn't have made any difference if he left me. The children would still almost certainly be with their mother. So in evolutionary and social terms, the Mother's age is much more significant. It's not something I'm resentful about. I have no difficulty accepting that the end of reproductive phase is 45ish. It's biology. No more.

Worldsworstmummy I love your post.

Why was it a stupid comment. Obviously I didn't mean that men become pregnant. But I have known instances where the mother has left the dad with the baby and gone off with someone else.

Me too, LilianGish.

Juuule, it's far, far less likely though. Millions of women are no doubt left pregnant and alone... It is not abnormal in biological terms.

I'm not saying that it's right or it's fair!! But this is biology. Human physiology. Life expectancy. Death.

This is what I'm talking about. IF you want to swim upstream against mother nature then I'm not stopping you, or anybody else, but there are reasons why women usually stop having children beyond 40+

You accused me of being dumped and resentful basically!! Now answer my question, what age were you when you had your child?

"but there are reasons why women usually stop having children beyond 40+"

Well yes there are. But that's no reason to legislate against it for women who would like another child.

"Now answer my question, what age were you when you had your child?"

Well as you ask so nicely, I was 27 when I had my first child and almost 44 when I had my last.

It was a stupid comment because although there may be a few thousand Dads left minding their babies there are millions of mothers left alone minding theirs.

It was also nasty though. "were you left holding the baby and that is why you resent it?"

This is nothing to do with me. I'm able to separate biology from social mores. The World is a different place to when women gathered nuts, but if you are looking for a reason why women don't have children beyond 40+ then you've heard those reasons, loud and loud, several times now. You just don't like them.

Well, 44 is not old. You shouldn't take this so personally. You will be around to see your youngests 30th no doubt. And the odds are, 40th too.

I am not having a pop at women who have babies at 44.

Now don't take it so personally, MsMaggie.
Seriously, if you thought I was being nasty, I didn't mean it that way. It's just the way some of your posts were coming across.

"although there may be a few thousand Dads left minding their babies there are millions of mothers left alone minding theirs."

By the same reasoning most women will not want a baby past menopause. But for the few who might why legislate a 'cut off' age?

I think missmaggie some of the earlier posts did suggest women should not be allowed to have babies over 40 which is understandly annoying to us older gals who are as healthy as most women in their 20s and 30s, and just as capable as raising a child to adulthood without resorting to zimmer frames.

But that's a fact. The vast majority of lone parent benefit is paid to females.

I'm not in favour of any legislation here.

But I wouldn't think that I could bend the norms of nature, just by wishing them changed.

so is it right to defy nature just because we can? Personally I don't think it is.

But this is about so much more than one woman's desire to have a baby. It's about the fact that she's had to go abroad to achieve that desire, to a country where fertility treatment is largely unregulated.

There was discussion about this on the radio this morning, and a lot of the countries that have unregulated fertility treatments also exploit the women who are the egg doners. Most of the egg doners are paid and donate for money, but they receive very little support and are often over stimulated in order to produce the maximum number of eggs so that the fertility clinics can impregnate the maximum number of women in order to generate the maximum amount of cash.

This has nothing to do with giving a woman treatment who is unable to have children, it's about exploiting people, anyone, for money.

Is that right as well then? as long as a baby is the end result?

This is about so much more than just one woman..

I wish her and her baby health and happiness.

However, I think the cut off age for IVF should be around 45 yrs old.

Wannabe, I think that is a whole different thread, though.

This one was asking
"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 also, human evolution has valued technological innovation as a survival tool. This ability to mould our environment to our wills is fundamental to us as humans.

Its very hard for our current generations to catch up emotionally and pyschologically to the changes our innovative brains lead us to. The gap is enormous.

We can all cite many instances of biology being given the runaround by medical advances, improved mortality, prem babies surviving at younger ages, stem cell usage, drugs to prolong life, heart transplants. All these things throw up challenges to our overworked pysches, and we all struggle with it.

But its kind of cool that we have these opportunities now.

IMO the cut off age should be at the point at which a woman can no longer naturally conceive. Provided she doesn't have a medical condition that prevents her conceiving iyswim.

But why? I really don't understand why. The evolutionary argument I'm not sure hold water because back in the Era of Evolutionary Adaptedness or whatever it's called, women would surely have died much younger than they do now. We have an artificially increased lifespan if you like, so why not an artificially increased fertile period?

Anyway, as I said below, I don't think it;s a great plan. But I don't now why I should be allowed to impose that on other women, particularly when I'm not even being asked to fund it.

I agree Wannabe. About 47.

And for all our technology, life expectancy is still about 74 ish. I wouldn't want to have to deal with my mother's death before I was 25. So I'd say 74-25 which is 49...

Ok, say 48!?

Not legislation, just an acknowledgment that you won't live for ever.

But there already is a "cut off" point in this country - 50 yrs.

The lady in question went to Romania for her treatment. They do not have an age limit there and it is not illegal to leave this country for IVF abroad.

Personally I think she is barmy. My mum and dad are exhausted after looking after my 2 for the weekend and are glad to hand them back.

can I just say thanks to juules and lilian for appreciating my post? makes a lovely change from having rubbr bands pinged at the back of my head from the girls the desks behind me, iyswim!

wannabe, I think that is often a starting position, which has many virtues, but it doesn't really hold water if we examine it closely.

Could you personally tell a woman who couldn't conceive without the aid of IVF who was two months over some arbitrary age deadline they were too late? and If you couldn't, what difference does a year or so make? Or even ten years?

In biological terms our only duty is to raise children to adulthood, lets say 16/18 in our society. Job done. Other arguments such as wanting to have parents into adulthood have no evolutionary or biological advantage, just an emotional one.

Worldsworstmummuy the average age a woman will die at is 79 in this country. If we decide that a mum should live to see her child reach 18 then the cut off point would have to be 61. The woman in question is 66.

I think the cut off for women and men should be determined by more than just their ages. There are individual cases where a couple have been together for ages and started trying young , but were only able to have the longed for child late in life. However, having said that, I think deciding to have a child after 45 needs to take into consideration what effects this will have on the child and I mean this applied to both men and women. I have seen men in their 50's and 60's with a young child and that to me is no different at all to hearing about a woman who is pregnant in her 50's or 60's and for the child involved it can be a positive or negative experience.Yes, it sounds harsh to be mathematical about whether or not the parent will still be alive to witness stuff the child does etc..but it is how life works. I personally think we will always have isolated cases where people defy the rules of nature and of man.

Thecrackfox, I think she is as mad as a bag of frogs for doing it at 66! But I as stated before, and for those reasons, I can see no reason to legislate against it!

Though do like the idea MNetters can come to a consensus that 61 should be the cut off point!

Returning after bathtime - delighted to see Worldsworst continuing to hit the nail on the head. No need for me to make any further contribution - I shgall appoint her as my spokeswoman.

But average age is just that - an average.

An individual's likelyhood of dying can be far more accurately judged than just taking the average. Insurance companies do it all the time.

If this woman is a non-smoker, eats well, exercises, lives in good housing and all the other things that make it more likely that she will live longer then she may well be likely, on balance, to live to see her child reach maturity.

So, case by case.