January 21st, 2006, 03:38 PM
There was a tv clip this week regarding a European woman celebrating her son's first birthday. What makes this newsworthy is that she is 67. :eek:
A single literature professor, she apparently always wanted to have a child, but never got around to it. (now that's procastination):D and invitro made this possible.
The choice is of course hers, but it seems sad for the child, and to me.. a rather irresponsible and even selfish decison to become an "elderly" parent.
One can assume she made arrangements for his care in the long term, or for when her health begins failing. He is destined to be an orphan at a young age.
Many people put off having children until later in life these days.. and there's certainly nothing wrong with this at all. It many ways, it's a good thing.
No one knows what life holds...but shouldnt the expectation to see them into adulthood be present?
Medical techniques can over-ride Mother Nature in many instances today, and certainly a wonderful thing for many women trying to conceive, give birth.
But in a few cases, such as this - because you "can" doesnt necessarily mean you should.
What are your thoughts on this?
January 21st, 2006, 03:50 PM
I really dont think it is right!!!!
i remeber being about 10 when we celebrated my grand fathers retirement in his early 60's now i'm 26 and he is 81 and we are prepareing for ...:angel:
well so if a 10-15year old has to lose a parent that young it is unfair are they having children to take care of them rather then them taking care of the child it is un fair and selfish.... my opinion..
January 21st, 2006, 04:07 PM
I definitely do not agree,it was a very selfish act on her part and I do not understand why the Doc allowed it to happen.
I was too young when I had my first son,he is now 43 and I am 61,my other boys are 39 and 35,but I have no regrets.
Having a baby now at my age,absolutely not!! It's almost immoral,she should have gotten a pet instead:p
January 21st, 2006, 04:26 PM
There's 13 years between my younger brother and myself. Mom was 35 when she had him, which was considered a bit old in those days. I have to share my favorite "Mom Quote" in regards to the current trend to have children later in life - "The last thing a woman needs when going through menopause is a teenager!" Well, I guess that 67 year old woman doesn't have to worry about that! My cousin had her only child at 49 years. The pregnancy was a complete surprise as she had previously been told she couldn't get pregnant. She and her husband were thrilled, but OMG that kid is a totally spoiled, undisciplined brat and she and her husband are going through a divorce 7 years later. I guess too big a change in lifestyle at that age. Guess that woman doesn't have to worry about that either?
January 21st, 2006, 04:37 PM
I think that is totally is completely wrong and selfish. I mean how much will she have in common with this child when the child is old enough to hold a conversation? My mother and I have the ability to hold conversations about our work, politics, movies, and anything else. We can go shopping and do things together. How will she be able to keep up with an infant? Then the point made earlier, isn't this child going to be an orphan at a young age? I just think it's terrible to do this to a child. It's just wrong on so many levels.
January 21st, 2006, 05:31 PM
"The last thing a woman needs when going through menopause is a teenager!" Well, I guess that 67 year old woman doesn't have to worry about that! ?
lol, safe to say that ship has sailed too..:crazy:
While I had my own children very young - two of three before twenty.. I also know women who have had their first child as late as 44. The trend for later first time births is very prevalent in today's society, and if when you're ready,you find nature needs a little help, why not avail yourself of this?
But there logically - and ethically..should be some cut-off point.
If this woman were even 57,. I'd say that would still be in the "realm" for motherhood.. albeit a rather distant one. But she is a senior citizen, and new mom or not,nothing alters that reality.
Also, she is a single parent. With couples, one may be much older
(usually the male) but the younger spouse provides reassurance that "a" parent will likely be there for the child growing up, even if they're not.
January 21st, 2006, 06:24 PM
I just lost my mom 2mo ago. I'm grateful for the years I had with her. I don't think I could have handled losing her when I was in my teens. Seems this woman could have taken in an older foster child if she wanted to be a mother.
January 21st, 2006, 06:55 PM
My Mom had me when she was 43. I am the youngest of eight my oldest brother is 20 years older then me she had him when she was 23. She is now 85 but is still going strong.
I had my first kid at 33 and my second/last at 36. I wouldnt want anymore now as it is tiring enough having them a little bit later in life I couldnt imagine being 77 and having a ten year old, or being 87 and having a 20 year old.
I guess its a womans right to have a child but I dont really think it is fair to the child.
January 21st, 2006, 07:32 PM
Personally anyone over 45 should retire their uterus. It's bad on the mother healthwise and it's toally unfair to the child.
Why in the world would you have a kid at 67!!!?? that's so irresponsible and selfish!
Yeah you want a kid and never had time for it. If you really want to...at the right time you MAKE TIME! You're 67 and want a kid, that's just selfish! Get a pet! it's real traumatizing to a kid to put up with the death of a parent at an early age. Plus at 67 what can you really do to make that kid's life normal? Can you play ball? No! Can you go for runs in the park?? NO!
Then it would be like getting a dog and not being able to exercise it enough.
This issue makes me really irate! It just bothers me how many inconsiderate people live in the world.
And yes many seniors do very well at such an old age, but still no time to have a baby. there should be an age limit on having babies. Still having said that, I'm very surprised she was able to carry out the pregnancy at that age.ouch!
glasslass...I can see what you mean. My mom's friend had her second child 2 years ago and she's almost 40. That child runs the house! She's 2 and she doesn't go to bed until 1 am. And god forbid if you turn the tv off(which she doesn't watch anyways) But their tv is on ALL THE TIME...cos the baby wants it on.
I wonder why older moms allow their kids to be so spoiled?
January 21st, 2006, 07:39 PM
I had my first kid at 33 and my second/last at 36.
Joeysmom, (if you don't mind me asking!) are you happy with the age you decided to have kids at? Would you change anything? I'm asking because if we have kids, I'd like to have them around the same age you did...
January 21st, 2006, 08:20 PM
Boxer rescue= Joeysmom, (if you don't mind me asking!) are you happy with the age you decided to have kids at? Would you change anything? I'm asking because if we have kids, I'd like to have them around the same age you did...
Truthfully I would have liked to have had them sooner, but my life just happened that way. I met my husband when I was 29, We had kids pretty much right away after we got married. Most of my friends even had their kids later then we did. I really wanted kids though and mine are such a joy to have around (most of the time). I could probably still have another if I really wanted to but I am pretty sure I am done. Once your out of the diaper/pullup stage is smooth sailing all the way. Well at least until the teenage years. :D
Just a note though once you get passed 35 it may be harder to get pregnant.
January 21st, 2006, 11:41 PM
I'd like to join in and say it's way too old, but that got me thinking. Age is not nearly as important as the quality of the mom. My mom had me when she was around 30, but she took off when I was 2. I probably would have rathered a 67 year old mom who was actually there (or if she left, she probably would have died, not run off to have more kids to abandon).
The thing with these old moms is a lot of them REALLY want it. So who is the better mom to start with the old mom who really wants it or the young one for whom the kid is ruining her life?
January 22nd, 2006, 07:22 AM
Part of the reason why i dont want a kid right now is because I have had to healthy kids already. I am scared because of my advanced age (not telling but I am younger than 67) is that I have a higer risk for having a baby with downs or other genetic defects.
So how young is to young. I come from a town where there are so many teen moms here. When I first moved her when my son wasnt just under a year. I signed up for this parenting course just to meet people. I walked in the oldest was probably 20,(besides me of course) they were all learning basic life skills, like cooking, doing laundry a lot of them had there moms with them as well. Needless to say I felt really out of place and never went back.
January 22nd, 2006, 08:08 AM
I do think 67 is too old, my god - like jesse's mom, I can't imagine not being able to go shopping with my mom, talk and all that good stuff.
Truthfully I would have liked to have had them sooner, but my life just happened that way.
I think that with the way my life is happening, things will happen a little later too! I know that the older you get, the harder it is...but I'm not opposed to adoption ;)
January 22nd, 2006, 08:12 AM
My husband and I often talk about everything we could have offered our boys had we been 20yrs older,as it were,we did not have much in material luxury,hardly even a decent place to live.Bi-Way was our clothingstore:D
I don't believe it was an ideal situation,we struggled when the kids were small(2 of whom were born with disabilities) and we lost a lot of our youth,but we are making up for it now:D
Ideally I believe 25-35 is a good age to have children,you are hopefully,established,have some of lives comforts and ready for a baby.
At 18/19 I was not,but matured very quickly once I saw my first bundle of joy:D
My husband a youthful 62,is elated when people believe his 43yr old son is his brother:D
January 22nd, 2006, 02:56 PM
my sister had my nephew at 20, now hes 11you and a wonderful boy, they have a great relationship. my mother had the three of us before she was 25, and that was normal in the day, and still very acceptable today in my eyes, not in many other ppl but in mine. i think its sad when 20yo girls get judged for having kids, its like their treated as simple or dumb these days, but i think whatever suites is cool. hey it means you get more freedom in your 30's...
but 67, nah its jsut stupid, why would you do that to a child....
im 30yo and having my first, which will be swiftly followed by my secound, i dont want to spend my 30's birthing. i've got things to do in life. coming from a group of very poor genetics, i worry that my life expectancy is not good, even at 30 i worry that i oculd leave a child an orphan at 30yo, that would be just awful. 67, thats just totally selfish and downright stupid. i hope she is rich, it would be very unfortunate for her society to have to pay for her child after she is gone, some ppl are jsut totally self obsessed with no consideration for others. children need parents right up till their old themselves..........
as far as the doc that helped her, what an irrisponsible person.....
January 22nd, 2006, 04:05 PM
I'd like to join in and say it's way too old, but that got me thinking. Age is not nearly as important as the quality of the mom.
Prin, you raise a very good point. Age is no guarantee of good parenting, either way. Too young or too old both have built-in issues that "might" be a factor, but are dependent on so many other personal aspects.
There are wonderful teenage moms and immature 45-year olds.
Personally, I believe 25-35 is the" ideal" time for motherhood, or anything "reasonably" within that time frame.
67 is way beyond the realm of what nature ever intended. She is the age one would expect of a grandma... many much younger, in fact.
With a 17-year old grand-daughter, I could theoretically be a "great- grandmother":eek: .. and I am younger than her by some years.
At my age, I would never consider adopting a kitten, for the simple reason that realistically I cannot be "sure" that I would be around - or healthy enough- to provide care for it's possibly 20 year lifespan.
I would only take older cats from here on in.
I feel this woman would have been better off to adopt an older child to fulfill her parenting desires.
She is denying "reality", and it is this principle that I find irresponsible - much more so with a child. :sad:
January 22nd, 2006, 04:22 PM
Shamrock,it's funny you should mention a kitten,I have come to the sad realisation that Vinnie is my last kitten,for exactly the same reason.
It is even doubtful that I(at 61) will outlive the cats I have now,but if I ever again had the opportunity to add another cat/dog it would be an older one.