Very Old Mothers

[lulu]

Did anyone else watch the TLC show about woman having babies at age 57 and,in India, even at 70? One is totally blind and another has a plethora of health issues. Two have significantly younger husbands.I'm 57 and I worry about my pets outliving me. I think it's selfish.
Am I too judgmental?

 

[monarch64]

Didn't see this show but the topic intrigues me!

SO is 37 and I am 33...we are not yet married but would love to have children together someday after tying the knot. I have no problem with being an "old" mom. I didn't realize that around the world there are even "older" moms such as in the story you describe! Very interesting!

As far as having children in your 50's...I guess I feel like "who am I to judge?" Do I think it's fair to the children born into a family or couple who is significantly older? No. I would never look down upon that, though, and I would never consider it an impossibility, because I feel that every WANTING parent out there has the right to bring a child into the world so long as they are willing to provide a loving, nurturing environment for said child. That is, of course, just my humble opinion.

 

[Autumnovember]

Ehhh...this is tough. I don't know if I'd say its "selfish" but I think everyone is entitled to do what they please in terms of having children and when as long as they are able to give the child the proper care.

 

[missydebby]

It's easy for me to have a visceral first reaction along the lines of "ewwww" especially for the very very old ladies having kids. But in stepping back, I don't have an issuee. After having experienced infertility myself, I can tell you it's excruciating to want a child and be unable to get pregnant or carry to term. I got lucky and eventually had 1 beautiful, heathy, perfect little girl, but for years I was so so sad being unable to give her a sibling. We explored adoption, of course, and for a myriad of reasons, it didn't work out for us.

It may be selfish in some ways... it may take a lot of resources too. But that not necessarily bad. I can't tell you how pissed off I used to get at fate, that made it easy for ******* jerk parents who could care less to get pregnant. While I was trying, it seemed like every other drug addicted or uncaring parent was getting pregnant before they even unzipped their pants, you know?

At least you can be sure that these families will cherish their babies.

But I totally get the first initial feeling of weirdness.

 

[Mashira]

Ehhh...this is tough. I don't know if I'd say its "selfish" but I think everyone is entitled to do what they please in terms of having children and when as long as they are able to give the child the proper care.

I agree with this. My own mother had me at 35. Granted, that is not quite as old as 60/70 but it's up there as far as the US is concerned.
(She is Pakistani though, so technically she was considered 'fairly young') I think the story of the women in India is strange... and it is, because that's what got it airtime on TLC, however for Middle Eastern women, most aren't considered 'women' but 'children' until they hit about 25, where as here in America we stop being 'children' (in theory ) at 18.

 

[diamondringlover]

I kinda think it is selfish, I had my 2nd son at age 37, my husband was 42, that was 13 years ago and now that he is older and we are as well I am somewhat concerned about keeping up with him and I worry about how our health problems will effect him and I do worry about what would happen if something happens to us...I have some minor health issues that I am dealing with and so is the hubby....hopefully we will be around for a very long time to see him grow up and have his own family.

 

[Sha]

Yeah, I watched it. It was very interesting! Most of the ladies did IVF. I was really sympathetic to the Indian couple who were in their 70's - they had tried for years and years to have a child and were looked down upon by people in their rural community for being 'barren'. It was kind of touching to see them with a child after all those years of heartbreak and ridicule. For some reason, I didn't feel as sympathetic to the American woman, who I think was in her 60's - who had a girl and then boy/girl twins with her 40+ year old husband. She was saying that if anything happens to her she knows that the children will have their father as well as each other.... I don't know...I felt sorry for the children more than anything else - knowing that all of them will grow up not having their mother around. That's the one thing that feels selfish to me with a lot of these cases - why bring a child into the world knowing that there is a HUGE likelihood (considering life expectancy) that you won't be around ini 5-10 years? Of course, anything can happen to a mom of any age - but it's more likely that a woman of 60 + will die sooner than a 30 something year old. I can't really explain why I was more sympathetic to the Indian woman, though -who was even older. Maybe because she had only one child, and the couple had a HUGE extended family already living in t heir home who could easily raise the child if anything happened to her parents.

 

[anchor31]

At the moment, being at home with my 6-month-old, I'm having a hard time finding having a child "selfish" in any way. Raising children is anything but selfish.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I have a huge issue with it. My mother had my little brother at 44. He and I are 13 years apart and he's 16 years younger than my older brother. My mother is now 61 and she and my step dad can't retire because they can't afford to with a teenager living at home. She's a good mother to him but she's not the great mom I had. She's tired, impatient, short tempered, nowhere near as strict (just gives up vs fights for what she believes is right/wrong). Luckily my brother is an awesome kid with his head on straight (straight A student, athlete, has a job, gf, etc). He could have turned out to be very different, but my older brother and I were there to parent/counsel him during the tough points in his adolescence.

I think it's incredibly irresponsible of these women, and yes, selfish even.

 

[sctsbride09]

I dont know if I would say selfish, but its unfair to the child(ren) for sure. My (half) brother was born when my mom was 30, and his dad was 50. My brother is in college now, and he is terrified that his dad wont live to see him graduate. To be fair, his dad is in poor health, and I know this is not the circumstances for all "older" parents. My brother avoids going out of the house unless he has to, because he is always nervous that if he isnt there, something might happen. He doesnt have a girlfriend, because he doesnt "have the time". I know this is not reality for all kids of older parents, I just wouldnt ever want to put my *own* through that.(note I dont have kids, just hypothetic) Its hard enough to lose a parent I imagine, its got to be more difficult when your so young, and dont know much about the world yet. I would never wish for a young child to lose a parent, and i feel that if a person chooses to have a kid in their 70s, they are just "rolling the dice" and that seems unfair to me. I mean can those people who are 70 with kids HONESTLY say that they think they will live until their kids reach adulthood?

 

[janinegirly]

this is a tough one, since I myself am an "older" mother. I mean not like this show (!) since I had DD at 36. Among my friends I"m actually one of the younger moms (alot of friends had #1 at 37, 38, even 42 - we live in NYC area). My DH is a bit older than me and he absolutely is concerned about keeping up etc. down the line and we've had many conversations on it This obviously isn't so much a question at this point with #1 (I honestly had an easy pregnancy, got preggo immediately, and no issues keeping up with a toddler compared to myself 5 yrs ago,etc.), but it is if there is #2. Still without #2, I worry that #1 will be alone--so you will always have concerns--there is no perfect scenario. I also think a 40 year old today is very different from a 40 year old 20 years ago if that makes sense. So while an "older" parent is more likely to get sick, die before child reaches adulthood--that doesn't mean it can't happen to a younger parent as well (particularly an unhealthy one compared to a very healthy older person). I think finances are a factor too--older parents might be in better position than they were in their 20's, so you just can't time everything in life perfectly.

I DO agree that parents who are signficantly older and beyond the natural fertility years (therefore requiring implantation, surrogates, multiple IVF due to age) are being a bit selfish as nature is sending you a message loud and clear. JMHO

 

[lulu]

Maybe selfish is the wrong word. It just seems to me that it's unfair to the children. And I think it's irresponsible of the doctors who facilitate it. Helping infertile women during normal child bearing years is great,but this is going too far.

 

[atroop711]

It's hard to say to a 50 yr old (who's in great health) that they shouldn't have a child. I would never say that. I had my 3rd child at 40yr and am 42yr now. I don't feel 42 and my son keeps me on my toes. Would I have a child at 50? No it's not for me. I know that some ppl had issues with me pg at 40yr but I don't care. Many say that I'll be in my 60s when he's graduating from college. That's ok! As for the comments I've heard ppl say that it's selfish because they won't be around for the child long enough, I tell them a long life is not guaranteed to anyone. A friend of mine died when her daughter was only 3 yr old from cancer and 2 more dads I knew died when their kids were 3y and 4yr old.

 

[PinkTower]

No, I don't agree with this. I have my first at 29, second at 38. Now that I am mid-50's I can compare and see that I do not have nearly the energy after I work all day to do things with and for the second child as I did for the first child.

 

[Beacon]

I think it is very, very odd to have a child at those old ages and probably very physically unpleasant too. As for the child and the issue of selfishness.......I think it's like this: If you asked the child which would you rather have, old parents or never being born, the answer is obvious. yes they will be orphans earlier than most, but so was I and I managed and they can too.

 

[HollyS]

As an older woman, it scares me that there is even the slightest possibility of becoming pregnant at my age. I know that it would be exhausting to be a mother at this age (51), and very ill-advised from a medical standpoint in attempting to get pregnant by means of increasing my existing hormones, etc. I'm not at all convinced that Elizabeth Edwards is not facing a death sentence of progressing cancer because of the fertility drugs and hormones she took in order to have her last two children after age 45.

Having said that, I think it is a woman's individual right to choose. However, extra-ordinary measures should not be used by medical professionals on women over age 55. And that's older than I think is a viable age. Taking personal opinions out of the equation, it is simply medically unsound and should not be available - - in any country.

We've all become used to women in their forties having babies. But the reason Michelle Duggar had her last baby very prematurely has nothing to do with how many times she's been pregnant before. She had very common age-related complications to her pregnancy which progressed to the point of imperiling her life and the life of her baby. Add a decade or more to her 42 years, and what might have been the outcome?

 

[janinegirly]

But the reason Michelle Duggar had her last baby very prematurely has nothing to do with how many times she's been pregnant before. She had very common age-related complications to her pregnancy [/color]which progressed to the point of imperiling her life and the life of her baby. Add a decade or more to her 42 years, and what might have been the outcome?

Is this true/documented? Of all the women I know in their 40's (not to mention celebs), I don't know of anyone who had similar complications. I agree that if science has to work some medical magic for one to conceive, it is more about the person's desires than the natural progression of life. How about Kelly Preston, isn't she almost 50? That should be interesting.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

My issue isn't so much with the age of the mother when she gave birth to the child (with exception of those MUCH older mothers-like in this show). My issue is that while you might feel spry and youthful when you have the baby at 40-50 something, you're going to be entering your senior years with an adolescent/teenager and they take A LOT of effort and stamina. Energy my mother, for example, just didn't have. So my problem is that she didn't think of or necessarily take into consideration how she'd be involved in his life from his birth through her death and she had no idea how she'd feel during that time or how that would affect his life overall.

And I believe on the show several (I know one at least for a fact) stated that they were doing this for THEM. This was a personal decision made to fill a void in THEIR life. They then glossed over the questions about how their decision would affect the child. So yes, I think selfish is a perfect word for this.

 

[Mashira]

It's hard to say to a 50 yr old (who's in great health) that they shouldn't have a child. I would never say that. I had my 3rd child at 40yr and am 42yr now. I don't feel 42 and my son keeps me on my toes. Would I have a child at 50? No it's not for me. I know that some ppl had issues with me pg at 40yr but I don't care. Many say that I'll be in my 60s when he's graduating from college. That's ok! As for the comments I've heard ppl say that it's selfish because they won't be around for the child long enough, I tell them a long life is not guaranteed to anyone. A friend of mine died when her daughter was only 3 yr old from cancer and 2 more dads I knew died when their kids were 3y and 4yr old.

I very much agree with this, although I have to say that I am also very biased. I don't think a child at 60 or 70 is selfish, because I agree that raising a child can never be called 'selfish'. I do think that it can be irresponsible if they have health issues/are (very) overweight/won't be able to support the child. As I said, my mother had me at 35. I am now 21, and my father passed away when I was 9, so she has been raising me as a single mother who works 12 hours a day for the past 12 years. She is so devoted to me, she has put me through college, and I can't honestly find the words to express how much she means to me, and how appreciative I am of her, especially because of her age. (She is now 61)

Something that we should also consider is that women and men both are getting married later in life these days. If you get married at say 25, does that mean that you have to have your child in the next two year? I think not! I personally would like to enjoy my married life with my husband for at least 3-5yrs before bringing another life into the family.

I think you can be a good mother at any age. I also thing that you can be a horrible mother at any age. It depends upon the person in my opinion.

 

[Haven]

I think it is very, very odd to have a child at those old ages and probably very physically unpleasant too. As for the child and the issue of selfishness.......I think it's like this: If you asked the child which would you rather have, old parents or never being born, the answer is obvious. yes they will be orphans earlier than most, but so was I and I managed and they can too.

I really like this post.

 

[HollyS]

But the reason Michelle Duggar had her last baby very prematurely has nothing to do with how many times she's been pregnant before. She had very common age-related complications to her pregnancy [/color]which progressed to the point of imperiling her life and the life of her baby. Add a decade or more to her 42 years, and what might have been the outcome?

Is this true/documented? Of all the women I know in their 40's (not to mention celebs), I don't know of anyone who had similar complications. I agree that if science has to work some medical magic for one to conceive, it is more about the person's desires than the natural progression of life. How about Kelly Preston, isn't she almost 50? That should be interesting.

Celebrities are often in much better physical condition at the outset of their attempting pregnancy. How many ordinary people go to a trainer, or work out religiously, or eat perfectly balanced meals to maintain their best weight?

And, PR being spun to their advantage by their handlers/employees - - how many of them would admit to serious complications? I do seem to remember Marcia Cross as being confined to bed in the last month or two of her pregnancy . . . And as an example of PR, Holly Hunter had the birth of her twins announced after the fact; her pregnancy was barely even on the radar until just before she gave birth, at age 47. Who would have known anything about her medical condition at birth? I'm sure that complications happen more frequently than we know.

Oh, and don't forget the problems - after giving birth - for Nancy Grace (age 48?). She came close to not surviving.

 

[yssie]

I will say that nutrition and health-care for the masses is still a huge problem in India, so an Indian 30yo woman could easily have the body/health of a middle-class American woman of 50+, and both their children might well be orphaned at the same time.

Numerical age is just one facet of this debate.

 

[rockzilla]

I don't think it is any more selfish then men having children in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and we see that happen all the time (hello, Larry King and Rod Stewart!)

We certainly wouldn't say its selfish for people in relatively dangerous occupations (military, law enforcement, coal mining) to have children when there is an increased chance of them expiring early.

Seems there is a bit of a double standard.

 

[Mashira]

*nods agreement with rockzilla*

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Do I think it is scary or selfish? Not really. I would be more concerned for health issues from kids in mothers that old than anything. As for living long enough, I think that depends more on the people. My DH's mom was 20 when he was born and my mom was 31 and we are both the oldest. I would be shocked if I don't get at least 10 more years with my mom then he does with his do to their health and genes.
I guess I would ask if people's feeling are different based on whether it was fertility treatments that took a long time to work or if it a woman who had a late menopause and accidentally got preganant. I have not known anyone who intentionally had kids very late, like getting eggs implanted, but I have known a number who had accident babies at about the same age who had no problems being parents.

 

[KimberlyH]

While the act of parenting is not selfish, beyond the biological urge to have children I think most reasons for having children are selfish.

My husband's mom was 47 when he was born, his father was 54. They didn't intend to have a child, what she thought was menopause turned out to be pregnancy. I wouldn't call it selfish, but it has been difficult for him to be without a family at such a young age. What it did result in is them raising an extrodinarily self sufficient human being as they knew he would likely be without blood relatives at a fairly young age.

 

[Bliss]

I feel like such a wuss when I hear about moms in their 40s and 50s having babies! They are some tough brave ladies!!!! Having recently turned 34, even I feel OLD to be pregnant!!! And I'm in excellent shape and health, so it's not lifestyle but AGE that makes me say this. Technically, I AM old (but not too old) to have a baby in my personal opinion! When we started thinking about babies I asked my GP and OBGYN how soon we should TTC. The answers I got were the same - ideal age before 35, the sooner the better. No matter how great of health or in shape I was, great genes or not, it was all about the chronological age of my eggs that made the difference in their opinions. So maybe even at my age, I'm a little selfish to have lived and done the things I wanted to do before TTC.

Of course, many women have kids later and have no problems but it's just tougher on the body. Pregnancy isn't easy at any age, I'm sure. But I bet young uns will have a much easier time bouncing back than I will, delivering at 34. I never imagined having a child at this age but I wasn't emotionally ready and too absorbed in my career until now. If I could do it all over again, I would definitely TTC sooner and have married DH sooner, too! In my mind then, I figured TTC could wait and that I'd rather accomplish everything I wanted to before getting married and having kids. Ahhhh, now my priorities are all in reverse. Maybe this is what age does to you!

My friend who is 35 had a MUCH more aggressive first OB visit just because she was 1 year older. They were discussing amnio before she even had her first ultrasound. In the hospital today for our scan, we saw lots of pregnant women of all ages. The ones in their 40s definitely looked more worn and taxed than the younger ones. You have to imagine that at some point, the human body is not as well equipped to handle such a taxing challenge as growing a human being and carrying it to term. I have a friend who is pregnant at 37 (surprise baby) and she says her body simply doesn't have the energy or the resources to devote to a rapidly growing very demanding fetus most days.

But then again, having a child is one of the greatest miracles on Earth. If I were 40, 50 or more... who's to say I wouldn't risk my life to give birth and give a child all the love we have to give? Would I do it? I don't know, because often when you're in those shoes... it's all different. From my personal vantage point, however, I would not do it. My friend growing up had older parents and she grew up worrying all the time that her parents were older and would die early, leaving her all alone. But then again, she is an incredible woman today after having lost her parents earlier than most. And she is so grateful that she was loved enough for them to have taken that risk to have her...even if it was later in life. It would also be hard to tell older moms, "Sorry, you're too old to experience one of the greatest most beautiful miracles life has to offer." I say it's a personal choice and depends on the couple/woman.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I don't think it is any more selfish then men having children in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and we see that happen all the time (hello, Larry King and Rod Stewart!)

We certainly wouldn't say its selfish for people in relatively dangerous occupations (military, law enforcement, coal mining) to have children when there is an increased chance of them expiring early.

Seems there is a bit of a double standard.

Like I said I don't think it's selfish because they're going to die when the child is young, I think it's selfish because as a senior citizen you don't always have the energy (mental, physical or emotional) necessary to be really active in your child's life. And I think the irresponsibility is equally shared by men and women in this situation. However, guys like Larry King and Rod Stewart and Michael Douglas all have young wives to take care of the kids.

 

[Puppmom]

I don't know how I feel about this as I haven't given it a ton of thought BUT I have a friend who was born to parents that were 48 and 55. They waited until late in life because they met later in life but, due to their ages, only had 1 child. My friend is in her early 30s and the sole caretaker of her parents. It kind of stinks!

 

[mayachel]

I don't think it is any more selfish then men having children in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and we see that happen all the time (hello, Larry King and Rod Stewart!)

We certainly wouldn't say its selfish for people in relatively dangerous occupations (military, law enforcement, coal mining) to have children when there is an increased chance of them expiring early.

Seems there is a bit of a double standard.

I think this is a very astute observation for this conversation. Especially when from the get-go we as a society are focused on the mother's and their selfishness. Who is to say it wasn't the younger husband? Or whoever really wanting to prove how virile they still are. I also agree that having children at any age is selfish-but one many people find socially acceptable. I think there are a lot of ways to create a family, and I can't say that as I approach 30, with hopes of kids of my own some day I have the right to judge. The one caveat being-is there money to take care of these elders in their own age? If you can support a kid to 20-they are further along than the majority of kids in this world. Family isn't always only who we are related to by blood.