66-year old British woman Pregnant

[Sha]

66-year old Pregnant Woman

Not sure if this story was posted before....about the Pregnant 66-year old British woman.

Thoughts?

I think it''s a bit selfish, honestly. I think getting pregnant at her age serves her own personal needs more than her children''s - to have parents around to guide, nurture and protect them as they grow. With life expectancy being as it is, she''s probably won''t see them into their teenage years. And even if she does - how will she able to manage them into her late 70''s/80''s? She''s pretty much setting up a situation in which her children may be''motherless'' from a young age, or at least, with her mother who may not be able to keep up with their needs as they grow. I realize that mothers at any age can die - anything can happen. But the likelihood that she won''t be around for long is much greater than for women in their 20''s and 30''s.

I think there''s a good reason reproduction slows down with age. I really feel she''s pushing it...

Interested in hearing other thoughts..

 

[April20]

Honestly, I don't know that I fully know what to think.

While part of me thinks it's selfish of her to embark on this given her age, the other part of me wonders how her desire for a child differs from anyone else's. Who am I to judge her because she's 66 and not 26 or 36 or even 46.

The reality side wonders what kinds of complications she's exposing herself to given what has to be a high risk pregnancy. What does this mean for her child? And though she says she feels "young" and is "fit", how does she know she won't rapidly decline one day? How is that fair to her child? The reality is, her child will have no mother at an age earlier than he/she probably should.

There have been so many wonderful medical advances that allow people to have opportunities they might not otherwise have- being able to have children when they otherwise could not being one of them. At the end of the day though, I think using this technology in this fashion is not how it was intended and isn't in the best interests of mother or child.

 

[TravelingGal]

As the article said, in the world, there are only a handful of people who have done this. I think if you ask most 66 year women if they wanted to get preggo, they''d look at you as if you sprouted 2 more heads.

I guess in the end, who''s to judge? But yeah, I think it''s selfish and a complete unawareness of your own weakness as an older human being. Raising a child in my apartment has been hard on my body. Taking her up and down the stairs. Back pains, etc. My body had chronic pain before the kid, but nothing compared to what it is now.

I have a sadness in me that I am an "older" mother, having had her at 35. It''s something I didn''t overly think about before I had her, but after she was born, I have nightmares that I might leave the world before she is capable of taking care of herself. I''m sad (if I think about it too hard) that I may never see grandkids. I would have never wanted to be a teenage mom, but I definitely see at least one benefit of having a kid so young!

If I were 67 and gave birth, I think I would be overwhelmed with sadness that my child and I just statistically would not be together for a real long time. You don''t realize it until you have them how fierce the desire is to protect them always.

 

[HollyS]

I''m 50 as of April. I cannot begin to imagine being another decade and a half older, and thinking, "You know, I''ve just been so busy up ''til now; and I really want to be pregnant. I''ll just fill my body with hormones in unnatural quantities, greatly increasing my cancer risk, and then take myself to a foreign country for implantation."

The whole story makes me so tired I need a week long nap. For some people, 60 is the new 30. For me, 60 will be the new 55. That''s about all the energy I think I''ll be able to muster. Kids at that age . . . Lord have mercy.

However. . .

I think it is beyond odd that the same medical professionals who can make a woman with an AARP card pregnant by extraordinary measures, would undoubtably have no problem ending the pregnancy of a perfectly healthy woman at her request. Doesn''t anyone have a set of morals. . . or cajones, anymore? Doesn''t anyone ever say "No"? Apparently not, or we wouldn''t have Octo-Mom.

 

[AGBF]

I am laughing. Yes, literally. I am sorry, folks, but self-righteous indignation in response to this pregnancy strikes me as risible. I find it especially absurd to read that somehow hard to adopt children will find homes if a childless woman in England is not implanted with a newly fertilized ovum. Life is sad. At least I find it sad. I find it unbearably sad. I don't choose to fight a battle against this woman when there is war; hunger; poverty; and illness at hand in plenty.


AGBF

 

[E B]

While I do find it selfish, children are born into far worse situations every day. I just hope her energy lasts through her seventies and eighties, and if not, she has family members to help raise the child.

Date: 5/19/2009 4:29:53 PM
Author: HollyS

I think it is beyond odd that the same medical professionals who can make a woman with an AARP card pregnant by extraordinary measures, would undoubtably have no problem ending the pregnancy of a perfectly healthy woman at her request. Doesn''t anyone have a set of morals. . . or cajones, anymore? Doesn''t anyone ever say ''No''? Apparently not, or we wouldn''t have Octo-Mom.

Aaaaaand here we go again.

 

[asscherisme]

Date: 5/19/2009 4:17:51 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady

Date: 5/19/2009 3:05:55 PM
Author:Sha


66-year old Pregnant Woman

Not sure if this story was posted before....about the Pregnant 66-year old British woman.

Thoughts?

I think it''s a bit selfish, honestly. I think getting pregnant at her age serves her own personal needs more than her children''s - to have parents around to guide, nurture and protect them as they grow. With life expectancy being as it is, she''s probably won''t see them into their teenage years. And even if she does - how will she able to manage them into her late 70''s/80''s? She''s pretty much setting up a situation in which her children may be''motherless'' from a young age, or at least, with her mother who may not be able to keep up with their needs as they grow. I realize that mothers at any age can die - anything can happen. But the likelihood that she won''t be around for long is much greater than for women in their 20''s and 30''s.

I think there''s a good reason reproduction slows down with age. I really feel she''s pushing it...

Interested in hearing other thoughts..

My first thought was.. how UNLUCKY for the child for a variety of reasons.. Among those; the amounts of calls I take from adult children about their older parents falling and unable to get them off the floor & needing medics or those in their early 70s I have taken several calls from adult children because they have found their parent dead, the numbers are quite high. How unfortunate for the child to be the only one at his or her high school graduation with a parent as old as her friend''s grandparents knowing full well when he or she grows up that their Mother will not be around to be there for literally every step of adulthood.

I think its horribly selfish.

*eta.. given the high numbers of pre-teen or teenage children needing families, I cannot fathom having a child at 66 when there are so many ''throw away'' kids out there needing adoption.

I totally agree.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 5/19/2009 4:45:51 PM
Author: EBree
While I do find it selfish, children are born into far worse situations every day. I just hope her energy lasts through her seventies and eighties, and if not, she has family members to help raise the child.

Date: 5/19/2009 4:29:53 PM
Author: HollyS

I think it is beyond odd that the same medical professionals who can make a woman with an AARP card pregnant by extraordinary measures, would undoubtably have no problem ending the pregnancy of a perfectly healthy woman at her request. Doesn''t anyone have a set of morals. . . or cajones, anymore? Doesn''t anyone ever say ''No''? Apparently not, or we wouldn''t have Octo-Mom.

Aaaaaand here we go again.

If you don''t start it, there won''t be a "Here we go again". So don''t start it. My observation/opinion does not require your approval. Let it go.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 5/19/2009 4:17:51 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady

My first thought was.. how UNLUCKY for the child for a variety of reasons.. Among those; the amounts of calls I take from adult children about their older parents falling and unable to get them off the floor & needing medics or those in their early 70s I have taken several calls from adult children because they have found their parent dead, the numbers are quite high. How unfortunate for the child to be the only one at his or her high school graduation with a parent as old as her friend''s grandparents knowing full well when he or she grows up that their Mother will not be around to be there for literally every step of adulthood.

I think its horribly selfish.

*eta.. given the high numbers of pre-teen or teenage children needing families, I cannot fathom having a child at 66 when there are so many ''throw away'' kids out there needing adoption.

SDL pretty much says it with stating the burden that child will have caring for an elderly parent. You gotta wonder if the woman decided to become pregnant to ensure she''ll be taken care of.

But, possibly the care for British elderly is different than it is here in the US? Better care over there and less expensive medications so the woman can grow old maintaining a sense of independence.

 

[Sha]

Interesting responses...

I''m also wondering why she didn''t try IVF when she was younger? Maybe in her 40''s? Why wait till you''re in your 60''s? Did she just develop a maternal urge at her age?

 

[MonkeyPie]

And the chances of this baby being born with some kind of defect, illness, or otherwise debilitating side-effects from her age are INCREDIBLY high.

 

[icekid]

Um... that is just not right, or safe! For the mother, or the kid. I wish that baby all the best!

 

[cara]

Odds are, that woman is not pregnant with her genetic child. My understanding (from the tabloids, so take it with a grain of salt) is that IVF with a woman's own eggs is usually insufficient at that age. You need a younger woman's eggs, but you can get an older woman's body to carry the pregnancy. So while there are risks to this pregnancy (health risks to an older woman carrying a child, very slight risks of genetic defect associated with conception in a petri dish) there are probably NOT excessive genetic risks associated with using a 60+ yro woman's eggs because the pregnancy most likely resulted from an egg of a much younger woman.

And I'll just point out that MEN of this age have been becoming new fathers for millenia, by mating with younger women. And for those of you concerned about the mother dying while the child is still young, that used to happen much more commonly when people didn't live as long and when women routinely died in childbirth, and it STILL happens in many coutries of the world. Children whose parents die on them before they are grown do have issues, but hopefully this successful woman can put aside enough money that her child's material needs will be met. For other needs, I hope that a strong family support system is involved in raising this child.

Just for example, when a friend of mine was a college freshwomen, her father was in his upper 70s with aging issues but it was her much younger mother that died of cancer that year, so age is no guarantee of health. And is this woman's child really that much worse off than many children born into extreme poverty in this world?


As for those suggesting this woman adopt, I'm not sure she would be allowed to adopt in many jurisdictions. Even Madonna (fabulously weathy, much younger) seems to have some trouble at it, though perhaps picking your child before determining the legal environment is her primary problem on the adoption front.

 

[HollyS]

While this woman CAN have a child, with a great deal of help, and said child will certainly be better off than a child born into severe poverty in the third world somewhere . . . none of those factors justify an elderly woman being deliberately impregnated. None of those factors justify her extreme selfishness. None of those factors make this okay.

IVF is a wonderful tool to help women overcome infertility issues. At its inception, it was not intended to be the last ditch efforts for a woman at least 15 years past the outer reaches of a viable and normal pregnancy. And it shouldn''t be used in this way now.

Sure, there are starving children in the world. War. Famine. Drought. Global economic downturns. Problems everywhere you look; so why the heck do we care about this woman??? Because she is a perfect example of what is wrong with people in the world today. It''s all about them. That''s how many of the great problems of the world begin.

Maybe if we all looked in the mirror daily and said to ourselves "It ain''t all about you, you know?", the world would be a better place for everyone. Especially the less fortunate.

But ignoring this abnormal woman and her offspring, ignoring the slippery slope of lost values and moral choices, does not a better world make. It just makes the next woman who does this less abnormal. And that''s a mistake.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 5/20/2009 1:14:30 PM
Author: HollyS
While this woman CAN have a child, with a great deal of help, and said child will certainly be better off than a child born into severe poverty in the third world somewhere . . . none of those factors justify an elderly woman being deliberately impregnated. None of those factors justify her extreme selfishness. None of those factors make this okay.

IVF is a wonderful tool to help women overcome infertility issues. At its inception, it was not intended to be the last ditch efforts for a woman at least 15 years past the outer reaches of a viable and normal pregnancy. And it shouldn''t be used in this way now.

Sure, there are starving children in the world. War. Famine. Drought. Global economic downturns. Problems everywhere you look; so why the heck do we care about this woman??? Because she is a perfect example of what is wrong with people in the world today. It''s all about them. That''s how many of the great problems of the world begin.

Maybe if we all looked in the mirror daily and said to ourselves ''It ain''t all about you, you know?'', the world would be a better place for everyone. Especially the less fortunate.

But ignoring this abnormal woman and her offspring, ignoring the slippery slope of lost values and moral choices, does not a better world make. It just makes the next woman who does this less abnormal. And that''s a mistake.

Well said, Holly.

 

[cara]

Date: 5/20/2009 1:14:30 PM
Author: HollyS
While this woman CAN have a child, with a great deal of help, and said child will certainly be better off than a child born into severe poverty in the third world somewhere . . . none of those factors justify an elderly woman being deliberately impregnated. None of those factors justify her extreme selfishness. None of those factors make this okay.

Would you feel the same way if the pregnant woman were a more typical age for childbearing but, for whatever reason, was as likely to die prior to the child reaching adulthood after a period of declining health? Would it be an act of extreme selfishness for, say, a woman with Huntington''s or HIV or ALS or terminal cancer to have a child? (Lets just assume that passing on the disease is not an issue.) Would you feel the same way if the older woman adopted a child? In other words, is it just the woman choosing to become pregnant at an unnatural age for pregnancy or is it the risk of starting something she can''t finish (raising the child) that makes this so immoral, in your view?

What if the woman was just a surrogate - there was a case in Japan were an older woman carried her own grandchild because her daughter had had a hysterectomy. This seems more OK to many people both because the older woman has a temporary parental role and because she was motivated by desire to be a grandparent rather than a parent, which people find to be more acceptable in an older woman.

There is definitely something that disturbs me about a 66 yro woman being pregnant, but it is mostly trying to figure out where the energy and lifespan will come from to raise the child! All people who choose to have a child are acting out of selfish motivations at some level - whether its to have someone to love and nurture or some vessel to give their hopes, genes, impressions, morals, estate, name, idiosyncracies, you-name-it too. What makes this selfish desire a problem is people act on it without giving adequate consideration to the many other things a child will need and figuring out if they will be able to provide those things as well.

 

[purrfectpear]

Personally I think anyone wanting to be pregnant at 66 is already a couple of crayons short of the whole box

That said, if the rational for it being nutty is strictly her age I believe we should consider this...

1. Men begin families in their 60''s and 70''s all the time. Where is the moral outrage on them?

2. Older grandmothers find themselves raising newborns through adulthood frequently due to daughters who bail, who are addicted, who are incarcerated, or who die young, etc. Clearly age is not an insurmountable barrier to child rearing.

 

[crown1]

people have free will and the right to do most anything that is not illegal and that they can make happen. that does not make all things wise or good for the person or others around them. she has the right to bear the child and those who feel it is beyond ridiculous have the right to their opinion and the right to so comment.

i find it disturbing that it is referred to as a title or that there is a crown. poor choice of words for the journalist to use ( i hope i remember the correct words?) in the article. i really think this is something she will later regret but it is on her and not me. i agree with others who find her action selfish. it seems to be all about her.

i think we all judge others actions including those who judge others for judging. talking about and giving our opinions on things we hear and read is just human nature. being mean or causing problems for the person is quite a different thing than just commenting on your disapproval of something on the internet or in the media.

 

[zhuzhu]

What makes this case dramatically different from Octomom is that this woman appears to be in good health, good mental shape, and has solid income and resources to take care of her child (even when she gets frail from aging). If this pregnancy is well-planned for all the consequences associated with her aging process, I don''t see any unusual selfishness associated with this pregnancy.

 

[HollyS]

Cara: Speculation that someone younger than 66 could still die - - at a younger age - - leaving a child without a parent is not a viable defense for this woman's pregnancy.

At some point, preferably BEFORE someone has to take drastic measures to bolster their hormones into premenopause shape, we need to stop playing God with our reproductive cycles. Women of 66 are not just old, but ancient, in menstrual terms. For a reason.

Maybe someone needs to ask Elizabeth Edwards if she would have had her two children (after 50) if she had known she would get terminal cancer that VERY LIKELY was caused by the enormous level of hormones she had to take to prepare her body for two IVF pregnancies. There can be serious consequences to messing with the normal rhythm of life.

But beyond that, it's just plain wrong. You cannot pretend you are 36 when you are 66. I dont' care what good shape she is in, I don't care if she was running marathons six months ago; she's still a senior citizen. And senior citizens aren't supposed to have babies.

Yes, she did 'prepare' for the baby. Yes, she does have resources. Wait . . . nope, still a senior citizen.

 

[AprilBaby]

Should make for an interesting time in the delivery room at her age.

 

[CJ2008]

Date: 5/20/2009 1:44:42 PM
Author: cara

Date: 5/20/2009 1:14:30 PM
Author: HollyS
While this woman CAN have a child, with a great deal of help, and said child will certainly be better off than a child born into severe poverty in the third world somewhere . . . none of those factors justify an elderly woman being deliberately impregnated. None of those factors justify her extreme selfishness. None of those factors make this okay.

Would you feel the same way if the pregnant woman were a more typical age for childbearing but, for whatever reason, was as likely to die prior to the child reaching adulthood after a period of declining health? Would it be an act of extreme selfishness for, say, a woman with Huntington''s or HIV or ALS or terminal cancer to have a child? (Lets just assume that passing on the disease is not an issue.) Would you feel the same way if the older woman adopted a child? In other words, is it just the woman choosing to become pregnant at an unnatural age for pregnancy or is it the risk of starting something she can''t finish (raising the child) that makes this so immoral, in your view?

What if the woman was just a surrogate - there was a case in Japan were an older woman carried her own grandchild because her daughter had had a hysterectomy. This seems more OK to many people both because the older woman has a temporary parental role and because she was motivated by desire to be a grandparent rather than a parent, which people find to be more acceptable in an older woman.

There is definitely something that disturbs me about a 66 yro woman being pregnant, but it is mostly trying to figure out where the energy and lifespan will come from to raise the child! All people who choose to have a child are acting out of selfish motivations at some level - whether its to have someone to love and nurture or some vessel to give their hopes, genes, impressions, morals, estate, name, idiosyncracies, you-name-it too. What makes this selfish desire a problem is people act on it without giving adequate consideration to the many other things a child will need and figuring out if they will be able to provide those things as well.

I wouldn''t want to be pregnant at 66 - but even if I did, I probably would choose not to go ahead with it because of the burden it would put on my children to take care of me. But if for whatever reason I chose to do it I wouldn''t care if people thought I was selfish - that''s because I am definitely selfish.

I agree with Cara that there is a selfish motivation at some level for having children (as well as there is for not having them). I think that everything we do has some selfish motivation attached to it, however small it may be.

A journalist said something the other day that really stuck with me. They were talking about whether people should be ALLOWED to have children after a certain age - and he said that if women who are too YOUNG to have children are allowed, then why shouldn''t women that are too OLD.

 

[diamondringlover]

I think its just stupid, I understand the want to have kids, but at 66, she will probably die before her kid is grown, I know I had my son at 36 and my husband was 42 and I think about how old we will be when he grows up...I wish I had thought all that through before I had him later in life

the one good thing is he keeps us moving

 

[Bia]

Date: 5/20/2009 5:09:26 PM
Author: HollyS
Cara: Speculation that someone younger than 66 could still die - - at a younger age - - leaving a child without a parent is not a viable defense for this woman''s pregnancy.


At some point, preferably BEFORE someone has to take drastic measures to bolster their hormones into premenopause shape, we need to stop playing God with our reproductive cycles. Women of 66 are not just old, but ancient, in menstrual terms. For a reason.


Maybe someone needs to ask Elizabeth Edwards if she would have had her two children (after 50) if she had known she would get terminal cancer that VERY LIKELY was caused by the enormous level of hormones she had to take to prepare her body for two IVF pregnancies. There can be serious consequences to messing with the normal rhythm of life.


But beyond that, it''s just plain wrong. You cannot pretend you are 36 when you are 66. I dont'' care what good shape she is in, I don''t care if she was running marathons six months ago; she''s still a senior citizen. And senior citizens aren''t supposed to have babies.


Yes, she did ''prepare'' for the baby. Yes, she does have resources. Wait . . . nope, still a senior citizen.

Agreed. I''m all for "live and let live," but this is wrong IMO. Not to mention dangerous.

 

[Tuckins1]

Babies are a blessing.

 

[cara]

Date: 5/20/2009 5:09:26 PM
Author: HollyS
Cara: Speculation that someone younger than 66 could still die - - at a younger age - - leaving a child without a parent is not a viable defense for this woman's pregnancy.

At some point, preferably BEFORE someone has to take drastic measures to bolster their hormones into premenopause shape, we need to stop playing God with our reproductive cycles. Women of 66 are not just old, but ancient, in menstrual terms. For a reason.

Maybe my question wasn't clear - I was asking if you would object to a younger woman getting pregnant if her life expectancy were less than 20 years due to some other medical condition that she knew about prior to conception ie. Cystic fibrosis, cancer, Huntington's etc. In other words, was your moral outrage motivated by the mother's limited life expectancy or by her unnatural age for pregnancy? From your second paragraph, I'm assuming the latter reason contributes, but what about the former?

Maybe someone needs to ask Elizabeth Edwards if she would have had her two children (after 50) if she had known she would get terminal cancer that VERY LIKELY was caused by the enormous level of hormones she had to take to prepare her body for two IVF pregnancies. There can be serious consequences to messing with the normal rhythm of life...

That is unsupported. Elizabeth Edwards had her last two children at 48 and 50 (not after 50) and there is no link between IVF and breast cancer. Studies have been done. Edwards, like the 66 yro Britist woman, was unlikely to have been shot up with ovulation-enhancing drugs because her last two children were probably conceived with donor eggs from a much younger woman. If anything, pregnancy provides a small protective effect against breast cancer so maybe the additional two pregnancies helped her odds a sliver, and she just got unlucky.

I would be absolutely shocked if Elizabeth Edwards regrets having her second round of kids (or if she does regret having them that the regret would be motivated by the cancer and not her cheating husband!) I'm sure its heartbreaking to know that she may not live to see them get married or have grandbabies, but its life and its death and she was inspired to have those kids as the result of another tragic death - her older son Wade's. It's one thing to decide not to have kids when you are not going to live long, but to regret them after they are born and half grown simply because you woln't be around to see them fully grown? That I can't imagine. Mother's love is pretty strong for most women.

On the rest, I agree. 66 is old, and even a fit 66 yro can go downhill fast. I'd feel better if she had a young trophy husband to help raise the kids

 

[purrfectpear]

Are you guys who are against it based on age saying that babies who are orphaned should not be raised by grandparents in their 60''s because they''re "too old"? Exactly how does a child suffer from being raised by an elder adult? I''m just curious. Like I said, I personally think you''d be crazy to want to have a baby then, but still.....

I''m 56 and admittedly 56 is not 66, but I''m pretty sure I could raise a child just as well now as I did at 30. Probably better because I''m less self centered, more patient, and have learned a thing or two. I just don''t want one

I''m guessing that the chances of living to be 80 something are pretty good?

 

[~*Alexis*~]

I think someone who takes in a child in their 60''s is different than getting pregnant at 66. You intend to get pregnant, you don''t intend to take in kids at that age unless there is an alternate situation.

I feel sorry for the kid, it will never really get to know their mother. What are the plans for after she is gone? Will there be a trust? Will there be someone to take care of her?

 

[Bia]

I'm against the pregnancy. There are plenty of risks when you're a healthy young woman (young meaning within the 'ideal' age range for pregnancy). But 66? The female body is not adequately equipped to be carrying a child at that age. Plus, you need A LOT of energy to take care of children, particularly babies and toddlers.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Without sounding disgusting judgemental...I think this is an incredibly self move on her part.