Having a baby at 66 - too old?

[Aisling]

I voted too old, but can understand her strong desire to be a mother. I guess I have mixed feelings, because while I'm glad she's going to have a baby, I sort of feel it's not too fair for the child having such an old mother, or an old father for that matter.

 

[crz4mm2]

She could have adopted, years ago.

Nuts. I think it is NUTS!

 

[Ember]

Well, people rarely have children for non-selfish reasons... And many have them for out and out bad reasons. I know children from one night stands or because the parents they didn't bother with birth control (reason for having a child = stupidity), in order to "keep" a partner (reason for having a child = manipulation), because they were lonely (reason for having a child = wanted a playmate), or because they feel it's the logical next step in their relationship and never consider whether they actually want children or not. In this case, you can usually see the resentment set in with either one partner or the other and it ends in divorce. These situations can end in great parents, but the odds are definitely stacked against them.

I don't mean to sound bitter, but I see day in and day out the results on children of parents who shouldn't have had them and/or don't really want them. It breaks my heart. I am in awe of good parents, who had children because they truly desired them and are willing to put them first. They aren't nearly as common as they should be.

Will this lady be a good mother? Who knows. I definitely think her reasons for having a baby are purely selfish as she is obviously not considering the impact on the child of having a senior citizen as a mother. Or the near guaranteed possibility of that child being left alone before they reach adulthood. I hope she picks good godparents.

 

[4nana]

I'm not going to judge, but for myself, heck yes, way too old, and there wouldn't be a rope long enough!

 

[Aisling]

Or the near guaranteed possibility of that child being left alone before they reach adulthood. I hope she picks good godparents.

This is what I was thinking, too.

The baby will be born with one strike against it, having a mother that statistically won't be around to see him/her graduate from high school. When the child is old enough to realize how old his mother is, it'll put anxiety on the poor kid about losing her in the very near future.

 

[AristocatFan]

Pure selfishness and in no way thinking of how a child will feel having an older mother. I can understand the motherly need, but there are plenty of children you need adopted/mentored.

 

[MarkFL]

its so incredibly selfish.

she will be 88 when her child graduates college.
she'll probably be dead before her child gets married.

its so incredibly selfish.

So going by this logic, anyone with a preexisting condition that may kill them within 20 years is selfish for wanting a child before she dies? Really?

 

[Aisling]

So going by this logic, anyone with a preexisting condition that may kill them within 20 years is selfish for wanting a child before she dies? Really?

If the pre-existing condition may kill the mother, that's not the same as a pre-existing condition (old age) that WILL kill the mother. It's pure selfishness, but I respect her right to have a baby if that's what she wants to do. She's definitely putting herself before the best interest of the child, though.

 

[Ember]

So going by this logic, anyone with a preexisting condition that may kill them within 20 years is selfish for wanting a child before she dies? Really?

If the possibility of death is up near 100%? Yep. The desire for personal satisfaction over the consideration of the needs of the child is pretty well the definition of selfishness. Having a child when you pretty well know you won't be there for it, knowing you will deliberately put it through the death of a parent at a young age... Yep, selfish.

I feel the same way about mothers who choose to have children with the knowledge that they have a horrible genetic condition with a good possibility of passing it to their child. Russian roulette with a baby is also selfish.

 

[emma'smom]

Gee, at 37...I've sort of decided it isn't worth the risk of trying for another when I have two healthy children. I know I am erring on the side of caution....but 66?

 

[luvmy3]

I hope she picks good godparents.

I don't mean to knit pick but Godparents have nothing to do with legal guardianship.

 

[Ember]

I don't mean to knit pick but Godparents have nothing to do with legal guardianship.

I thought the point of godparents was to be the one who took the child if something happened to both parents?

I'm sorry if I have that wrong.

I amend my statement to "I hope she has good legal guardians in place."

 

[*Seanaci*]

Ditto all the selfish resopnses.

I think there comes a point where a womans body naturally (menopause) tells her she is past child bearing age.

It's like someone who commented the article said, when all is said and done, this child isn't TRUELY hers because it was a donated egg and sperm.

If she wanted a child so badly, why didn't (or perhaps she did) she consider adoption of perhaps an older childe (over the age of like 10).

 

[*Seanaci*]

I thought the point of godparents was to be the one who took the child if something happened to both parents?

I'm sorry if I have that wrong.

I amend my statement to "I hope she has good legal guardians in place."

I'm pretty sure you ARE right in that...so long as the parent has it listed in a legal document such as their will.

 

[luvmy3]

I thought the point of godparents was to be the one who took the child if something happened to both parents?

I'm sorry if I have that wrong.

I amend my statement to "I hope she has good legal guardians in place."

Godparents are named to promise to help bring up the child as Catholic but if something happens to the parents the Godparents aren't legally responsible for the child. They would have to be named as legal guardians on the parents will in order to gain custody of the child in the event of the parents death.
I think alot of people assume that Godparents take care of the kids after their parents dies thats why I mentioned it. It is so very important to have a will detrmining them as legal guardians if that is what you want. My BIL is only my dd's Godfather and on our will he is named as all 3 of my kids guardian.

 

[Ember]

Godparents are named to promise to help bring up the child as Catholic but if something happens to the parents the Godparents aren't legally responsible for the child. They would have to be named as legal guardians on the parents will in order to gain custody of the child in the event of the parents death.
I think alot of people assume that Godparents take care of the kids after their parents dies thats why I mentioned it. It is so very important to have a will detrmining them as legal guardians if that is what you want. My BIL is only my dd's Godfather and on our will he is named as all 3 of my kids guardian.

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know!

 

[KyraS]

Gosh I feel old having a toddler at 37! I can't even imagine!

 

[Ciao Mickey]

Do you think she is too old? even if she is desperate for a child, and could be a fantastic mother. Of course, she could always employ a nanny!

At 66, she is four years older than the previous record holder.

Mrs Adeney, who is around eight months pregnant, is believed to have undergone IVF abroad because most British clinics will not treat women over the age of 50.

Friends say that the divorcee, a wealthy businesswoman who is still working a five-day week, is in perfect health and looking forward to the birth of what is thought to be her first child.

But her pregnancy will reignite the debate over late motherhood and the ability of science to enable women in their fifties and sixties to become mothers.

Mrs Adeney will be just short of her 80th birthday when her child becomes a teenager.

A friend said she had been desperate to conceive for years.

Last year, she travelled to the Ukraine, where a controversial IVF clinic has helped countless women get pregnant using donor eggs and sperm.

The friend added: 'She was desperate for a child. She was over the moon when she learned last year that she was pregnant and has been quite open about it - it's not the sort of thing she can hide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rate-divorcee-set-Britains-oldest-mother.html

The baby she is carrying is not her biological child, so why did she not adopt a child if she wanted one so badly all of these years?

I believe that there should be an age limit on the procedure.

I'm sure we will be hearing of an 80 or 90 year old woman giving birth pretty soon.

I feel sorry for the unborn child. The woman could live to a ripe old age or drop dead tomorrow. If she dies or becomes incapacitated, who will care for the child?

 

[Chuck S]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

This women will be in her mid eighties when that child graduates from HS

If she lives that long. If the Mom passes away before, who will look after the child? It is one thing for the parent to pass away fat a young age due to accident or unforeseen diseases, but the odds are great that this woman will pass away from old age, or need full time health care herself, before the child is even an adult.

 

[Nancy]

Yes, I think it is too old. There is a reason that in the natural cycle of a woman we go through menopause when we do. It's because we are just too darn old.

FWIW, I would feel the same if it was a man that age that fathered a child.