I think the problem was earlier was that the post basically said eek, gods, old women shouldn't have babies because they are old.
Um, that's ageism.
Somebody saying, wow, I think that might not be good because of these specific things x,y,and z that I can back up - that not ageism.
So, someone saying that teenages shouldn't have babies because they are young, or because they aren't mature enough, yada yada. That's ageism.
Someone saying (** disclaimer **hypothetically, I realize this is untrue, but for instance if it were) that teenagers shouldn't have babies because their bodies just aren't ready for it - if this was true, and they couldn't back it up, wouldn't be ageism.
Sort of like me not letting my 3 old use the butcher knife is not based on the fact that he is 3, but based on the fact that he has terrible coordination and a lack of understanding danger and consequences. If he's still with those problems when he is 13, I still won't let him use a butcher knife. It's unrelated to his age in the way of my reasons - the fact that he has these problems IS related to his age, but it doesn't make it ageist.
Personally, I think it has to be more on a case by case basis, like most things. I'm sure there are some 66 year old women who might have more energy and vitality than I do. I've met a few of them. I wouldn't want to tell them they can't have kids because they are old. I would bring up the health risks - although there is also that for different people there are different risk levels.
The truth is that we all have risks of dying, irregardless of age. I'm 24, but it doesn't mean that I will necessarily live until my son is 18. Nor does it necessarily mean if I do live that I will be in a position to care for him either. Some would say that being 66 would put this women in a position to be at greater risk - but how do you know? If she is in excellent health, excerises, eats well, doesn't smoke, drinks only moderately, doesn't have too much stress in her life, has access to good preventative health care and doesn't participate in high risk activities, as well as has a family history of good health and longetivity - she probably has a WAY better chance of being alive and in good health in 18 years than I do. All I've got going for me on this list is that I don't smoke.
Many people, for instance my great grandmother, live to be quite old, and still quite capable of taking care of themselves and others. She lived on her own until she was 94 years old. And even then the only reason she moved in with my grandma was because her sight diminished enough that she felt uncomfortable driving - even though she could still pass the test.
I think it's more interesting to look into why this woman chose to have a baby so late in life. I don't know about her in particular but in general women are having babies later and later on in life. My personal opinion is that it's because women are more present in the job market but the job market is still patriarchal. I know a lot of us are trying to go to school and we'll be beginning our carreers with babies in tow. But the job market is still set up for men (with women at home taking care of the babies.) Women are being forced to choose between having kids or having a career. Men, in my opinion, are not forced to choose the way we are. I guess I've just been feeling a lot of frustration because I can't put in the time in my chosen proffession. I know intellectually I could compete with any man, but because I've had a kid the system won't let me. I think there's a lot of women who have decided to delay having kids just so they could work on their career and then find out it's too late to start. I guess I just wish there was a movement of men taking on more of the child raising at the same time women are moving to the the job market just to balance things out.
Agreed Seyva. When I had my son, it was during a lull between getting out of HS and finding odd jobs. After I had him, I found a job that actually transcended into a career. I would love to have a second kid, like, now, but now that I have the career, I don't have time to even think about it.
That is so true. I get depressed sometimes because I know that if I hadn't had kids I would probably have my bachelor's degree by now and I have been working so hard at school with almost nothing to show for it. I am glad I chose to be a mommy, but sometimes I wonder if I will ever have the carreer I want, or if I do how long it is going to take me. I get really frustrated about that too. I wish parenting was more valued in this country, and employers and schools were more family friendly, with payed leave, childcare assistance, and just plain understanding when the kid is sick. I think it is sad that so many women wait until they are older to have babies because they put their career first. I am proud that even though I am in school and working towards other goals, I always put my babies first.
I think the problem was earlier was that the post basically said eek, gods, old women shouldn't have babies because they are old.
I can only assume you are referring to my post. If not, correct me. I'd just like to say that my post certainly does not reduce to this and I am somewhat offended with how you've made it seem to be the case.
For the record, ITA with mamabutterfly when she says:
Quote:
I would not have made this post if others hadn't already because it hurts to be attacked by everyone and labeled as "ageist" or "judgemental". It is not judgemental to have an opinion, it is judgemental to tell people that their opinion is wrong.
It seems to me that had it not become clear that I was not the only one who thought that this was a bad idea, nothing would have come of this thread and I would remain labelled as an ageist, anti-woman individual. As it now stands, I am hestitant to post my views here. It is terrible that others have to wait for another to say something before they can be comfortable speaking up, and I don't have enough room for more stress in my life to be the person who takes the first shots in order to identify that not everyone agrees. We could have had an open dialogue right from the start, but given that my post presented a view contrary to all those that preceeded it, it was greeted with labels of my character.
If clarification was needed, it would have been given. Instead though, whatever holes that were seen with what I had said were used as a means of invalidating my opinion. I am quite bothered by this.
I know I shouldn't be responding, even now, to this thread but I feel that my post was over-simplified in a biased manner. Anyway though, I still think it is a bad idea, for many reasons, and a lot of them have now been brought up by others.
It seemed ageist because the only 'point in a plethora of points' that you offered to support the fact that it is a bad idea, was the following:
Quote:
Like it states, these parents will be in their seventies and eighties when their children are entering high school.
It seemed, from that, that you were questioning their parenting capability because of their age. I think a parent can offer the love and support that is needed to raise a child regardless of age. If you had offered more insight into what that meant so that I wasn't left to assume that you were questioning their parenting skills due to age, or offered more points such as Erika did about the health concerns of the woman entering pregnancy past menopause, in your argument about why it could be a bad idea than I'd agree and take it as a good point and a chance to learn more about it. The way it was worded sounded ageist, if you weren't implying that they wouldn't be good parents based solely on their age, then I wouldn't have second-guessed your post.
(and another post right below it made by me, clarified that I didn't mean "if you weren't implying that they wouldn't be good parents based solely on their age", should have read "if it didn't seem that you were implying")
I'm not labelling you ageist or anti woman. I don't think anyone did. I said that the particular judgement was ageist. I believe I did ask for clarification in case the point in particular I was responding to was misunderstood.
i just wanted to point out. the same way we look to our grandmothers saying they had kids at younger ages. i also like to point out people used to live for hundreds of years. yes true our life span has drastically reduced but i also know very healthy active women in their sixtys. i know some very sickly 40 year olds with arthritis who i couldnt imagen being pregnant however my mom gave birth in her 40 and i saw her as young. your lifespan has mostly to do with how you take care of yourself, my grandfather died at 53 years old, my coach in highschool dropped dead of a heart attack at 35 and left a wife and 3 boys under 15. honestly i understand some people are turned off by this, but ask yourself, where did you get the idea that it was strange?
yeah what are you talking about firefly? i have never heard that. i'm not trying to be rude, i am honestly curious about that one.
Biblically people are mentioned to be hundreds of years old, usually before Noah since the flood changed the ozone and with the sun exposure people aged faster.. or so I've been told, I think that's what she meant. Like Sarai (later Sarah) concieved at 90 years old.
I don't know of a respectful way to say this but...yeah...I don't believe that at all. No offense to anyone's religion intended.
Scientifically speaking, the lifespan of humans has drastically INCREASED (from ~30 to now about 70-80+) since prehistoric times due to vaccinations/antibiotics/etc., COOKING FOOD before it's eaten, and shelter (having houses with A/C or heat).
sure, she could live to 100, but the chances are good that she will die before her child is an adult. I saw a picture of her, and she looked 66- she looked old which isn't a bad way to look but the way you look can reflect on how healthy you are.
I think that shortening the time that her child will have a mother, is selfish. Even if she lives to 90 her child will only be 24. Barely out of college. Most people don't loose their parents until they are in their 30's or 40's.
Becoming pregnant and ending pregnancy should not be legislated ever. But I think that putting her child at risk of loosing mom so young is a bad parenting decision.
I think if we're thinking about her health and how it can negatively affect it, that judgement of her judgement isn't necessarily happening.
Now to judge her for choosing to have a child at an older age where her future with that child isn't guarenteed (though really none of us have ANY guarentee) and throwing statistics about life expectancy is hitting way too close to home, but in the opposite way. We are always bombarded by statistics, how having a child when we did was a bad choice because of xyz. We know that they are wrong and we know that even though we face many burdens and obstacles that we love our children, and in my case if I were to die tomorrow it wouldn't make me want to go back in time and change anything. I'd still want this year and a half with my daughter. I'd still want to have been a mom. Maybe that's how she feels. Yes when she does die it will be hard on her children, as it will be when we die, but she made a choice for her.
Also the "she won't be able to do xyz" comments are hard to hear, not everyone is able physically to run around with their kids but are not any less of a parent. Some parents of the "right" age are hospitalized, but still wonderful parents. Judging parental involvement and ability based on physical ability isn't right.
I completly agree with mommy2chloerae.
I do agree with some of what you are all saying, especially what erica and folks are saying. However, it is never my place to tell someone they can or can not procreate. Ever.
And, the arguments about being able to run around with your kiddos, etc. strike me as hard-core ablism. What about parents who are wheelchair bound, or can't run around due to lung/heart problems, etc.
The thing that bothers me about this whole thing- is who are we at all to pass judgment on weather or not this person, who we don't actually know, should or should not be becoming a mother? We aren't her docters, we aren't her family, we aren't her friends. I have not actually met this woman at all, and am willing to place a guess that most of you havn't either.
If the debate is a general-- are 60 year old women physically able to bare children, I don't think that I would be able to give an opinion-- I don't know if 60 year old women generally are.
If the debate is whether or not she'll be dead by the time her kid is twenty-- I don't know what the answer is there. I think that we really aren't giving this woman enough credit for having thought about this herself, and discussed the possiblilities with her family, and friends. Maybe she has people who are going to play really important roles in her childs life, who can help when she's dead. I don't know. I don't know her full situation.
Look My only problem is the use of Science to get this woman pregnant due to her already having 'Unhealthy eggs' (That's what it said in the artical) Her daughter donated her egg so her daughter would probably take coustedy of the little girl. I would say more but I do not world things well and don't want people to be ofended
I agree with you completely miguelsmommy. There are so many children who NEED a loving family like this one. If that woman wanted a child so badly, adopting would have been much more biologically healthy not only for her, but for society. (Again, this is my opinion, I would never tell a person what they should do, but that is what I would do in that situation.)
I think that her situation is very different from what teen mothers face. We face a life of discrimination where people are constantly saying "Because you were too young your child will blah blah blah." but behind that too young statement is all this negativity about being ignorant, and poor. They are dooming us to statistical ends that we CAN change. That we DO change all the time.
This woman WILL die when her child is fairly young. She can't control it. No matter how hard she works at being a great mom and giving her kid the moon, she can't control when she dies. Period. That's not ageism, its fact. And the fact is that her child will be very negatively impacted when she dies because the child will be so young.
Period.
Not ageism, just fact. There is a tiny, sliver, of a possibility that this woman will live into her childs thirties, I wouldn't bet the mental health and happiness of my child on it though. And that's what she's doing.
this it just from my experience... my parents r older... my dad is in his sixties... but i feel kinda bad for the child... because who know where her mom will be in 10-15-20 years... it is a better chance (ya i know anyone cane die at any age) that her my won't be alive to see her graduate high school... also i know how hard it was to recover from childbirth at 17 i can't imagine how hard it must be at 60ish when ur body just doesn't "bounce back"
I'm really not okay with the whole "she should have adopted instead!"
Why is it any different for her to give birth to a baby than for her to adopt a baby? Either way, the child's mother isn't going to be around for 40+ years like most parents are for their children. And besides, I really don't think any of this saying "she will die really early!" stuff is making any sense. Any of us here could come down with something and die or be in an accident of some sort, leaving our children before they are in their 40s or whatever. I also totally agree with Kat on the ableism thing.
None of this means I believe it's a good idea for her to be getting pregnant at this time in her life. She is post-menopausal...there is a REASON she can't get pregnant anymore (without the use of fertility drugs).
I, as a future physician, would not ever give fertility drugs to someone post-menopausal. It's just not ethical or healthy for the woman. I don't care how many times someone screams "it's her choice, you can't take that away!" at me, I wouldn't do it because it is not in her best interest health-wise. I don't think this is an issue of choice, but an issue where there are too many health risks. I also would not give fertility drugs to someone else in a "fragile" health condition where it would do more harm than good to the patient.
Note the Hippocratic Oath (which I think totally sucks in some parts but whatever):
Quote:
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.
about the whole argument how she is going to die before her daughter graduates college. My maternal grandma had my mom when she was 21. She died when she was 42 and my mom was 21, before my mom had graduated college and had kids. My paternal grandma had my dad when she was like 45. She didnt die till she was 79, and i was already born. So being young or old when you have kids has nothing to do with it. They were both in good condition health wise when my parents were born. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future.
that's true,noone knows what will happen in the future. she could be on of the few who live to see the 100's. But the likelihood of that is not good. The avg lifespan for a woman is somewhere around 80 i think. and of course,we all know lots of women over age 80,i'm just saying whats average. (and i could be wrong give or take a couple of yrs there.)I get what you're saying though. My maternal grandma died when my mom was 13 and that was really hard on her. It still affects her, and she's in her 50's now. Losing your parent at such a young age is traumatic(not that i know from personal experience, just stories my mom has told me.)
Whats done is done and thats great that her baby is healthy and she was able to give birth at such an old age. I hope she has a lot of help, because I know how tiring it is to take care of a baby and function off of little sleep,and chase around a toddler, and I am much younger than her. But then again my grandma helped raise most of the grandchildren up into her 70's so of course it can be done.
also about nobody batting an eye about a man having kids this late in life. well i think thats just because a man does not have to physically have the baby. noone is really worried about the toll that will take on his body because he doesnt have to carry around the fetus for 9 mos and then give birth. And then deal with all of the changes your body goes through postpartum. I agree theres double standards when it comes to older men vs. older women such as the fact that when men are old and have grey hair they are considered handsome and distinguished looking-but older women (to society) are not regarded as attractive sexual people anymore. But anyway thats a whole different subject.
I, as a future physician, would not ever give fertility drugs to someone post-menopausal. It's just not ethical or healthy for the woman. I don't care how many times someone screams "it's her choice, you can't take that away!" at me, I wouldn't do it because it is not in her best interest health-wise. I don't think this is an issue of choice, but an issue where there are too many health risks. I also would not give fertility drugs to someone else in a "fragile" health condition where it would do more harm than good to the patient.
I agree with this statement... but then again I also disagree. I read an article in Cosmo (I know shoot me it's a guilty pleasure) about early menopause. This woman underwent menopause in her early 20's. If that was the case i think I would do fertility treatments. I see no reason to give people fertility treatments who have undergone menopause because of the health risks. There is a reason that women's bodies nundergo menopause.
On the otherhand, saying someone is "too old" to undergo pregnancy is COMEPLETELY different than saying someone is "too old" to be parent in my opinion. I don't think that making judgements of a 66 year old's parenting abilities is any different than questioning and 14 year old's or a disabled persons. I think it is wrong. Every person is different. As I have heard a billion times on this site, there are some good mamas and some bad no matter what age they are. And in my opinion the only time a momma is "bad" is abuse because everyone choses to parent differently.
lessthanlove, i dont know if you were taking that from my post, but I didnt mean to doubt her parenting abilities in anyway. I agree with you, I'm just saying that it will be tiring for her -it is tiring for me and she is over 40 yrs older than me! I cant even IMAGINE how that would be. My mom can only take juliette for about 2 days maximum and then shes ready to give her back because she absolutely exhausts her. But then again, i have a hyperactive child.
Thats not to say that an older or disabled person cant be a great parent. All i was saying is that I HOPE she has a lot of help for the physical aspect of it.
sure we all might die tomorrow but her likelyhood is way higher. Think about it like this, everyday we get up we have a five percent likelyhood of dying- randomly. contracting some fatal illness, being hit by a bus, having a piano dropped on us- but its not likely. as you age the likelyhood increases, when you turn sixty everyday you wake up there is a 20 or 30 percent chance you might die- break a hip, get a blood clot, have a stroke, heart disease (these CAN occure in younger people but kill older people all the time) plus the random chance percentage that everyone carries around all the time.
Having kids is a gamble because we all are unsure of how long we have- but most of us have good odds of seeing our grandkids, and maybe our great grandkids. So we take the bet.
She is facing some long odds to see her kid turn twenty- taking odds like that when the bet is your child's well being is bad parenting in my opinion.
lessthanlove, i dont know if you were taking that from my post, but I didnt mean to doubt her parenting abilities in anyway. I agree with you, I'm just saying that it will be tiring for her -it is tiring for me and she is over 40 yrs older than me! I cant even IMAGINE how that would be. My mom can only take juliette for about 2 days maximum and then shes ready to give her back because she absolutely exhausts her. But then again, i have a hyperactive child.
Thats not to say that an older or disabled person cant be a great parent. All i was saying is that I HOPE she has a lot of help for the physical aspect of it.
Oh nonono sorry. That was not directed at anyone in particular. I am just saying I don't feel that that judgement is fair becuase my little sister is disabled and she would be a great mom someday, but I don't think she likes kids. Haha.
sure we all might die tomorrow but her likelyhood is way higher. Think about it like this, everyday we get up we have a five percent likelyhood of dying- randomly. contracting some fatal illness, being hit by a bus, having a piano dropped on us- but its not likely. as you age the likelyhood increases, when you turn sixty everyday you wake up there is a 20 or 30 percent chance you might die- break a hip, get a blood clot, have a stroke, heart disease (these CAN occure in younger people but kill older people all the time) plus the random chance percentage that everyone carries around all the time.
Having kids is a gamble because we all are unsure of how long we have- but most of us have good odds of seeing our grandkids, and maybe our great grandkids. So we take the bet.
She is facing some long odds to see her kid turn twenty- taking odds like that when the bet is your child's well being is bad parenting in my opinion.
What about people with terminal illnesses? I know people who have diseases and know that it will take their life but they do not know when. I would never want prevent these women from having children (yet again if it caused major health risks I wouldn't do in vitro in them.. but if it happened naturally sure) nor parenting them. In my opinion it would be unfair to prevent these women from parenting or having babies because they have the possibility of dying soon. Cause who knows they could live another 25 years????
I don't want to offend anybody by saying this, but I do think that if you have a terminal illness that you know you are going to die from while your baby is still a child, it is selfish and unfair to TTC. Of course, the right to TTC should never be taken from anyone, but I think it would be very hard on the child. I grew up with a very sick mother and though she doesn't have a terminal illness, it has been very, very hard on me. I was always super guilty and felt like I had to be there for her, like an adult. I don't think I was an emotionally healthy, secure child because of that, even though my mom really did try her best. I think she did a really good job raising us, and I love and respect her immensly, but I would not willingly put a child through that.
I don't want to offend anybody by saying this, but I do think that if you have a terminal illness that you know you are going to die from while your baby is still a child, it is selfish and unfair to TTC. Of course, the right to TTC should never be taken from anyone, but I think it would be very hard on the child. I grew up with a very sick mother and though she doesn't have a terminal illness, it has been very, very hard on me. I was always super guilty and felt like I had to be there for her, like an adult. I don't think I was an emotionally healthy, secure child because of that, even though my mom really did try her best. I think she did a really good job raising us, and I love and respect her immensly, but I would not willingly put a child through that.
i dont think thats fair to say that. What if they come up with a cure a year after her child is born? You never know...so should she just live a childless life even if she wants kids?...because what IF she has a possibility that things might get better? i know this might be getting off topic...but if no one did anything because they MIGHT die..get hurt etc. where would we be? Anyway...im sure the woman weighed her pros and cons thoroughly...and Mama Butterfly, i'm sorry that your mom being sick was hard on you. You bring up good points as you were in that situation.
I think the problem was earlier was that the post basically said eek, gods, old women shouldn't have babies because they are old.
Um, that's ageism.
Somebody saying, wow, I think that might not be good because of these specific things x,y,and z that I can back up - that not ageism.
So, someone saying that teenages shouldn't have babies because they are young, or because they aren't mature enough, yada yada. That's ageism.
Someone saying (** disclaimer **hypothetically, I realize this is untrue, but for instance if it were) that teenagers shouldn't have babies because their bodies just aren't ready for it - if this was true, and they couldn't back it up, wouldn't be ageism.
Sort of like me not letting my 3 old use the butcher knife is not based on the fact that he is 3, but based on the fact that he has terrible coordination and a lack of understanding danger and consequences. If he's still with those problems when he is 13, I still won't let him use a butcher knife. It's unrelated to his age in the way of my reasons - the fact that he has these problems IS related to his age, but it doesn't make it ageist.
Personally, I think it has to be more on a case by case basis, like most things. I'm sure there are some 66 year old women who might have more energy and vitality than I do. I've met a few of them. I wouldn't want to tell them they can't have kids because they are old. I would bring up the health risks - although there is also that for different people there are different risk levels.
The truth is that we all have risks of dying, irregardless of age. I'm 24, but it doesn't mean that I will necessarily live until my son is 18. Nor does it necessarily mean if I do live that I will be in a position to care for him either. Some would say that being 66 would put this women in a position to be at greater risk - but how do you know? If she is in excellent health, excerises, eats well, doesn't smoke, drinks only moderately, doesn't have too much stress in her life, has access to good preventative health care and doesn't participate in high risk activities, as well as has a family history of good health and longetivity - she probably has a WAY better chance of being alive and in good health in 18 years than I do. All I've got going for me on this list is that I don't smoke.
Many people, for instance my great grandmother, live to be quite old, and still quite capable of taking care of themselves and others. She lived on her own until she was 94 years old. And even then the only reason she moved in with my grandma was because her sight diminished enough that she felt uncomfortable driving - even though she could still pass the test.
I think it's more interesting to look into why this woman chose to have a baby so late in life. I don't know about her in particular but in general women are having babies later and later on in life. My personal opinion is that it's because women are more present in the job market but the job market is still patriarchal. I know a lot of us are trying to go to school and we'll be beginning our carreers with babies in tow. But the job market is still set up for men (with women at home taking care of the babies.) Women are being forced to choose between having kids or having a career. Men, in my opinion, are not forced to choose the way we are. I guess I've just been feeling a lot of frustration because I can't put in the time in my chosen proffession. I know intellectually I could compete with any man, but because I've had a kid the system won't let me. I think there's a lot of women who have decided to delay having kids just so they could work on their career and then find out it's too late to start. I guess I just wish there was a movement of men taking on more of the child raising at the same time women are moving to the the job market just to balance things out.
Agreed Seyva. When I had my son, it was during a lull between getting out of HS and finding odd jobs. After I had him, I found a job that actually transcended into a career. I would love to have a second kid, like, now, but now that I have the career, I don't have time to even think about it.
That is so true. I get depressed sometimes because I know that if I hadn't had kids I would probably have my bachelor's degree by now and I have been working so hard at school with almost nothing to show for it. I am glad I chose to be a mommy, but sometimes I wonder if I will ever have the carreer I want, or if I do how long it is going to take me. I get really frustrated about that too. I wish parenting was more valued in this country, and employers and schools were more family friendly, with payed leave, childcare assistance, and just plain understanding when the kid is sick. I think it is sad that so many women wait until they are older to have babies because they put their career first. I am proud that even though I am in school and working towards other goals, I always put my babies first.
magikmama, when you say:
I can only assume you are referring to my post. If not, correct me. I'd just like to say that my post certainly does not reduce to this and I am somewhat offended with how you've made it seem to be the case.
For the record, ITA with mamabutterfly when she says:
It seems to me that had it not become clear that I was not the only one who thought that this was a bad idea, nothing would have come of this thread and I would remain labelled as an ageist, anti-woman individual. As it now stands, I am hestitant to post my views here. It is terrible that others have to wait for another to say something before they can be comfortable speaking up, and I don't have enough room for more stress in my life to be the person who takes the first shots in order to identify that not everyone agrees. We could have had an open dialogue right from the start, but given that my post presented a view contrary to all those that preceeded it, it was greeted with labels of my character.
If clarification was needed, it would have been given. Instead though, whatever holes that were seen with what I had said were used as a means of invalidating my opinion. I am quite bothered by this.
I know I shouldn't be responding, even now, to this thread but I feel that my post was over-simplified in a biased manner. Anyway though, I still think it is a bad idea, for many reasons, and a lot of them have now been brought up by others.
(and another post right below it made by me, clarified that I didn't mean "if you weren't implying that they wouldn't be good parents based solely on their age", should have read "if it didn't seem that you were implying")
I'm not labelling you ageist or anti woman. I don't think anyone did. I said that the particular judgement was ageist. I believe I did ask for clarification in case the point in particular I was responding to was misunderstood.
i just wanted to point out. the same way we look to our grandmothers saying they had kids at younger ages. i also like to point out people used to live for hundreds of years. yes true our life span has drastically reduced but i also know very healthy active women in their sixtys. i know some very sickly 40 year olds with arthritis who i couldnt imagen being pregnant however my mom gave birth in her 40 and i saw her as young. your lifespan has mostly to do with how you take care of yourself, my grandfather died at 53 years old, my coach in highschool dropped dead of a heart attack at 35 and left a wife and 3 boys under 15. honestly i understand some people are turned off by this, but ask yourself, where did you get the idea that it was strange?
People did not used to live for "hundreds" of years... Prehistoric people rarely lived past 40.
yeah what are you talking about firefly? i have never heard that. i'm not trying to be rude, i am honestly curious about that one.
Biblically people are mentioned to be hundreds of years old, usually before Noah since the flood changed the ozone and with the sun exposure people aged faster.. or so I've been told, I think that's what she meant. Like Sarai (later Sarah) concieved at 90 years old.
I don't know of a respectful way to say this but...yeah...I don't believe that at all. No offense to anyone's religion intended.
Scientifically speaking, the lifespan of humans has drastically INCREASED (from ~30 to now about 70-80+) since prehistoric times due to vaccinations/antibiotics/etc., COOKING FOOD before it's eaten, and shelter (having houses with A/C or heat).
sure, she could live to 100, but the chances are good that she will die before her child is an adult. I saw a picture of her, and she looked 66- she looked old which isn't a bad way to look but the way you look can reflect on how healthy you are.
I think that shortening the time that her child will have a mother, is selfish. Even if she lives to 90 her child will only be 24. Barely out of college. Most people don't loose their parents until they are in their 30's or 40's.
Becoming pregnant and ending pregnancy should not be legislated ever. But I think that putting her child at risk of loosing mom so young is a bad parenting decision.
I think if we're thinking about her health and how it can negatively affect it, that judgement of her judgement isn't necessarily happening.
Now to judge her for choosing to have a child at an older age where her future with that child isn't guarenteed (though really none of us have ANY guarentee) and throwing statistics about life expectancy is hitting way too close to home, but in the opposite way. We are always bombarded by statistics, how having a child when we did was a bad choice because of xyz. We know that they are wrong and we know that even though we face many burdens and obstacles that we love our children, and in my case if I were to die tomorrow it wouldn't make me want to go back in time and change anything. I'd still want this year and a half with my daughter. I'd still want to have been a mom. Maybe that's how she feels. Yes when she does die it will be hard on her children, as it will be when we die, but she made a choice for her.
Also the "she won't be able to do xyz" comments are hard to hear, not everyone is able physically to run around with their kids but are not any less of a parent. Some parents of the "right" age are hospitalized, but still wonderful parents. Judging parental involvement and ability based on physical ability isn't right.
I completly agree with mommy2chloerae.
I do agree with some of what you are all saying, especially what erica and folks are saying. However, it is never my place to tell someone they can or can not procreate. Ever.
And, the arguments about being able to run around with your kiddos, etc. strike me as hard-core ablism. What about parents who are wheelchair bound, or can't run around due to lung/heart problems, etc.
The thing that bothers me about this whole thing- is who are we at all to pass judgment on weather or not this person, who we don't actually know, should or should not be becoming a mother? We aren't her docters, we aren't her family, we aren't her friends. I have not actually met this woman at all, and am willing to place a guess that most of you havn't either.
If the debate is a general-- are 60 year old women physically able to bare children, I don't think that I would be able to give an opinion-- I don't know if 60 year old women generally are.
If the debate is whether or not she'll be dead by the time her kid is twenty-- I don't know what the answer is there. I think that we really aren't giving this woman enough credit for having thought about this herself, and discussed the possiblilities with her family, and friends. Maybe she has people who are going to play really important roles in her childs life, who can help when she's dead. I don't know. I don't know her full situation.
Look My only problem is the use of Science to get this woman pregnant due to her already having 'Unhealthy eggs' (That's what it said in the artical) Her daughter donated her egg so her daughter would probably take coustedy of the little girl. I would say more but I do not world things well and don't want people to be ofended
I agree with you completely miguelsmommy. There are so many children who NEED a loving family like this one. If that woman wanted a child so badly, adopting would have been much more biologically healthy not only for her, but for society. (Again, this is my opinion, I would never tell a person what they should do, but that is what I would do in that situation.)
I think that her situation is very different from what teen mothers face. We face a life of discrimination where people are constantly saying "Because you were too young your child will blah blah blah." but behind that too young statement is all this negativity about being ignorant, and poor. They are dooming us to statistical ends that we CAN change. That we DO change all the time.
This woman WILL die when her child is fairly young. She can't control it. No matter how hard she works at being a great mom and giving her kid the moon, she can't control when she dies. Period. That's not ageism, its fact. And the fact is that her child will be very negatively impacted when she dies because the child will be so young.
Period.
Not ageism, just fact. There is a tiny, sliver, of a possibility that this woman will live into her childs thirties, I wouldn't bet the mental health and happiness of my child on it though. And that's what she's doing.
this it just from my experience... my parents r older... my dad is in his sixties... but i feel kinda bad for the child... because who know where her mom will be in 10-15-20 years... it is a better chance (ya i know anyone cane die at any age) that her my won't be alive to see her graduate high school... also i know how hard it was to recover from childbirth at 17 i can't imagine how hard it must be at 60ish when ur body just doesn't "bounce back"
I'm really not okay with the whole "she should have adopted instead!"
Why is it any different for her to give birth to a baby than for her to adopt a baby? Either way, the child's mother isn't going to be around for 40+ years like most parents are for their children. And besides, I really don't think any of this saying "she will die really early!" stuff is making any sense. Any of us here could come down with something and die or be in an accident of some sort, leaving our children before they are in their 40s or whatever. I also totally agree with Kat on the ableism thing.
None of this means I believe it's a good idea for her to be getting pregnant at this time in her life. She is post-menopausal...there is a REASON she can't get pregnant anymore (without the use of fertility drugs).
I, as a future physician, would not ever give fertility drugs to someone post-menopausal. It's just not ethical or healthy for the woman. I don't care how many times someone screams "it's her choice, you can't take that away!" at me, I wouldn't do it because it is not in her best interest health-wise. I don't think this is an issue of choice, but an issue where there are too many health risks. I also would not give fertility drugs to someone else in a "fragile" health condition where it would do more harm than good to the patient.
Note the Hippocratic Oath (which I think totally sucks in some parts but whatever):
about the whole argument how she is going to die before her daughter graduates college. My maternal grandma had my mom when she was 21. She died when she was 42 and my mom was 21, before my mom had graduated college and had kids. My paternal grandma had my dad when she was like 45. She didnt die till she was 79, and i was already born. So being young or old when you have kids has nothing to do with it. They were both in good condition health wise when my parents were born. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future.
that's true,noone knows what will happen in the future. she could be on of the few who live to see the 100's. But the likelihood of that is not good. The avg lifespan for a woman is somewhere around 80 i think. and of course,we all know lots of women over age 80,i'm just saying whats average. (and i could be wrong give or take a couple of yrs there.)I get what you're saying though. My maternal grandma died when my mom was 13 and that was really hard on her. It still affects her, and she's in her 50's now. Losing your parent at such a young age is traumatic(not that i know from personal experience, just stories my mom has told me.)
Whats done is done and thats great that her baby is healthy and she was able to give birth at such an old age. I hope she has a lot of help, because I know how tiring it is to take care of a baby and function off of little sleep,and chase around a toddler, and I am much younger than her. But then again my grandma helped raise most of the grandchildren up into her 70's so of course it can be done.
also about nobody batting an eye about a man having kids this late in life. well i think thats just because a man does not have to physically have the baby. noone is really worried about the toll that will take on his body because he doesnt have to carry around the fetus for 9 mos and then give birth. And then deal with all of the changes your body goes through postpartum. I agree theres double standards when it comes to older men vs. older women such as the fact that when men are old and have grey hair they are considered handsome and distinguished looking-but older women (to society) are not regarded as attractive sexual people anymore. But anyway thats a whole different subject.
As far as I read, her baby is NOT healthy...it was premature (cesarean section as well) and she had also had a miscarriage and a stillborn.
I agree with this statement... but then again I also disagree. I read an article in Cosmo (I know shoot me it's a guilty pleasure) about early menopause. This woman underwent menopause in her early 20's. If that was the case i think I would do fertility treatments. I see no reason to give people fertility treatments who have undergone menopause because of the health risks. There is a reason that women's bodies nundergo menopause.
On the otherhand, saying someone is "too old" to undergo pregnancy is COMEPLETELY different than saying someone is "too old" to be parent in my opinion. I don't think that making judgements of a 66 year old's parenting abilities is any different than questioning and 14 year old's or a disabled persons. I think it is wrong. Every person is different. As I have heard a billion times on this site, there are some good mamas and some bad no matter what age they are. And in my opinion the only time a momma is "bad" is abuse because everyone choses to parent differently.
oh shit...i'm sorry to hear that. i just skimmed thru the first few paragraphs so i didnt even see that.
lessthanlove, i dont know if you were taking that from my post, but I didnt mean to doubt her parenting abilities in anyway. I agree with you, I'm just saying that it will be tiring for her -it is tiring for me and she is over 40 yrs older than me! I cant even IMAGINE how that would be. My mom can only take juliette for about 2 days maximum and then shes ready to give her back because she absolutely exhausts her. But then again, i have a hyperactive child.
Thats not to say that an older or disabled person cant be a great parent. All i was saying is that I HOPE she has a lot of help for the physical aspect of it.
sure we all might die tomorrow but her likelyhood is way higher. Think about it like this, everyday we get up we have a five percent likelyhood of dying- randomly. contracting some fatal illness, being hit by a bus, having a piano dropped on us- but its not likely. as you age the likelyhood increases, when you turn sixty everyday you wake up there is a 20 or 30 percent chance you might die- break a hip, get a blood clot, have a stroke, heart disease (these CAN occure in younger people but kill older people all the time) plus the random chance percentage that everyone carries around all the time.
Having kids is a gamble because we all are unsure of how long we have- but most of us have good odds of seeing our grandkids, and maybe our great grandkids. So we take the bet.
She is facing some long odds to see her kid turn twenty- taking odds like that when the bet is your child's well being is bad parenting in my opinion.
Oh nonono sorry. That was not directed at anyone in particular. I am just saying I don't feel that that judgement is fair becuase my little sister is disabled and she would be a great mom someday, but I don't think she likes kids. Haha.
What about people with terminal illnesses? I know people who have diseases and know that it will take their life but they do not know when. I would never want prevent these women from having children (yet again if it caused major health risks I wouldn't do in vitro in them.. but if it happened naturally sure) nor parenting them. In my opinion it would be unfair to prevent these women from parenting or having babies because they have the possibility of dying soon. Cause who knows they could live another 25 years????
I don't want to offend anybody by saying this, but I do think that if you have a terminal illness that you know you are going to die from while your baby is still a child, it is selfish and unfair to TTC. Of course, the right to TTC should never be taken from anyone, but I think it would be very hard on the child. I grew up with a very sick mother and though she doesn't have a terminal illness, it has been very, very hard on me. I was always super guilty and felt like I had to be there for her, like an adult. I don't think I was an emotionally healthy, secure child because of that, even though my mom really did try her best. I think she did a really good job raising us, and I love and respect her immensly, but I would not willingly put a child through that.
i dont think thats fair to say that. What if they come up with a cure a year after her child is born? You never know...so should she just live a childless life even if she wants kids?...because what IF she has a possibility that things might get better? i know this might be getting off topic...but if no one did anything because they MIGHT die..get hurt etc. where would we be? Anyway...im sure the woman weighed her pros and cons thoroughly...and Mama Butterfly, i'm sorry that your mom being sick was hard on you. You bring up good points as you were in that situation.
Pages