PDA

View Full Version : Is 62 too old to become a mother?


tlr online
08-07-06, 14:19
A 62-year-old child psychiatrist has become the oldest woman in Britain to have a baby. Patricia Rashbrook of Lewes, East Sussex, and her 6lb 10oz boy, nicknamed JJ, were said to be doing well by her husband John Farrant, 60.

Critics said it was selfish to have a baby at their age, but they said they were confident of meeting his needs. They travelled to the former Soviet Union to get fertility treatment from Italian doctor Severino Antinori.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5160812.stm

I'm not so sure I agree with this. They don't appear to be glory hounds, and you gotta wonder how their child will fair when their folks pass on, still being young. Some degree of moral responsibility must come into play when rearing children.

Thorir
08-07-06, 14:21
From a medical view, it's interesting...
But I feel bad for the baby...

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 14:22
I feel it is yes, its a selfish act... When that child's 10 years old it's mother will be 72.... Not giving the child very much time with the mother.
And also leaving them to fend for thereselves at a very early age.

Andromeda66
08-07-06, 14:24
Its a bit old. I suppose it'll be hard on the mother's pelvis. At that age, how will she regain the loss of bone tissue? I dont suppose its healthy for her in the long run (however long).

Anyways she's at a Grandmother's age and so I agree with your point about it being difficult for the child after the parents have expired.

thompa89
08-07-06, 14:24
waaaaay to old

Angelx14
08-07-06, 14:26
Poor baby! His mother can die in every moment. But I hope she will live long, at least to get baby bigger.

Mad Tony
08-07-06, 14:26
The mother will probably die before the baby becomes a proper adult.

Alive_and_Funky
08-07-06, 14:26
I think it is too old to have a child at that age too. The child might not get the chance to know what their parents are like.

da tomb raider!
08-07-06, 14:32
If the parents wanted a kid, they should have adopted one. That would have been a lot better.

Catlantean
08-07-06, 14:35
I don't think she and her husband will be bad parents. After all, 62 is not THAT old in developed countries where people live for over 80 on average, so the two of them have good chances to stay healthy and alive until the child grows up.

But still, it's not natural.

kangaxx
08-07-06, 14:56
I feel it is yes, its a selfish act... When that child's 10 years old it's mother will be 72.... Not giving the child very much time with the mother.
And also leaving them to fend for thereselves at a very early age.

Fully agree, behind the beautifull meaning of be a mother, it is a selfish actitude.

Lara Croft!
08-07-06, 15:08
62 is far too old!!!!Parents must be at a reasonable age to be able to play with their children and communicate with them!

On the contrary,In this situation,both the baby and the mother will be in diapers!

jarhead
08-07-06, 15:10
if she wanted to be a mother then she got what she wanted but its the strain she put on the baby. that baby wont have any mother when its 20 years old. the baby wont be able to be comforted by his/her mother.

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 15:11
On the contrary,In this situation,both the baby and the mother will be in diapers!

LOL.... :vlol: that is very true.

Agent 47
08-07-06, 15:17
no offense to anyone in this thread, but who the hell are we to say who can/can't have childen at whatever age?

personally i wish the family well and don't think it's selfish at all.....just my opinion.....

are we becoming a world where we say at what age you can/can't have kiddies......if that's the case the future looks very bleak, and i hate dictatorships.

Elysia
08-07-06, 15:21
Nature stops women from having kids after a certain age for a reason. Simple as that.

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 15:23
no offense to anyone in this thread, but who the hell are we to say who can/can't have childen at whatever age?

personally i wish the family well and don't think it's selfish at all.....just my opinion.....

are we becoming a world where we say at what age you can/can't have kiddies......if that's the case the future looks very bleak, and i hate dictatorships.

We're not so much saying 'YOU CANT HAVE KIDS AT THAT AGE' more so 'You shouldn't' advising is not always telling.
I agree that we don't have the right to tell people what to do, from freedom of choice.

But expressing opinions on the matter, i'm sure you can see aswell that it wouldn't be fair on the child, whether you agree or disagree.
The fact of the matter is, that child will lose his mother at a young age whether 10 or 20. It's still a very early age to have lost your mother... and you have to think to yourself 'do i want to put my child through that'?

AnthonyShock1515
08-07-06, 15:27
If their body allows them to still have children, they can use it. Its what life intedned after all.

It wont belong before the religious prats come along.

Elysia
08-07-06, 15:28
But you can't have kids at that age. It's a physical impossibility. There's this little thing called 'the menopause'. Women simply aren't naturally fertile at 62. Using IVF to have kids once a natural menopause kicks in (as opposed to an early menopause that can affect some young women) is a massive abuse of science. IVF is there to help women OF A CHILD BEARING AGE to have kids, not some grandmother who already has grown up kids to have more.

Like I siad, nature stops women from having kids in their 50's for a REASON. There is marked increase in disorders such as Downs Syndrome in kiddies that have older mothers - and how would you feel, at the age of 14, to have a mother who potentially has altzheimers / other geriatric diseases and disorders? I feel for that poor kiddie, I really do.

Agent 47
08-07-06, 15:32
We're not so much saying 'YOU CANT HAVE KIDS AT THAT AGE' more so 'You shouldn't' advising is not always telling.
I agree that we don't have the right to tell people what to do, from freedom of choice.

But expressing opinions on the matter, i'm sure you can see aswell that it wouldn't be fair on the child, whether you agree or disagree.
The fact of the matter is, that child will lose his mother at a young age whether 10 or 20. It's still a very early age to have lost your mother... and you have to think to yourself 'do i want to put my child through that'?

as long as said child gets all the love and and attention it requires and these parents are toward the child, does it matter what age they are?

people are living longer, you see one could argue about the age of this couple but i can argue the same for schoolgirls having children...it works both way's

besides, some people naturally can't have children for whatever reason, nobody should be denied the right of having a child......

@Elysia....not every woman is the same though,niether is every man on this planet.....peoples physiology is different and i put that to you as fact

Night Crawler
08-07-06, 15:33
So what if the parents die while the child is still young, at least said child has been brought into the world and has a chance at life. Parents arn't the be all and end all of life, humans in general get too emotionally attached. Life goes on.

Of course it will be a sad time for that person but they will get over it eventually and probably start a family of thier own and be thankful they were brought into the world at all.

Pablo.CT
08-07-06, 15:36
I think its rather selfish. The mother only wants the baby to make herself feel good, like someone pointed out in 10 year's time the mother will be 72, the child only 10, its not really fair on the child because he/she may not have enough time to spend with their mother

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 15:40
as long as said child gets all the love and and attention it requires and these parents are toward the child, does it matter what age they are?

people are living longer, you see one could argue about the age of this couple but i can argue the same for schoolgirls having children...it works both way's

besides, some people naturally can't have children for whatever reason, nobody should be denied the right of having a child......


It's not just about attention ect, because of course they can get that from friends and other close family.
But when a child makes new friends, and say goes round there house and see's there parents playing with them, and fit and able to do things which a 70 year old mum cannot...
How do you think that child is going to feel?

Sports days ect.... When mum and dads both participate with there children in activities.... and that child who has a 70 year old mum cannot due to health risks.

Plus the parents will most likely never get to see there children married, have there own children... or for that matter Graduate...

Which are all things i hope *cross my fingers * my parents are there to see.

Small things like that can effect that child for the rest of there lives.
Whether they can physcially give birth still maybe be fine... but is it morally right for the childs sake.

Agent 47
08-07-06, 16:04
It's not just about attention ect, because of course they can get that from friends and other close family.
But when a child makes new friends, and say goes round there house and see's there parents playing with them, and fit and able to do things which a 70 year old mum cannot...
How do you think that child is going to feel?

Sports days ect.... When mum and dads both participate with there children in activities.... and that child who has a 70 year old mum cannot due to health risks.

Plus the parents will most likely never get to see there children married, have there own children... or for that matter Graduate...

Which are all things i hope *cross my fingers * my parents are there to see.

Small things like that can effect that child for the rest of there lives.
Whether they can physcially give birth still maybe be fine... but is it morally right for the childs sake.

have you actually thought that this might be a healthy couple,if either had health concerns i doubt this child would have been born,i think people are basing their views on ageism to be honest,assuming this couple will get every know old timers disease on the planet,and if you want to play the "is it morally right" card...is morally right to deny someone a child?...in a word NO

but i wish them and the child all the best, besides for me 62 doesn't really seem all that old.........if the couple were in their 70's and 80's then i would be a tad concerned......but

afterall age is but a number, and as i said above this could be a perfectly healthy couple..............damn liberals and do-gooders making this couple feel like criminals:mad:

Elysia
08-07-06, 16:10
It is physically impossible for a woman atr the age of 62 to conceive naturally. She conceived this child through IVF (and she had to go abroad since no doctor in the UK would perform the procedure on her here). IVF is used to help women of a child bearing age to have kids if they want them (but tragically find they can't have them naturally), NOT women past the age of the menopause who decide that they want more kids (as far as I'm aware, she already has grown-up children).

Do people actually understand what the menopause is and how women's bodies work?! It's got NOTHING to do with 'having the right to have a child'. At 62, NATURE has already decided you are too old. Nature stops women from having periods and producing fertile eggs in their late 40's / early 50's, and therefore she would be unable to conceive naturally at all, whether she had problems before her menopause or not. The menopause is like mother nature's sell-by date, I'm afraid... and She knows best when it comes to things like this. Every single woman in existence has had / will have to go through this - there is a cut off point when we simply can't have kids anymore - it is nature's way of safeguarding not only our health but the health of the child as well. To go against nature in this way is an act of gross arrogance and selfishness imo.

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 16:14
have you actually thought that this might be a healthy couple,if either had health concerns i doubt this child would have been born,i think people are basing their views on ageism to be honest,assuming this couple will get every know old timers disease on the planet,and if you want to play the "is it morally right" card...is morally right to deny someone a child?...in a word NO

but i wish them and the child all the best, besides for me 62 doesn't really seem all that old.........if the couple were in their 70's and 80's then i would be a tad concerned......but

afterall age is but a number, and as i said above this could be a perfectly healthy couple..............damn liberals and do-gooders making this couple feel like criminals:mad:

Yeah i agree with the fact that to me 62 is not old at all... still got 20-30 years left in them if they stay fit and live healthy.
And i know the whole 'ageism' comes into it, but when you think old.... Steriotypically you think... walking stick/grey/barely breathing... this is not always the case however, but is a natural image that people get when they think 'old people'.

But even at the age of 70... i dont think at all they will be able to sprint up and down a field some how....
People are always going to have mixed emotions and beliefs on this matter.... at the end of the day... we can share views... but in reality... we can do what the f*** we want.
Whether people agree or not is based on opinion, mine being against... there is no right or wrong answer.

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 16:20
It is physically impossible for a woman atr the age of 62 to conceive naturally. She conceived this child through IVF (and she had to go abroad since no doctor in the UK would perform the procedure on her here). IVF is used to help women of a child bearing age to have kids if they want them (but tragically find they can't have them naturally), NOT women past the age of the menopause who decide that they want more kids (as far as I'm aware, she already has grown-up children).

Do people actually understand what the menopause is and how women's bodies work?! It's got NOTHING to do with 'having the right to have a child'. At 62, NATURE has already decided you are too old. Nature stops women from having periods and producing fertile eggs in their late 40's / early 50's, and therefore she would be unable to conceive naturally at all, whether she had problems before her menopause or not. The menopause is like mother nature's sell-by date, I'm afraid... and She knows best when it comes to things like this. Every single woman in existence has had / will have to go through this - there is a cut off point when we simply can't have kids anymore - it is nature's way of safeguarding not only our health but the health of the child as well. To go against nature in this way is an act of gross arrogance and selfishness imo.

I agree.... Science can be used for Good, or just to show how 'intellegent the human race is by playing god'. Which by no means it should be used for.

Elysia
08-07-06, 16:23
have you actually thought that this might be a healthy couple,if either had health concerns i doubt this child would have been born,i think people are basing their views on ageism to be honest,assuming this couple will get every know old timers disease on the planet,and if you want to play the "is it morally right" card...is morally right to deny someone a child?...in a word NO
So, by that argument, it is also totally right for a 12/13 year old to have a baby if she wants one, because it is 'morally wrong to deny someone a child'?

From a biological viewpoint, at 12/13, most girls have started their periods and are therefore fertile and able to conceive on their own. So, if a 62 year old woman, who has gone through the menopause (nature's way of saying 'you're too old to be thinking about kiddies, missy!') can have a kiddie and be right, it conversely has to be perfectly okay for a 13 year old child to demand the same treatment if they so wish it. Otherwise it's just ageism in reverse.

(Btw - I think 13 year olds having kids is pretty wrong too...)

Legend of Lara
08-07-06, 16:27
67 is too old. The proper birth-giving age is like from 20 to say... late 30s?

Pipolinne
08-07-06, 16:29
If the parents wanted a kid, they should have adopted one. That would have been a lot better.

Why?Would it be less cruel cruel for the child her/his parents dying before her twenties,just because she/him was adopted?

With that age,I think we are good grand-parents,but being a parent?Becoming a parent when we start loosing capacities,when diseases like Alzheimer may appear, and when we start loosing patience with small things?

I think having a child at her age is a stupidity,regardless of the sex.

And you are right,Elysia: having a child when one's not even an adult it's so stupid as becoming a parent when we are almost dying.

Elysia
08-07-06, 16:30
I agree.... Science can be used for Good, or just to show how 'intellegent the human race is by playing god'. Which by no means it should be used for.
Remember the quote form Jurassic Park (of all things)?

'You were so caught up in wondering whether you could, you never once stopped to think whether you *should*.'

Just because you can do it, doesn't make it right. There's a lot of things I *could* do, but I never would because I know it is wrong!

I just can't get over the way that people seem to believe that she decided to have a kiddie and did it the 'old fashioned' way. No. An egg would have been fertilised in a laboratoty (chances are, considering her age, it would have been a donor egg as well), which would then have been forcibly implanted in to her womb by a doctor. This proceedure can take multiple attempts for an embryo to 'take hold'. She and her husband wouldn't have just sat there and said 'darling, let's make babies tonight!' et voila - a couple of months later she's pregnant. She couldn't become pregnant in this way - it is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

If I was trying for a baby and found out I couldn't conceive naturally and had to go and have IVF (especially since it doesn't have a particularly good success rate - in order to keep trying, you have to be pretty much loaded, since one course can cost thousands of pounds), I'd be very, very angry at this woman. She's had her crack - she's already got kids (they are grown up). Why couldn't she just face reality and grow old gracefully - as nature intended?

tr_mitch
08-07-06, 16:35
Remember the quote form Jurassic Park (of all things)?

'You were so caught up in wondering whether you could, you never once stopped to think whether you *should*.'

Just because you can do it, doesn't make it right. There's a lot of things I *could* do, but I never would because I know it is wrong!

I just can't get over the way that people seem to believe that she decided to have a kiddie and did it the 'old fashioned' way. No. An egg would have been fertilised in a laboratoty (chances are, considering her age, it would have been a donor egg as well), which would then have been forcibly implanted in to her womb by a doctor. This proceedure can take multiple attempts for an embryo to 'take hold'. She and her husband wouldn't have just sat there and said 'darling, let's make babies tonight!' et voila - a couple of months later she's pregnant. She couldn't become pregnant in this way - it is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

If I was trying for a baby and found out I couldn't conceive naturally and had to go and have IVF (especially since it doesn't have a particularly good success rate - in order to keep trying, you have to be pretty much loaded, since one course can cost thousands of pounds), I'd be very, very angry at this woman. She's had her crack - she's already got kids (they are grown up). Why couldn't she just face reality and grow old gracefully - as nature intended?

It's a crazy world nowadays... you get people doing the most stupid things for attention/money and ultimately fame.
It's just a shame there is no laws on this... I'm 16 and don't intend to have children for many years to come...... Steriotypically
Midlife is when you have a family.
When your young you have freedom, and when your old you retire and enjoy whats left of your life....
However having a baby at that age is hardly going to be the most relaxing time... also note that stress + Old people = Early Death.

psychokitten
08-07-06, 16:39
I agree that 62 is way too old, she's hardly going to be able to roll around on the floor and play with her baby is she? Teaching the poor kid how to walk would be interesting with the osteoporosis settin in and all! :P

Pipolinne
08-07-06, 16:45
I think people still get the idea one has children for beautiful purposes,which is a lie.Sometimes,children are just a narcisistic object,nothing more.And no,I do not believe this couple had a child because "it's so wonderful"!

A infertile young woman cannot have a child if she isn't married,in certain europen countries,and this 62 woman exhibits her child??What makes of her a better mother than one of those women?!

Ampersand
08-07-06, 16:46
I think she is far too old. She could be dead in 10 years' time, what good would that be for the kid? It's selfish really. :o

Catapharact
08-07-06, 17:36
no offense to anyone in this thread, but who the hell are we to say who can/can't have childen at whatever age?

personally i wish the family well and don't think it's selfish at all.....just my opinion.....

are we becoming a world where we say at what age you can/can't have kiddies......if that's the case the future looks very bleak, and i hate dictatorships.

Agreed. Though it may seem non-logical, grandparents (or in this case, older biological parents) make better guardians of a child. In many eastern cultures (particularly in China and Japan,) its the grandparents who give the child most of its attention. I would argue that those who are older have the wisdom and experience that works in benifit more than younger guardians. It is why Eastern cultures have such a strong sense of Family bonding.

Lavinder
08-07-06, 17:42
If she is one of them extraordinary granmas who can do anything then yes go along with it!

But if she is an average woman whom is already weak then no.

saray
08-07-06, 18:04
i think it's a bit to late...because the child won't even get to spend his 18th birthday with her.... because then she'll be...80?? and probably dead...but, it's her life, her choice, even if i don't agree with it myself. she's ruining her sons life, and she's the one who has to deal with it.

Greenkey2
08-07-06, 19:10
Just because we can do a thing, it does not mean that we should. What she and the medical staff who made it possible have done is wrong IMO.

Real Life Lara
08-07-06, 19:14
That's wrong in my opinion... the poor kid... I mean the woman could easily kick it in a couple of years for heavens sake and the child wont have the chance to get a proper upbringing. Even if she doesnt, she wont be as able to give the required lifestyle to her child... like someones already said, 20 to late 30's: fine. Older than that? Its just not fair on the child. o_O

scion05
08-07-06, 20:06
its waay to old, and disgusting...

Agent 47
08-07-06, 20:24
it's comments like that i find discusting to be honest.............

seems to be alot of biggotry in this thread and blatant narrow mindedness

40 yr old woman has a daughter
40 yr old woman dies at 48 yrs old

child of 8 has no mother

makes no difference what age the parents are they can die at ANY time

btw.......the example above was my grandma who i never met or knew,so now you know why i'm ****ed off by the ageist comments in this thread :mad:

Elysia
08-07-06, 20:24
If women were supposed to have kids at that age, I wouldn't have a problem with it... but they're not. At 62, nature has decided for you, whether you like it or not. To reverse that is just isn't cricket....

jarhead
08-07-06, 20:27
i agree. why mess with nature. its gonna sadly get its own back to level the score and that baby is gonna get full force when its parents die of old age and he/she hasnt even finished education. family is everything aswell as friends and etc but he/she isnt gonna have anyn

Mary CF
08-07-06, 20:28
A 62-year-old child psychiatrist has become the oldest woman in Britain to have a baby. Patricia Rashbrook of Lewes, East Sussex, and her 6lb 10oz boy, nicknamed JJ, were said to be doing well by her husband John Farrant, 60.

Critics said it was selfish to have a baby at their age, but they said they were confident of meeting his needs. They travelled to the former Soviet Union to get fertility treatment from Italian doctor Severino Antinori.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5160812.stm

I'm not so sure I agree with this. They don't appear to be glory hounds, and you gotta wonder how their child will fair when their folks pass on, still being young. Some degree of moral responsibility must come into play when rearing children.

Not to mention, the risks of having children with genetic defects increases sharply after age 40... and this woman is well over 40!

http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/pregcomplications/3127.html

It is quite selfish, I think.

Elysia
08-07-06, 20:31
it's comments like that i find discusting to be honest.............

seems to be alot of biggotry in this thread and blatant narrow mindedness

40 yr old woman has a daughter
40 yr old woman dies at 48 yrs old

child of 8 has no mother

makes no difference what age the parents are they can die at ANY time

btw.......the example above was my grandma who i never met or knew,so now you know why i'm ****ed off by the ageist comments in this thread :mad:
MENOPAUSE!!!!!!!

It isn't just a random collection of syllables!

This woman concieved MEDICALLY! Not naturally. Nature had decided that she shouldn't have any more kids - NO WOMAN can have kids naturally at that age! The Goddess knows - Nature does things for a REASON! It has mothing to do with ageism and everything to do with it being just wrong - against nature and against what it is to be female. The menopause happens to us all - we DO NOT keep reproducing until we die, because it is unsafe for us AND for our babies. This gross disregard for the natural order in favour of science is simply disturbing.

Yes - people die. I've lost people prematurely - VERY prematurely. But it happens. Same goes for the Menopause - nature's way of saying 'become a grandmother'! At 29, I know time is running out for me - there is a 30% increase in the risk of birth defects and Downs Syndrome after the age of 35. As a woman of child bearing age, I find that a woman of 62 - of an age where nature in her wisdom has herself said 'you are too old to bear kiddies' - having a child as being irresponsible and selfish. Who the hell is she to go against what nature has decreed?

What galls me even more is that this woman is NOT childless! She has grown up children already! She should just accept the very fortunate hand Fate has dealt her and be happy. Allow some of the other, childless women out there to share in some of that joy.

Greenkey2
08-07-06, 20:42
MENOPAUSE!!!!!!!

It isn't just a random collection of syllables!

This woman concieved MEDICALLY! Not naturally. Nature had decided that she shouldn't have any more kids - NO WOMAN can have kids naturally at that age! The Goddess knows - Nature does things for a REASON! It has mothing to do with ageism and everything to do with it being just wrong - against nature and against what it is to be female. The menopause happens to us all - we DO NOT keep reproducing until we die, because it is unsafe for us AND for our babies. This gross disregard for the natural order in favour of science is simply disturbing.

Yes - people die. I've lost people prematurely - VERY prematurely. But it happens. Same goes for the Menopause - nature's way of saying 'become a grandmother'! At 29, I know time is running out for me - there is a 30% increase in the risk of birth defects and Downs Syndrome after the age of 35. As a woman of child bearing age, I find that a woman of 62 - of an age where nature in her wisdom has herself said 'you are too old to bear kiddies' - having a child as being irresponsible and selfish. Who the hell is she to go against what nature has decreed?

What galls me even more is that this woman is NOT childless! She has grown up children already! She should just accept the very fortunate hand Fate has dealt her and be happy. Allow some of the other, childless women out there to share in some of that joy.

I absolutely agree with you. Well said.

xMiSsCrOfTx
08-07-06, 21:20
I disagree with it, and I think it would probably be harmful for the child. When the child's growing up, this lady will be very old and will probably die before the kid reaches 30... It's way too risky having a child that old.

BeyondSorrow666
08-07-06, 21:27
Too old , Feel sorry for the kid

They look more like grandparents than parents


E x