Old Mothers

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:01

In some parts of the world fertility clinics have given women too old to naturally conceive a child the possibility to do so.

In England a 66-year old woman has received treatment at such a clinic (link to the story). The future child will have a mother old enough to his/her grandmother. Imagine that.

Whose interests are being served here? The child's? The mother's/parents'?

Is having an old mother worse than not being born at all.

I don't think that the abilities of modern medicine should freely be offered to anyone expressing a desire for something and the willingness to pay, but that there is an impending need for new legislation on the areas where new opportunities present themselves.

What do you think about this? How'd you feel if your mother was 84 at the time you turned 18?

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:36

Well nobody ever complained about not being born but many people wish they hadn't. The desire cannot be about the child's interest since he/she doesn't exist at the time we are asking this question.

I saw a recent report on television about one such clinic that refused to treat overweight women - the doctor would make them lose weight before returning and many found that losing weight fixed their problems conceiving. Is that discrimination? I thought it was good medicine. I don't think we should offer services to anyone with the wish and the money either.

Aside from how you would feel having an 84 yr old mother at age 18 - what does this mean for society? Who is looking after the children if these elderly parents suffer dementure or need permanent care? Is it healthy for 18 year old to spend his youth caring for his parents?

Prideth · Post by **Prideth** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:54

I doubt these older parents just decide to just have a kid on a whim. They must, and I'm sure do, think and talk the idea through very carefully before looking at their options.

Being over 40, I get a bit ruffled with older parents being automatically condemmed because of their age. It seems to be just another symptom of the youth oriented culture of western society. Once you hit 40, you are expected to just exist quietly until you die and not get in the way of the younger generation. Yes, I'm beginning hit that attitude myself now. Recently a member on another forum was shocked and disgusted that someone my aged dared to play video games.

Age isn't a factor in who will or won't be good parents, and I don't believe anyone should have age held against them when it comes to being parents. What about all the grandparents around the world raising grandkids because their children are dead, deadbeats ect? No-one raises a stink and craps on about the "effect" that will have on the children, and yes, some of those grandparents do raise those kids from birth.

As for how the children will feel. Well, they will only think their mum and dad are mum and dad. At least until they get to school and start getting teased by bullies raised by young idiots who will fill their bully kids head with "having old parents is wrong". You can't blame the older parents or their child for that. No child is obliged to care for parents at any age, and if they do, it is their choice.

The fact mothers of this age need artificial help to have a child shouldn't be banned or stopped either. If they want the child, and can afford to raise it then why not. Men can father children up till the day they die, so why should women have a "use by date"? Why the focus on old mothers, what about old fathers, or is this yet another case of "lets control the females reproduction".

I just see the opposition to this as yet another sign of society trying to force its version of "normal" on everyone. Not too many years ago, it was single parents who were singled out for condemnation and criticism using the "think of the children" arguement. Parents come in all shapes, sizes, colours and ages. It is time society came to terms with that.

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Sun May 14, 2006 18:59

I won't dispute that their is a youth-idolizing culture and that this is very problematic in itself. However, I also think that this youth worshipping culture is not the real problem, but just a hint towards its root: that we live in a death-defying culture, which attempts to dull its mortal dread by centering itself around the perceived opposites of death.
In this sense the women above 50 wanting to get pregnant are themselves motivated by the youth culture, which you claim is causing them harm by stigmatization, not because they acting in the best interests of the future offspring, but because they want to give birth to feel young.

The issue is about offering children sub-optimal conditions. Ideally a child should have two parents and grandparents. By offering IVF to old women you erode these ideals, while a much better alternative is available: adoption. There are many children in the world, who are very badly off. By adopting them you move them towards the beforementioned ideality instead of creating more children and moving those down the ideality ladder.
I have always thought of it as somewhat perverse that the western world spends huge resources on expensive IVF, while orphans starve to death in poor areas of the world.

Prideth wrote:Men can father children up till the day they die, so why should women have a "use by date"?

I knew that would come up. It's an unreasonable and faulty logic. Like a shoplifter defending himself by pointing at another thief: "That fellow stole too, why can't I?" This kind of logic is always used very egoistically - when someone hear about another getting paid more for the same work the demand is always more money for the offended party in question, never less money for the other one.

Prideth wrote:I just see the opposition to this as yet another sign of society trying to force its version of "normal" on everyone. Not too many years ago, it was single parents who were singled out for condemnation and criticism using the "think of the children" arguement. Parents come in all shapes, sizes, colours and ages. It is time society came to terms with that.

If it was just this simple. Unfortunately there's is a third party involved whom I believe is being offered unreasonable circumstances, and this is exactly in such instances the state must intervene.

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Mon May 15, 2006 0:37

I have always thought of it as somewhat perverse that the western world spends huge resources on expensive IVF, while orphans starve to death in poor areas of the world.

This is a very good point - the needs of existing children against the irrational idea that you could not love and care for an adopted child as deeply, or experience as much joy from the experience. It is something even people who can have children should consider.

However, I also think that this youth worshipping culture is not the real problem, but just a hint towards its root: that we live in a death-defying culture, which attempts to dull its mortal dread by centering itself around the perceived opposites of death.

I quite agree - this also applies to the misuse of cosmetic surgery. And to the way people who could not live naturally and will die with our without treatment are kept alive artificially is another symptom of the great cover up. It has become taboo. The youth culture is a symptom of the self deception that we are immortal. We don't like reminders and have all sorts of psychological tricks to juggle away the truth that we will each have a personal encounter with death. I think it is partly a result of the death of religion, which used to quell the fear of death with assurances of an afterlife. But now that people either no longer believe or can no longer be bothered with religion there is now a general unspoken fear of it. Are parents on the other side of sixty also kidding themselves. Sure they might not do it on a whim, but that doesn't mean they are not denying certain realities and risks.

Prideth · Post by **Prideth** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:19

The reason most women put themselves through IVF, and believe me that procedure is no walk in the park, instead of adopting is because they want their own child, not someone elses. I'm a bit confused why you disagree with older women having their own children, but seem to feel they should be adopting from overseas instead.

I don't give a ploughman's pie about logic, and your examples have nothing to do with pregnacy and children. Just because a woman hits menopause doesn't automatically make her not want children anymore, or worse automatically make her a selfish bad mother, which is what you posts are implying to me. Nowdays she has the means to conceive if she is prepared to face the risks involved, go through the pregnacy and raise the child, and should have the right to use it.

This whole arguement smack of sexism and ageism to me. It is ok for a newborn to have a 66 year old father and no-one cares, but a 66 year old mother and everyone screams no against the idea. We don't know these women, don't know their financial situation, don't know their family structure, don't know their medical conditions (if any), don't know their emotional conditions, nothing, so we really have no right to sit here and judge them based soley on how old they are without taking everything else into account.

How about we all just get our noses out of their business, and let the women and their families decide. After all, they are in the best position to make the best decision.

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:21

Just as society gives itself the right to make laws regarding the care of children, it can give itself the right to make laws surrounding their conception. I said that everyone should consider adoption as an option, not just women who need IVF to conceive. A woman may very well still want to have children after menopause and this may very well be possible, but just because you are old doesn't mean you are responsible. I wouldn't say that just because you are past menopause you shouldn't have IVF as an option but without any regulation there is the potential for abuse. As for keeping our noses out - reproduction and the care of children is very much a concern of the state, that is why we make laws to protect children. No-one says keep your nose out of what is not your business when it is a case of abuse or neglect. The judgement should not be based soley on how old they are. But there is such a thing as too old. Also, not everybody should be allowed to have children (even if they can conceive naturally) and society should intervene where procreation is against its interests. Some people really screw up their lives and then go and have children whose lifes will almost certainly be screwed up as well.

No-one wants to be born. No-one asks for it. It happens to us without permission. Is it fair or just to allow people to create new lives that the rest of us would judge not worth living? Is it better not to be born then for you to be brought up a criminal? For society, absolutely. For the individual concerned it doesn't matter. It is all about the parents and their rights - but too many parents know too much about their rights and nothing about their responsibility.

Prideth · Post by **Prideth** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:58

Abuse and neglect can happen to a child born to parents of any age, but I honestly feel that a child born to parents who have wanted one so badly that they go through the emotional hell of IVF to concieve is much less likely to suffer from that.

The state should and does have the right to step in when children are put at risk, but the act of reproduction itself is a private thing. Do you really want the state to judge who can and can't have children, and dole out licenses to the lucky ones? I don't, because I like living in a free society and not a dictatorship.

Some women can concieve naturally in their late 40s and into their 50s. Should they be deprived of the child too "just in case"? Perhaps instead of deciding that a child of an old mother (I notice the focus is still on the mothers and not fathers) is going to have a crap life, so she shouldn't be allowed by the state to use a service that should be available to any woman who wants to concieve, we should find some children born to older mothers and ask them if they wish they hadn't been born. After all, growing up in that environment, they would have a much better idea about it than any of us do.

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:22

The state should and does have the right to step in when children are put at risk, but the act of reproduction itself is a private thing. Do you really want the state to judge who can and can't have children, and dole out licenses to the lucky ones? I don't, because I like living in a free society and not a dictatorship.

Well I am not in principle against the idea of a license to have children. Of course the conditions for obtaining such license should not be arbitrary or subjective so I'm not sure where the 'lucky ones' comes from. If there were to be any age restrictions it should apply to both parents. This applies equally to mothers and fathers. The act of reproduction is a private thing, but should it be? Doesn't the whole community have an interest in this seeing as our future depends on it? Nobody should be deprived 'just in case'. I am not suggesting there is any necessary relation between the age of your parents and the quality of your upbringing. But without any regulation there is the chance such services will be misused and abused.

There are many things to consider: do the parents have dissimilar major histocompatibility complex? Do they adequate resources? Do they have adequate support networks? Yes, I know that if all our parents had asked themselves such questions perhaps none of us would be here. This argument doesn't work though, because if that was the case we would have nothing to complain about. Just because we have continued our race randomly and ad-hoc, does that mean we should continue to do so? Consider for example the fact that women on hormonal contraceptives for some reason tend to choose partners who have similar MHC complex, if they choose their partner whilst on the pill should this be tested before they decide to have children?