Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

[cheerful_deviant]

World's Oldest Mom Bears Twins at 67

MADRID, Spain (AP) -- A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest mother after she gave birth to twins in the northern city of Barcelona on Saturday, a hospital official said.

The woman, whose identity has not been revealed by Sant Pau hospital, gave birth by caesarian section on Saturday having previously undergone in vitro fertilization in the United States, according to the national news agency EFE.

Originally from the southern region of Andalucia, the new mother chose the Barcelona hospital because it specializes in high-risk births.

The mother and twins are all doing well though the babies are both in incubators, a hospital spokeswoman said. The hospital did not reveal the gender of the twins.

The previous holder of the oldest mother record was 66-year-old Romanian citizen Adriana Iliescu who gave birth to baby Eliza Maria in Jan. 2005.


Does anyone really think a 72 year old can really keep up with a 5 year old... and twins at that? And what it the average life expectancy nowdays? 75 years old or so? So if this woman is average these twins will have no mother by the time they are 8. Doesn't seem very fair to the children in my opinion.

I know having children is a beautiful and wonderful thing but at some point it's time to throw in the towel.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't know the whole story, but yes, this seems wrong. Just becuase it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Just becuase it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Maybe she has a young husband?

Think of all the "old" men who have babies with young wives... lots of men in their 70's get 20 and 30 year olds pregnant...

 

[Liar]

There should be a rule. Unless you're young (or non-old) enough to raise kids to legal age, you're not allowed to breed. Goes for men as well as women.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Maybe she has a young husband?

Think of all the "old" men who have babies with young wives... lots of men in their 70's get 20 and 30 year olds pregnant...

I kind of feel the same way about them, although it's not entirely the same, at least culturally right now. For good or ill, being raised without a father seems to be less of a bad thing than being raised without a mother.

The thing that I really don't like about this is that it smacks of having children for the sake of a parent's needs and desires. Needs and desires that should have been resolved long before that age.

I have a nephew that was conceived in vitro when his mother was about 40, and a niece that was a surprise when her mother was about 41 and her father about 50. Both of them are blessings, and they benefit from the degree of success their parents have achieved, even if they may not have as much time with them. Anyway, 40-ish is about the upper range of successful natural births, and it's easy to understand the desire to try to bring a child to term - lots of women that age are having children nowadays, and had children at that age in the past.

Being a parent is a wonderful thing, but it's not easy. If you're not in it for the benefit of your child, you're asking for trouble. If you can't be in it for the benefit of your child, you might be being irresponsible. I can understand irresponsible of a teenager, but someone in their 60s?

 

[starrkers]

Menopause happens for a reason.

 

[only_more_so]

There should be a rule. Unless you're young (or non-old) enough to raise kids to legal age, you're not allowed to breed. Goes for men as well as women.

I think there are plenty of young people who should be banned from having children. If you are going to ban people too old to care for a child, what about parents who are too poor? I remember hearing some politician say women on welfare should be sterilized (or something similar) and he got hell for it.

 

[Guest]

Maybe she has a young husband?

Think of all the "old" men who have babies with young wives... lots of men in their 70's get 20 and 30 year olds pregnant...

Exactly.

Granted, I don't think it's a good idea for either parent to have children at such an advanced age. I mean honestly, knowing you most likely won't be alive when they graduate from high school?

Depressing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Seems wierd, but not necessarily "wrong." Who knows - maybe she has a couple unmarried or sterile 40-something daughters who are dying for a kid to raise. Maybe she's rich and has all kinds of servants to help. Maybe all kinds of things. Definitely weird, though.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Umm...I suppose I'm the obvious one to say this...But the idea of fucking that wrinkled old skank really sorta turns me off

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Exactly.

Granted, I don't think it's a good idea for either parent to have children at such an advanced age. I mean honestly, knowing you most likely won't be alive when they graduate from high school?

Depressing.

My thoughts exactly. I think it's to the point of selfish to be having children at such an advanced age. Odds are you're going to teach your child all about having a parent die at a very early age.

 

[Liar]

I think there are plenty of young people who should be banned from having children. If you are going to ban people too old to care for a child, what about parents who are too poor? I remember hearing some politician say women on welfare should be sterilized (or something similar) and he got hell for it.

Quite frankly, every kid runs the risk of losing a parent too soon. Risks are part of life. But if the parents are old enough, it's not a risk anymore, it's a certainty.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Umm...I suppose I'm the obvious one to say this...But the idea of fucking that wrinkled old skank really sorta turns me off

To quote a lyric from a classic rock group:
"You're time is gonna come . . ."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I wonder where the argument justifies (which is to say, at which point it becomes evident) with regard to personal freedom of the participant?

Does banning the practice of pregnant old people infringe on "let me do what I want because I'm not hurting anyone"? Or is the future possible child also future possibly harmed? And then are we stopping people from doing things they've got the right to do, currently, to stop future possible people from being future possibly hurt by them?

Would it be wrong, then, to get in-vitroed and then have an abortion? And do so a few dozen times? No child, nobody to hurt. Maybe she just wants to feel pregnant again (though why she would, I have no idea).

Unfortunately, legally-speaking, I think there are so many quesions about this...

...no easy answer.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There seems to be some confusion here. The only way this is anyone's business other than her own is if she is "externalizing" some cost on society or her children by not making provision for their proper care and raising in the not-unlikely event that she is unable to undertake this herself. Nothing has been presented to show that this is the case.

If it is the case, then her situation is not all that different from that of the many ignorant and indigent teenage mothers in this country who get pregnant and bring children into the world without a clue of what is required to support and properly raise a child, and no ability to do so. I don't see the same kind of moralistic hand-wringing and finger-waving in those all too common cases, which are at least as deserving of such opprobrium, because they will almost certainly impose much greater costs on society, in many forms. Indeed, it is not unlikely that this experienced woman has a more substantial family network in place to potentially provide care than many ignorant and immature teens, and so is much less deserving of the opprobrium that's been expressed here.

 

[TE999]

Sixty-seven years old, sheesh!

They'll have to take the children out of kindergarten to attend the funeral.

Oh, okay.

I'll ask the question.

Is she going to breast feed?

Just wonderin'?

Peace (in 2007).

 

[matriarch]

Umm...I suppose I'm the obvious one to say this...But the idea of fucking that wrinkled old skank really sorta turns me off

Well.........that really makes the older ones amongst us feel SO good.
Thanks Jenny. I'll point out your comment to my wife, who by the way, is a great deal younger than me. I'm sure she'd love to take comfort from your comments in 10 years' time.

 

[matriarch]

There seems to be some confusion here. The only way this is anyone's business other than her own is if she is "externalizing" some cost on society or her children by not making provision for their proper care and raising in the not-unlikely event that she is unable to undertake this herself. Nothing has been presented to show that this is the case.

If it is the case, then her situation is not all that different from that of millions of indigent teenage mothers in this country, and I don't see the same kind of moralistic hand-wringing and finger-waving in those cases, which are at least as deserving of such opprobrium. Probably moreso, since it is not unlikely that this experienced woman has a more substantial family network in place to potentially provide care than those millions of ignorant, immature teens.

Careful, Roxanne......

 

[only_more_so]

There seems to be some confusion here. The only way this is anyone's business other than her own is if she is "externalizing" some cost on society or her children by not making provision for their proper care and raising in the not-unlikely event that she is unable to undertake this herself. Nothing has been presented to show that this is the case.

If it is the case, then her situation is not all that different from that of the many ignorant and indigent teenage mothers in this country who get pregnant and bring children into the world without a clue of what is required to support and properly raise a child, and no ability to do so. I don't see the same kind of moralistic hand-wringing and finger-waving in those all too common cases, which are at least as deserving of such opprobrium, because they will almost certainly impose much greater costs on society, in many forms. Indeed, it is not unlikely that this experienced woman has a more substantial family network in place to potentially provide care than many ignorant and immature teens, and so is much less deserving of the opprobrium that's been expressed here.

Actually, I have the same moral hand-wringing for both situations. Sometimes I wish there was a test people had to pass before they could become parents, it is time to turn the gene-pool's filter on.

You argument however is fundamentally flawed. For immature teens the birth occurs "naturally" through sex. Some would say accidently, but there are too many cases where the girl actually wants to get knocked up. In the case of this woman, however, the birth occured unnaturally through the use of in-vitro fertilization. Likely, it even occured after she went through menopause.

If the law takes into account premeditation, shouldn't morality arguments?

 

[Huckleman2000]

With respect to Joe's and Roxanne's arguments, I guess I should say that I doubt if I would support legislation against pregnancies so late in life. I said in my first post that I don't know all the circumstances in this case.

I can still say, though, that I can't see where it's a good idea if the mother has the best interest of the child at heart.

Women reach an age naturally when they can't have children anymore. Men don't, although the capability certainly declines with age. I don't know if that's fair or not, but it's the way things have been until recent medical advances.

I don't think any reasonable person would argue that a man of 70 impregnating a woman of childbearing age is a good idea on its face. Aside from the extreme likelihood that the father wouldn't be there as long as a parent would normally expected to be, there's also the likelihood that such a relationship is not the same as two young people having child. Just as there is such a thing as 'trophy' spouses, there are 'trophy' children. And kids have much less chance to overcome that sort of narcissism on the part of someone close to them. That's my principal reason for objecting to this.

 

[English Lady]

It does seem "wrong" to me. Maybe not wrong but selfish, definitely selfish. Like Huck says, it smacks of having children for the wants and desires of the parent not for the sake of the child.

We can't say much because we don't know much about the situation, but even if she does have a big network of family to look after the bambino's once she's gone...does that make it okay?

Although, as Joe says, how can you legislate against it? you'd have to pick a cut off age...and that would just be a nightmare, when do you tell people they're too old to bear children? I'm sure there would be all kinds of outrage over that.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't know.

Some parents leave, some parents die. It happens to us all and while we'd all like to hope we'll be old and gray when it happens, we don't always get our wishes.

Will she last long enough for her children to be mostly self-sufficient, does she have family to help her out, who knows? And more to the point does it matter? We have no way of knowing how long someone will last. To give birth and survive at that age of life, she's probably not in terrible shape especially to survive twins. Also, I've known some rather spry women in their 60s or 70s so there is no way to know if she can "keep up" or not.

I know I was partly raised by a man in his 60s or so, my grandfather. He's dead and gone now rather recently but I'm all grown-up now. He was able to keep up with me at those times in which my mother had to earn the paychecks to feed me and herself.

And furthermore, what checks are there for quality of raising. Those who had kindly grandparents likely can recall the gentle care they received as younglings. Those with kindly parents may know how they have cared for your children or grandchildren they may have. Being old is not the end all for loving support and ability to raise.

Similarily would we put a restriction on all those who may not be physically perfect for child raising. A woman or man with no legs or otherwise confined to crutches or a wheelchair will find chasing after toddlers quite an unfortunate task and one that is far more difficult than it is for more able-bodied parents, but it doesn't mean they can't succeed or that those kids when they begin to grow up won't realize that dad or mom needs their help or at least for them to be less obtrusive.


And all of these flaws certainly fall flat of the many abusive, emotionally scarring, absent, or intoxicated parents who produce children.







So I'm afraid I fail to see why condemnation is quite so needed. In the rather unfortunate truth, her mortality isn't terribly more impending than our own and since irony loves a good gag it's quite possible that she may somehow outlive most of us, one of those bicycle-riding record breaking grandmas at 110 or whatever and all this bullshit is moot. You never know.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Actually, I have the same moral hand-wringing for both situations. Sometimes I wish there was a test people had to pass before they could become parents, it is time to turn the gene-pool's filter on.

You argument however is fundamentally flawed. For immature teens the birth occurs "naturally" through sex. Some would say accidently, but there are too many cases where the girl actually wants to get knocked up. In the case of this woman, however, the birth occured unnaturally through the use of in-vitro fertilization. Likely, it even occured after she went through menopause.

If the law takes into account premeditation, shouldn't morality arguments?

The assumption behind the question is that having a child in itself is a culpable "offence" (against societal norms and standards responsibility - we're using legal terms but don't really mean them that way.) It is not. It can be if the circumstances make it so (externalize the cost onto society.) We have no reason to think that is the case here. In the case of a teenager like the one I described above we are all but certain that her action will impose costs on society, and whether it is "premeditated" or the result of gross negligence is irrelevent.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It does seem "wrong" to me. Maybe not wrong but selfish, definitely selfish. Like Huck says, it smacks of having children for the wants and desires of the parent not for the sake of the child.

We can't say much because we don't know much about the situation, but even if she does have a big network of family to look after the bambino's once she's gone...does that make it okay?

Although, as Joe says, how can you legislate against it? you'd have to pick a cut off age...and that would just be a nightmare, when do you tell people they're too old to bear children? I'm sure there would be all kinds of outrage over that.

As I said before, El, it's definitely very weird, but for all we know she has a big family that is hungering for a couple nuevo bambinos. Maybe she has some spinster daughters who are eager for a little bambino in their lives. In which case her action would be generous, not selfish. (Still weird, though. )