---

I'm not 100% sure on these new rules yet and what we're supposed to say when we start a thread like this, but I imagine that there could be strong opinions on both sides of this debate so be warned and play nice!

---

Yep, that's the one.

We *will* get the rules posted up quickly.

---

by Byron
We *will* get the rules posted up quickly.

---

...as soon as they can get us newbies to remember how to work the expresso maker and photocopier, that is!

On topic, I agree - rather, I agree with the disagreeing. I can understand the wanting children part, that's fair enough but don't they realise it's cruel to have their kids grow up losing their parents years before most other children their age do? Not to mention said other children's parents being so much younger (and I expect, healthier too) making these particular IVF childen's parents looking like other childen's grandparents in comparison? Imagine how confusing that must be.

---

by Sydney
While it isn't a foregone conclusion it is still highly likely that the child will have to spend time before it is an adult acting as a caregiver to the parents.

---

Having seen how children caring for their parents (in this case, my Mum and Aunt caring for my grandmother in her later years, suffering from worsening mental illness) can seriously damage their relationship, with lots of stress and upset caused - and that's with said carers being in their mid-40s, I can't imagine how anyone could cope with the age gap we're looking at in cases like this. How these would-be parents couldn't have considered this (or worse, they have and decided it an acceptable risk) is just appalling.

Again on topic, I agree with Alan, surely the biological clock stops at a certain point for a reason.

---

by Byron
Again on topic, I agree with Alan, surely the biological clock stops at a certain point for a reason.

---

Shes also already had a number of children in her earlier years so its not as if she has missed out on motherhood.

There is a high probability of complications having a baby at that age theres also the possibilty that both parents could die before the child reaches the age of 16, its my opinion that this is a selfish act.

I second all points. This isn't parenthood - it's child abuse.

1. Quite apart from the stigma that the child will inevitably get from the public and its peers for having "Oh, is that your Granny?" pick it up from school every day (assuming she's still in a condition to), there's just no justification for this on a personal front.

2. I know that there's no such thing as a "normal" childhood", but these're parents who quite simply won't be able to allow a child to be a child and play and participate in its life as much as they could. Which I don't think is fair.

3. This need for bonding and a lot of good memories would be important because this is a child practically being bred to be a nursemaid to its mother - and very possibly bereaved - before it hits puberty, let alone adulthood.

Growing awareness of mortality is natural as a child - but whereas most parents can say "Yes, that'll happen one day, but it'll be in a long time and you'll be grown up and can look after yourself", what can this woman say?

At least children with only one older parent're left with someone who can keep up with them and hold onto them later.

Silly, vain, selfish, selfish woman.

(Edited by Samanfur 06/05/2006 11:26)

I could understand why if she hadn't had any children before. But she has grown up children so i don't understand her reasons.

More and more women are leaving motherhood later in life and i have no problem with that. I just think it starts to get ridiculous when this urge to procreate hits women in their sixties. Of course they have a right to have a child, after all a man is fertile all his adult life. But i think this woman in particular is selfish and personally speaking as a mom in my close to late thirties, a bit insane.

Once my youngest was born after much drama and bone chilling fear, even with the then very strong possibility that she wouldn't survive, i knew that this was it, whatever happened, no more kids. The matter was then medically taken out of my hands so even if i want to, i can't. She is it for us. And though i do get clucky when i see newborns, i'm quite happy to hand them back to their mums and thank God i don't have nappies and sleepless nights and teething to go through again. It's an instinctual thing, i just knew. Does this woman have the mental and physical strength to go through this all again after i presume a very large gap in time?. Raising babies isn't as easy as some make it out to be. I think the mental exhaustion by far outweighs the physical.

I think it's very frightening that the mother is a child psychologist working for local chils services. In other words, one of the "experts" who are entrusted with the welfare of a number of children.

I can certainly understand her wish for a child with a new partner (she has 3 already - all in their 20s), but surely they are both mature enough to understand that just because a thing is medically possible doesn't mean it's advisable.

A woman of her age takes a major risk when placing her body under the severe stresses of pregnancy, not just to her own health, but to that of her child.

I find it mind-boggling that someone who is supposed to be heavily involved in child welfare is willing to play Russian Roulette with her own child's physical and emotional health just so her and hubby can have an ikkle bickle baby wiv your eyes, snookums...

Just for the sake or argument I'll just play the devils advocate on this one.

[devils advocate]
Some of you make the seeming valid arguments about the age of the parents. Of course the average age statistics would indicate that both parents will be dead by the time the kid turn 16. However if we follow that logic the chances of someone in relatively good health in his / her early 60s to hit the ripe old age of 100 are a lot higher than a 25 year old. Which means that both parents will probably live longer than the average age.

Modern medical science does also mean that old people can grow old being vital up to a very high age. (remember the guy who worked all the way till his 100th b-day a few months back? (yes he died 2 months later or so, so he didn't get to enjoy his retirement for very long)) If we see that a large part of the population is overweight and about as vital as a bag of spuds I don't really see the problem there.

Plus both parents most likely have got their financial affairs in order and will be retired and therefore they both have the resources and the time to raise this baby. Everyone who works in child welfare will know that being able to spend time with your child is very important for the mental development of the child.

So really what you are saying is that: a heavily overweight couple in their 30s who both work full jobs to make ends meet and hardly have any additonal financial resources or actual time to spend quality time with their child while it's growing up and have no experience in raising children would make better parents than a vital elder couple with the experience, time and financial resources to raise a child?

I think there are many children around that end up with worse parents than this child will.
[/devils advocate]

---

Kate
I find it mind-boggling that someone who is supposed to be heavily involved in child welfare is willing to play Russian Roulette with her own child's physical and emotional health

---

I also find it mind-boggling that so many GP's smoke and drink or are overweight, however, it doesn't mean they can't do their jobs properly.

Yeah I do think it's a bit inresponsible to have children at that age, as there are risks involved with a pregancy at that age. But it's a bit cheap to pull the womans ability to do her job into it. She probably knows what the risks are and has made a decision based on some different aspects of the situation as there are compelling arguments for having elderly parents. If it's smart only time will tell. But yeah "common sense" is screaming "What do you think you are doing!!?!?!".

---

by Keenangel
More and more women are leaving motherhood later in life and i have no problem with that.

---

I actually do have a problem with this if the female body can no longer get pregnant(btw im not considering 40 late but 60 come on) then thats a sure sign that they shouldndnt be having any children.

And i agree with you. By 'later in life', i was thinking more mid thirties to mid forties I still think over 50 is too old. Yes, science has come along far enough to make it possible for women over the age of fifty to bear children, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. As it has been already pointed out, a woman's body before the age of fifty should and often does have the ability to deal with the stresses of pregnancy, over that in my opinon is really pushing it (if you pardon the pun).

I'm sorry but this woman is totally selfish.....

My Mum had me at 41 (which ok isn't as old as some) but to be honest even I think that's too old to have kids.

I had no childhood as she had no energy or patience to deal with kids, her health took a turn for the worse and from about the age of 10 I had to become self sufficient. I've basically been looking after her all this time. Now she's so ill she's permanently housebound, relying on carers and me. What life is that?

As a child of an "older parent" I was constantly ribbed about her being my Nan and not my Mum and she had very old fashioned values.

I feel sorry for the children as they really will have no life. I always promised myself that Georgia wouldn't have the same childhood as me as it really isn't fair.

Completely selfish descision. Far more risky for the mother and child. By then bone density has started to decrease making the risk of falls more likely therefore carrying a child and giving birth more difficult. That child could easily end up having to care for their sick parents before they're even into their teens or grieving because they've died. Like Jola I had older parents with a mother whose health took a turn for the worse. She died when she was only 62. I was in my early 20s when she died. A child who is born with a mother who is 63 could easily have to go through that before the age I was.

Update: Patricia Rashbrook, 62, has given birth to a boy (6lb 10oz) becoming the UK's oldest woman to give birth. Click here for more details.

Congrats hope she lives long and healthy life for the kids sake.

while i disagreee with this womans decision, i can also think of a fair few kids i know who were raised by their grandparents because their parents couldnt cope - and those kids probably had a better upbringing than if they had been raised by their parents.
then again, there was always the option of the parents taking over if something happened to the grandparents - whats going to happen in this case, though?

well my mum had me at 40, and while very occasionally i felt a bit funny about my parents being "older" it never really bothered me, and i have never felt her age hindered what she could do for me.
She's now 62, and i do think that that age is too old to have children. But i would say it depends on the individual's level of health and Patricia Rashbrook clearly has the best intentions of the child at heart, as i doubt she made this decision lightly.