Mom at age 60: 'Age has been redefined'

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Roderick Beresford Stiffington IV, May 27, 2007.

  1. D_Roderick Beresford Stiffington IV

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    0
    So a 60 year old gave birth to twin boys...I'm curious what our members here think of this. Based on the article, they chose this pregnancy. I just don't see this as responsible parenting. Assuming they live to 80, which more or less is the average life expectancy..a few years more..these kids are going to be burying their parents at such a young age. Also what happens if the parents don't age well, have health problems, memory problems, other issues associated with old age, thats going to be a terrible burden on these kids.

    While I strongly feel this was a bad idea, even while writing this I know the flip side of the argument. "Its better to love and lost than to never have loved at all", in this case its not exactly love but life. Without this birth these kids never exist and get to experience what we do. I'm 22 years old and my father died when I was 15, when it first happened I felt cheated out of the chance to know my dad. His death wasn't a result of old age though, he had a heart condition and it stopped in the middle of the night when he was in his early 50's. I'm lucky enough to still have my mom with me. I just try to put myself in the position of these kids and what they'll go through...its not exactly a normal life. I can't really organize my thoughts well like I want to on account of it being 4AM, but how do you guys feel about this?
     
  2. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I watched the interview on CNN, and honestly it's intriguing to me. Irresponsible, maybe...but the woman made a good point: she's at a place in life where she's secure enough emotionally and financially to have another child.

    Physiologically speaking, I'm quite curious. I understand the concept of IVF, but I'm amazed that a post-menopausal woman's body would accept a pregnancy and carry it to term without complications that were terminal to the fetus.

    Morally, I would never suppose to tell anyone who has such obvious desire to bear children that they should not...especially given that the idiots and various undesirables in our society seem to be reproducing in far greater numbers than the educated and cultured.

    If you think this one bakes your noodle, just imagine how odd things will be if we ever gain the ability to halt or reverse the physical aging process at will. Everyone might walk around indefinitely appearing to be physically 25 years old.

    Evolution did a fine job for the first few hundred thousand millennia...now that sentience has been added into the mix, the natural selection game has been changed.
     
  3. dolfette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,901
    Likes Received:
    25
    my last love was 60y/o

    i just couldn't see children there

    hell...i couldn't see ME there

    kept thinking, how many good years before...?
     
  4. LouisVauban

    LouisVauban New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    I didn't grow up surrounded by love.... my parents were 23 and 25 when they had me....

    If young people learn to love by being loved... I don't care how old the parents are....

    And I believe this 60 year old woman will ADORE these children... and they will probably grow-up KNOWING they are loved and wanted....

    And you can bet there is a better plan about who will take care of them if their parents should die... than any of us had when WE were growing up.

    How DARE people judge love! If they are willing and really want this, then let them love.....

    I have seen too many young parents who have the "burden" of children and treat them as if they are property, rather than innocent young souls....

    I would rather a MOM who WANTED ME at 60, than a 22 year old who slapped me and told me to shut-up and drank her sorrows away... wondering what she could have been if only she didn't have ME.
     
  5. titan1968

    titan1968 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    152
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal, Canada
    I think that this is pure folly. Menopausal women aren't meant to bare children-- it's unnatural. Did she really want this child or was the pregnancy an ego trip? :mad: Was she hoping to be in the Guinness Book of World Records? :mad: Will she be able to take care of this child ten years from now? Oh the vanity of human wishes! :censored:

     
  6. dolfette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,901
    Likes Received:
    25
    could use that arguement to stop people with disabilities having kids.

    but yeah, we all hope we'll be around until they're ready to go it alone.
     
  7. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I was a later-in-life baby - Mom was 39 when I was born. Although I always knew I was well-loved, I didn't fully appreciate what an incredible person and mother she was. She died at age 83, and I had about 20 years of knowing her more as a friend than a parent, and those last 20 years were more rewarding than I could ever express.

    I just think it's sad that these children most likely will not have a chance for such a wonderful parent/adult-child experience.
     
  8. jfrsndvs

    jfrsndvs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Quincy (IL, US)
    there was a interview with these people on the radio, she said that her husband first came up with the idea, and then she thought about it and thought it was a great idea, in my opinion, it was a bad idea, someone having kids in their late 30's or into thier 40's is one thing, but at 60 is pure selfish and irresponsible, if the parents are able to live long enough, they will be close to 80 when they graduate from high school.

    but now these people have already brought these innocent babies into the world, we can hope and pray for the best for them.
     
  9. monstro

    monstro New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I think it's her life and her decision, and I wish her and her family well.
     
  10. ManlyBanisters

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    12,807
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sorry dolfette, I'm with Kotchanski here - I know a few couples with one or both parents disabled and it is NOT the same thing. And a lot of those people thought long and hard to make sure they could be fully effective parents before they went ahead. Those people know who they are, what they can and can't do and what way their disabilities will take them in future years. Another couple I know decided against having kids as he was very unlikely to live into his thirties.

    My mum was 36 when I was 10 - and that seemed pretty much perfect to me - and her. When I was little we were never (what I class as) poor but we did have to stretch the budget. But then, in Ireland, there was a lot of state support for younger children and school was free etc. So the family did OK on 1 wage. Then mum took up her career again at 35 (and is still going strong in a very senior position) and the family got better off as siblings and I entered the less state subsidised yet more expensive teens - school fees, uniforms, clothes, hobbies, etc.etc. But that was OK - we were a 2 wage family and we kids were old enough to be home alone after school for a few hours (well, once I passed 11 - I seem to recall going to a friend's house after school til then and my older sibs went home). Anyway - what is your rambling point Banisters - I hear you cry. Well it is this - people are having kids later (in the 'developed' world, I mean, obviously) - after they are already used to the 2 incomes and the disposable income that goes with - then kids happen and they have to, or choose to, keep up the jobs and pay child minders - then when the kids are in those expensive, high energy teens the parents are pushing 60 and wanting to think about retiring, but they can't. Cut to the chase already, what has this to do with this 60 y.o. woman?! Sorry - well, you see women (and men - but more so women because of the physical aspect of having a child) are pushing back having kids later and later because of this whole 'financially secure' thing - my point is that her point is invalid. She should have had kids when her body was able and worked through to financial security like the rest of us. She has probably robbed her kids of knowing their mother as adults and almost certainly robbed her grandchildren of know their grandmother. And yes - dolfette has a point - any parent can die at any time, we have to hope we don't - but there's such thing as odds... I dunno - I think she is a selfish old cow - I hope her kids have a great life and that her will makes sure they don't blow their inheritance on stupid shit seeing as they'll probably be teens when they get it.
     
  11. Duality

    Duality New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Where you live
    :biggrin1: I love that.

    To the topic at hand, I think this woman is nuts, but it's a free world and I wouldn't stop her even if I had the power to do so. Though I'd love to hear her husbands reasons for choosing this over adoption. Then again, people don't like to sound selfish, so we probably'll never know.

    My grandparents were younger than this woman when I was born. They're all dead now. My grandfather for instance was in perfect health in his early 70s but was diagnosed with Alzheimer's all the same. I can't even imagine being 12 and watching my father lose his mind (not that this will happen here, but it's still possible)

    Yay for science.
     
  12. ManlyBanisters

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    12,807
    Likes Received:
    8
    IS she married? I didn't read the article, I assumed she was single. I don't think 60+ people are eligible to be adoptive parents in most countries. Older relations can be awarded guardianship, but there has to be a previous relationship with the child.

    I'm sorry about your granddad, Alzheimer's is heartbreaking.

    Yay, indeed, for science. I, on the other hand, think this use of this treatment should be legislated against. It is unnecessry (it's not like the world is short of babies and the human race needs every available womb, is it?) and unethical.
     
  13. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Do read the article before commenting.

    "She and her husband, Ken, a New York City attorney, have been married for 38 years and have three other children — sons ages 33 and 6 and a daughter, 29."

    There's no mention of the 6 year old having been conceived by other than natural means, and it seems that their reason for having another child (oops! twins) was so their youngest wouldn't grow up alone. That's who the twins can kick the ball around with.

    Yes, this will be physically demanding given the age of the parents (though they could be in excellent condition)

    Yes, this will likely mean that the twins won't have the same opportunity to form an adult bond with their parents the way most of us do, but the six year old was already facing that likelihood alone.

    I would imagine that the older children would be executors of the will and have power of attorney until the young-lings are of an age to make sound financial decisions.

    I can't speak to why they chose not to adopt. One reason I can imagine is that an adopted child might feel resentful that he was adopted solely to be a companion to the six year old, regardless of the love they would receive, where a child born into the family would know that they were a natural part of the family even if for the same reason. Just a supposition.

    I do see this as an odd choice but I can't say it's a wrong choice.
    I can say it's not my business to judge.
     
  14. ManlyBanisters

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    12,807
    Likes Received:
    8
    rowr - easy, tiger - a person can comment on a concept without knowing the details, can't they?

    And that is your most entitled opinion - I've read the article now and I haven't changed my comment one bit. In fact - I think it is more wrong than I did before. It's not about the kids having someone to play ball with - it is about a spoiled, selfish person using her money to what end I'm not sure - prove she isn't old? (she is - 60 is by no means dead but I hope I have the dignity at 60 to admit I'm older rather than younger). I'm against IVF treatment generally - I believe life starts at conception and even one death is too many in order to create life. I understand women who can't conceive naturally looking to IVF (as with abortion I can't stop them - I'd just rather my taxes didn't help pay for it). But abusing the method further in this manner is unethical to the max. (I'm not saying this was state funding, I'm sure she paid for it all herself - or daddy bought mommy a new toy - or whatever)
     
  15. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    I wasn't attacking you, Manly.

    Of course you can comment on a concept without knowing the details, however, taking pot shots before reviewing information provided, hardly seems fair.
     
  16. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Good points, Kotchanski.

    I'm going to make an assumption based on information given in the article.

    Fact 1. The husband is a New York City Attorney.
    Fact 2. The IVF was done at a clinic in South Africa.

    Voluntary procedures, particularly those done out of country, are rarely covered by the state or insurance.

    My assumption is this, this couple has the where-with-all to provide the kids with financial support in the event that the parents die without relying on the state or the other siblings for support.

    Care of the children may well fall to the other siblings in the event of the parents death. I can agree that this is selfish on the parents part if the 33 and 29 year old weren't involved in the decision beforehand, but they may well have been.

    "Their daughter has said she worries about Birnbaum taking care of the twins when they're in their teens and she's in her late 70s"

    But there's nothing to say that she's concerned over what will happen to the twins if the parents pass. I think these details have already been looked after.

    I can see why this situation earns a raised brow, just not the hostility some have shown.
    We don't have all the information.
     
  17. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Heard and understood.

    My only answer for this is that we, each of us, has the right to say no.
    If both our gut response and reasoned response to such an expectation is no, then that is the answer we have to give. Guilt or no.

    Like I said before, we don't know all the facts. For all we know the older kids did say no and the parents have made other arrangements.
     
  18. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Kotchanski, just to clarify my comments below are not aimed at you personally it's just your latest comments seem pretty typical of what's been said so far so I'm just using them as examples. OK.

    Who knows what her motives truly where, I don't know, no-one here does, so slinging flippant accusations and making concrete deductions seems rather arbitrary.

    And that conclusion about what she did or didn't consider is based on what.....a mind meld? There is no guarantee you or I will be alive tomorrow only a higher statistical likelihood. Perhaps those over say 50 should be forcibly sterilised, just in case they suddenly act selfishly.

    Again, what's the evidence? Perhaps her older children were consulted and consented. As for the state picking up the tab, again where's the evidence? - perhaps she has made ample financial provision for their care.

    What about parents who are criminals, drug addicts or otherwise 'unfit'? They have a nasty habit of leaving their children uncared for do they not. I can't help but think some of the bias and anger her is based on some hidden feeling that at her age she should be pruning her nastershums or playing bridge, certainly not doing things that should evidently be the preserve of 'young' folk who know 'better'. A bit like the "Ugh, old folk kissing" reaction I've seen.

    Is this reaction entirely about the children or are some prejudices sneaking out for some sunshine?

    For the record, I also think 60 is rather too old to be having children but that's my judgement about how I would likely feel at 60 but I'm in no position to make such judgements about others, and certainly not in ignorance of all the facts.

    This one is directed at you.:tongue:

    So that automatically means the same outcome will apply to this couple? You have no evidence of that, none. You're projecting.

    Are you suggesting that anyone over what 40...50? should automatically be barred from having children or if not that they must have ensured a rosy financial future for themselves - because your in-laws are short sighted. If not, then what are you saying?

    Yet again, this woman has been judged and found guilty of gross selfishness by the LPSG court of what's decent and acceptable.:rolleyes:
     
  19. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    If a woman's having IVF to have a child at 60 why not at 90? It's not an automatic right to have a child, and I certainly think that if she's at an age where a woman would be unable to conceive naturally she should not be able to have IVF. A parent of that age certainly doesn't have the energy to play with their kids, to provide the discipline necessary for a teenager during their late 70s and I for one would have been mortally embarrassed were my parents mistaken for my grandparents when I was a kid. The women who do this, in my view, don't genuinely want a child, they want to push limits.
    There are women of normal child bearing age who can't have children and it's an insult to them to see a woman of this age being given the treatment they can't get.
     
  20. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    I know and I said that already, albeit from the reverse angle.

    How that evidence - you've added nothing? Also, the above says pretty much the same as your first paragraph.

    So now she's at least an 'inconsiderate bitch' and yet somehow your sense of morality supercedes the views of her and her adult children, how does that work?

    I though I covered that, i.e. you are making suppositions based on..what? Boarding school....where did that come from? That's your option perhaps but how does that make it theirs?

    I'm skeptical, but if you say so.

    Again, you're assuming they are ignoring that fact. You are imposing, or seeking to impose your sense of right and wrong on someone else, last time I checked this is something you generally oppose, or is that attitude rather 'selective'?

    In principle I agree and such rules already exists in many countries.

    Again in principle I agree but it's hard to second guess the motives, morality and values of people you know nothing about based on behaviour of which you disapprove primarily on (seemingly) moral grounds - that you read about on the Internet.

    Unless I read it wrong she paid for the treatment herself. I'm not sure how that denies other women access to similar treatment or is 'insulting' to them? But not being a woman I suppose I can't.

    I sometimes like to argue the 'other side' and I don't really agree with her choice. I think it poses an unecessarily high risk of leaving young children without one or more parents. But neither do I think it deserves the faux moral outrage and indignance seen in this thread. You don't agree - that's your right, as it is hers to have the child.

    For a group which 'says' it values tolerance, open mindedness and freedom from moralistic judgementalism I find many of the comments here ironic to say the least. Or, maybe it's just the rain making me grouchy.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted