Getting off the Rollercoaster - Going for Adoption

Friday, May 05, 2006

I read the news today . . .

Oh boy – a woman of 62 is set to become the oldest woman in Britain to have a baby, after receiving IVF treatment in Italy. This woman is a doctor, no less. And to think I have qualms myself about having a baby at my age, a full 20 years her junior.

I do think that having a baby has to be undertaken with some consideration for the baby who will become an adult and have to deal with all the issues involved – he or she doesn’t get to choose the family they get. I know that there are so many unsuitable parents out there, but I still don’t see that as justification for creating more of them . . . or is it OK because she is clearly an intelligent woman an presumably wants a baby very much? All begs the question on why she is on the front page of the papers today.

Would be interested to know what you think . . . am I being reactionary?

7 Comments:

  • Well, if you are being reactionary, then I am too. My first thought was, she is just going for the record. Then when you got to the part of her being a doctor, maybe she is actually testing something new to assist those of us in the Advanced Maternal Age category get babies. But then my cynicism kicked back in said, "Nah, she is just going for a record to try and get in the paper."

    By Blogger Shinny, at 6:19 pm  

  • It made me angry. She already has two adult children, and will most probably be incapacitated before the kid finishes school - not to mention the generation gap. To me, being a doctor only meant that she knew the right people, because if she were anyone else they would have told her to get lost!

    By Blogger Lorem ipsum, at 9:41 pm  

  • Actually, I'm not so sure. If it were a man, no-one would bat an eyelid. Unless there are hugely more risks to her during the pregnancy, I'm not sure it's any different to my grandfather, who was 60 when my youngest uncle was born, or even much more extreme than Mr Spouse, who at this rate will be at least 51 or 52 by the time we have any kind of children, adopted or home-grown...

    By Blogger DrSpouse, at 11:12 am  

  • I was livid. Absolutely livid. It just made me so angry that with so many deserving people out there within the normal chilbearing age bracket, treatment was squandered on someone who has already had her family. Maybe it's an irrational and even sexist viewpoint, but I am so angry that so many of my contemporaries are suffering infertility and then this old woman gets what she wants simply by knowing the right people. And what of this child? It is entirely possible that it will lose its mother (and father, one presumes he is of the same age) at a very young age. It's just selfish.

    By Anonymous Lola Badeggs, at 12:48 pm  

  • Personally, I have some issues with it. It may work out for the family, in the end, but kids take *a lot* of energy to run after, and no matter what kind of shape they are in, it will be difficult for an older person to run after kids. My mum does a good job with her grandchildren (my neices and nephew) (she was about that women's age when they were born) but having them stay one night is different than the sleeplessness of infancy.

    WIth the possibility that my husband and I might pass his chromosomal abnormality on to our (imagined) children, which would give them the fertility issues that we're going through, I'm constantly thinking of the moral implications of things like this.

    By Blogger Rachel, at 5:00 pm  

  • I think it's sad that the child will be dealing with an elderly parent at such an early time in the child's life.

    By Anonymous Jill, at 9:08 pm  

  • Although I wouldn't want to be having a baby myself at 63, I think we are asking for trouble if we start saying who can and who cannot have a baby.

    Don't forget, most of the twenty-somethings think anyone over 35 is old & decepit, and should not be having babies!

    By Blogger Catherine, at 5:20 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home