Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,521
Link

Pretty selfish of this woman to have kids at such an old age IMO. Now two 3 year olds have no one. Very sad.

Should this be regulated? Was it ethical for the clinic to perform in vitro on a 65 year old woman?


MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A Spanish woman -- who at age 66 gave birth to twins -- has died less than three years later, a local official and a family member told CNN Thursday.

Maria del Carmen Bousada gave birth in December 2006 in Barcelona, after receiving in vitro fertilization treatment in California. At the time of the birth, she was believed to have been the world's oldest new mother.
 
I dont understand why this woman would want children at that age. The stress alone. Now these children are mother-less in a time when they need her most.
 
I think it was a stupid selfish thing to do. I think there is a very good reason a woman's natural biological clock doesn't tick for so long.
 
"The woman's twin boys, named Pau and Christian, will be three-years old in December."
Did she have other male children? The desire to pass on the family name could be a powerful motivator.

"In an interview last year, Bousada told the paper that -- since her mother lived to be 101 -- she figured she would live long enough to raise the children."
That sort of makes sense; sick, twisted, and ignorant sense, but I could see that.
 
My wise physician grandfather once said "There is a reason God gives children to young people."

Even if she had lived to 101, she likely wouldn't have been able to meet their physical/emotional need at an advanced age. In the end - it was selfish. I feel for any child whose parents will not be around b/c their ability to reproduce exceeds their common sense which would tell them not to. OBTW - this applies to both genders (e.g. Tony Randall)
 
Assuming my wife and I do not adopt an infant, my youngest will turn 18 when I am 56. An empty-nester at retirement age. Granted, we have 7 kids, now. I'm hoping a few hang around and help out, for awhile.
 
My wife and I had children later in our lives, I was in my 40s, so that means when they're ready to head to college, I'll be near retirement age. Does that make me selfish.

There's a fine line of wanting kids later in life and having people unfairly judge you and going overboard by having kids when its not adviseable to have kids. Personally trying to undo the biological clock through expensive medical procedures/medication and lying about your age is over that line but I'm not about to say it was selfish. Who am I to judge her.

Regardless, there's two kids now that lost their mother and that's a very sad situation, regardless of the mother's age.
 
My wife and I had children later in our lives, I was in my 40s, so that means when they're ready to head to college, I'll be near retirement age. Does that make me selfish.

I don't think so, because there are two of you (this woman was single) and there is a big difference between 40 and 65.
 
My wife and I had children later in our lives, I was in my 40s, so that means when they're ready to head to college, I'll be near retirement age. Does that make me selfish.
Not at all. There's a big difference between your 40s and knocking on 70.

In your 40's the chances are you will be around to see your kids grow up. In your 70s there's a very good chance you'll soon be dead, and if you're not dead you'll be a useless parent through the failings your own body is suffering as it slowly/quickly begins to wind down.
 
My wife and I had children later in our lives, I was in my 40s, so that means when they're ready to head to college, I'll be near retirement age. Does that make me selfish.

There's a fine line of wanting kids later in life and having people unfairly judge you and going overboard by having kids when its not adviseable to have kids. Personally trying to undo the biological clock through expensive medical procedures/medication and lying about your age is over that line but I'm not about to say it was selfish. Who am I to judge her.

Regardless, there's two kids now that lost their mother and that's a very sad situation, regardless of the mother's age.

Nope, my girlfriends mother had her first batch of kids (triplets) when she was 42. Unaided by IVF or anything too. And they've had a normal upbringing.

I read this in the papers this morning and thought "I bet the forums are going to be on the mothers side" and already began constructing an argument against it. :eek: But damn you all! So I'm going to semi defend this and say, can't mothers at any age contract and die from cancer?

Either way it's not good seeing these 'mothers' having kids so late. I'm sure the menopause is natures way of saying it's time to not have kids.
 
...
I read this in the papers this morning and thought "I bet the forums are going to be on the mothers side" and already began constructing an argument against it. :eek: But damn you all! So I'm going to semi defend this and say, can't mothers at any age contract and die from cancer?
...

Sure, anyone can die at any time from any number of things, most of which are not by choice. IVF is a choice. At 65 years old I'd say it was a risky and selfish choice.

What teenager wants to see their parent starting to slip away and prepare them for the retirement home? Often times that is right around the age where things start to go that way. When Mom is 80 they would be 15. That's just not cool.
 
I think it was a stupid selfish thing to do. I think there is a very good reason a woman's natural biological clock doesn't tick for so long.

Bingo. I said she was far too old at the time, and specifically cited the fact that she was likely to be dead before they had grown up.
 
So I'm going to semi defend this and say, can't mothers at any age contract and die from cancer?

Sure they can, but it's unlikely and unexpected when you are in your 20's-30's. At 65 there should be a much higher expectation of illness/death. THIS "mother's" action was selfish (and possible representative of some deeper psychological issue).
 
Nope, my girlfriends mother had her first batch of kids (triplets) when she was 42. Unaided by IVF or anything too. And they've had a normal upbringing.
Twins for us - going from no children (for me - my wife has 20 something son) to two babies screaming for attention was quite an eye opening experience (and not IVF for us as well).

I certainly can see why its so much easier dealing with the demands of raising children when you're in your 20s and 30s. Much more stamina and much more able to rebound after getting no sleep. By the same token, being older, I have more patience then I used too and a lot of the small stuff, doesn't bother me like it used too. I think being a parent you need to learn to not sweat the small stuff and so being an older parent, its easier for me to be more laid back.
 
Pretty selfish of this woman to have kids at such an old age IMO. Now two 3 year olds have no one. Very sad.

Should this be regulated? Was it ethical for the clinic to perform in vitro on a 65 year old woman?

This lady lied about her age. Agreed that it is very sad that the twins are now orphans.

FoxNews.com said:
Carmen Bousada, who lied about her age to receive donor eggs and sperm in the U.S., died this week at age 69 after from cancer.

She told the clinic she was 55, the facility's maximum age for single women receiving in-vitro fertilization.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533156,00.html?test=latestnews
 
Even 55 seems to be too old for me. I am 51 and my grandson can wear me out it a short while!

In my ex's family, one of her great aunt's got pregnant at age 52 :eek: This was during WW II, and her youngest son was 21 and in the Navy fighting in the Pacific when this happened. Can you imagine being 21, in the Navy, and getting a message from home that your Mom is expecting? Holy cow! :p
 
Having children period is a selfish act.

There is almost always a primary benefit to the parent.

I'm ok with this woman having children. There are two young humans that
could go on and do fantastic things in their lives. Just because something is selfish doesn't mean that wonderful things cannot come from such acts.
 
Very selfish indeed!! Any pregnancy past the ago of 40 has a much much higher chance of the baby suffering from Down's Syndrome. I think it's ridiculous that they went ahead with this.
 
Sure they have signed consent paper before doing that.
These professionals are their for services. If we get them then They'll perform their procedure.

I think it has most obligation to the old lady. :)
 
Nope, she should never have been given treatment by anyone.

Apparently she lied and said she was 55 at the time. They just believe her? :confused: :rolleyes:

Like 55 is any better. lol. Low 40's, tops. I don't see why anyone wants kids anyway. All they do is cry, drool, **** and puke. Such a waste of energy, time and money. :eek:
 
its not just an inconvenience that menopause occurs and women stop being fertile at the age of roughly 50 years.
its a biological function, probably so things like this dont occur.
this is really unfortunate for the children.. what was she thinking?
best of luck to the kids.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.