World's "Oldest" Mom Dies

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by rdowns, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    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?


     
  2. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #2
    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.
     
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    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:
     
  4. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Aeolius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #5
    "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.
     
  6. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    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)
     
  7. Aeolius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #7
    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.
     
  8. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #8
    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.
     
  9. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #9
    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.
     
  10. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #11
    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.
     
  12. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #12
    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.
     
  13. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #13
    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.
     
  14. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #14
    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).
     
  15. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    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.
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    This lady lied about her age. Agreed that it is very sad that the twins are now orphans.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533156,00.html?test=latestnews
     
  17. Boneoh macrumors 6502

    Boneoh

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    #17
    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
     
  18. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #18
    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.
     
  19. conch575 macrumors 6502

    conch575

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #19
    Yeah that's so true, those poor kids!
     
  20. ethical macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    #20
    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.
     
  21. romanohenry macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    #21
    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. :)
     
  22. cocky jeremy macrumors 68040

    cocky jeremy

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #22
    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:
     
  23. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #23
    Imagine if your parents thought the same way!;)
     
  24. tabasco70 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Location:
    Japan
    #24
    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.
     

Share This Page