Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Is it OK to impregnate a 60-year-old woman?
Share:
by generaldecay | August 1, 2009 at 12:54 am
325 views | 12 Recommendations | 9 comments
Should old women have babies? Until recently, this wasn't an issue. Nature exhausted your egg supply, and that was it. But technology has surmounted that problem. Now you can get in vitro fertilization, donor eggs, and womb-rejuvenating hormones. You can freeze your eggs or embryos. You can even freeze your ovarian tissue, reimplant it later, and resume ovulating. Everywhere you look, moms are older. Over the last three decades, the U.S. birth rate among women aged 35 or older has increased by 140 percent. These women now produce one of every seven American children. In Europe, women over 35 have increased their share of pregnancies from 5 percent to 20 percent. More than 100,000 American women aged 40 or older have babies each year. In the last 15 years, at least a dozen women aged 60 or older have done it. The oldest age at which a woman has given birth is now 70.
This is an issue about which I am very torn. On the one hand, I am absolutely in favour of women deciding to have children regardless of their age. It is her body, so she can decide to become pregnant if and when she likes. On the other hand, I question, if I may be so blunt, how long a 70 year old woman is going to be around to care for said children.
This article states that there are three issues to consider in this debate.
First, a question of nature:
The British Fertility Society opposes fertility treatment after age 50 because "nature didn't design women to have assisted conception beyond the age of the natural menopause," says its secretary, Allan Pacey. "Once you get into the mid-50s, I think nature is trying to tell us something." But what exactly is nature saying? Assisted conception is inherently unnatural. Strictly speaking, nature is telling us not to do it at all. Furthermore, in 1900, life expectancy for a girl born in the United States was 50.7 years. Was nature telling us that women shouldn't live, much less bear children, beyond that point? That didn't stop us from using science to extend women's lives. Why should it stop us from extending their fertility?
This is the most dubious argument, I feel: the boundaries of what is 'natural' and what is not are moving all the time and they have done so in terms of fertility too. So while it may not be historically 'natural' for a 70 year old woman to have a baby, that has now changed.
The second is the chances of fertility treatment working:
The second argument for line-drawing is efficacy. Rutherford's clinic cuts off IVF at age 45 because beyond that age, it's unlikely to work. But for many women, egg donation circumvents that problem. So do frozen eggs, embryos, and ovarian tissue. The reason why so many people are freaking out over middle-aged moms is that the old rules of efficacy are gone. These women aren't failing to have babies. They're succeeding.
As stated, problems with efficacy are much reduced and treatments for older women are now increasingly successful.
So, the third issue is indeed as I thought: it is one, simply, of how long we are likely to live.
These women are too old to raise kids. Why does the clinic that impregnated Bousada draw a line at 55? Because, according to the clinic's owner, any woman who's going to have babies should "survive until the kids reach 18." A century ago, that would have been a good reason to draw the line at 55. In 1910, an American woman who reached age 55 could expect 18 more years of life. But by 1950, the line had moved: Women could expect 18 more years if they made it age 60. Today, they can expect 18 more years if they make it to age 67. In 2006, when Bousada gave birth at age 66, she had a remaining life expectancy of about 19 years. Life expectancy includes years of frailty when you're no longer effectively able to raise children. In 2002, for instance, a 65-year-old American woman could expect 19.5 years of life but only 14.3 years of good health, 11.7 years of full activity, and five years of freedom from chronic diseases. If you want mothers to stay healthy and active until their kids reach 18, you'd better cap maternity at an earlier age.
I am genuinely conflicted on where I stand on this issue. And, of course, these 'age rules' never seem to apply to men who can have children until they're 116 if they choose, without anyone passing any remarks. So I just don't know what the answer is, or if indeed there is an answer. One thing is likely certain: with the increases in numbers of older women having children, this debate is not going to be resolved any time soon.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 02:19 on August 1st, 2009
The thing is men can have kids at any age. It seems a little unfair on women that nature says they can't.
at 02:29 on August 1st, 2009
Beaulieu, that's exactly the point I made too: yes, there are physiological differences but if it is acceptable for one gender, then surely it should be acceptable for the other.
at 02:23 on August 1st, 2009
Older Parents can offer lots of benefits. My dad was 'an old father', though he died young, He was a really interesting person, with lots of experience and hobbies. My mother miles younger at 22, didn't much to offer me other than clothing me etc. She had no experience of life.
at 02:30 on August 1st, 2009
That's a very interesting personal account, Beaulieu, thank you. And I think you make another good point - life experiences may be more important to and for children than an arbitrary number that is age.
Thank you for your comments. :)
at 06:00 on August 1st, 2009
its okay only if you are a man in your 90's . Otherwise "Barf"!
at 11:55 on August 1st, 2009
Yeah, sensible cut off point Barry! ;)
at 09:14 on August 1st, 2009
I think it depends too on what the reason is that women decide to have kids that late in life - if it's to try and fulfill a sense of loneliness then I would say it's not a good idea, but if it's because you have found someone you finally want to have children with and you think it would be a good step for you then I suppose it's not a terrible idea.
at 11:54 on August 1st, 2009
Thanks for the recommendation and comment, Amy. I agree that it is problematic when someone wants children for relatively selfish reasons (although, arguably, that is his/ her prerogative). This is a really difficult debate for me to get my head around.
at 02:59 on August 16th, 2009
First and formost noone has commented about the childeren, how they will feel having older parents, and remember very much older parents. How will they feel if said parents pass on relitavly soon after birth of child? what will happen to the child if their are no other relatives ect to look after them? This area is a mine field. In referance to your comment,
(although, arguably, that is his/ her perogative)
I do not believe it is ever that simple. When as an adult you decide to have childeren it should never be a selfish choice, you must consider said child, (can you provide for child ect) after all the child has rights also which are very often overlooked.
From a religious viewpoint (as a Muslim) I believe that Allah put a cut off point for woman.
It is mentioned earlier that men can continue to have childeren and nothing is said to them so why cant it be the same for woman? We have to recognise that woman are different we were designed that way, both man and woman have their own duties and responsibilities. I feel that a womans role as a mother was given to her because she was designed to be more calm and caring than a man, a woman is more emotionally strong than a man ect. All these things make a woman better designed than a man in caring for little ones, especially in their early developmental stages. If a woman could go on having babies untill she droped dead it would be left to the man to care for them in their early years and I believe that they would miss vital skills that can only be provided by the mother.
I understand you are a feminist and believe in total equality, but I do not see how total equality can be achieved when it was never ment to be, and I dont see how it would be a good thing, life is ment to have a balance and if everyone is doing everything how will that balance be achieved? It will not. In my opinion woman can have equality with men in cirtain areas such as, respect, home, cirtain working areas such as pay, time off ect but in other areas I firmly believe a man is a man and a woman a woman.
In todays society these roles are becoming ever more blurred and the consequences can be seen for themselves, in our crime statistics, divorce rates, amount of childeren going through the care system ect. I feel if we could get the balance back it would go a long way to solving these issues. For example, if mothers were not working such long hours they would have more time for their childeren, the childeren would not be doing who knows what so mother would have less stress. In tern she would have more time for her husband so he would not feel unwanted or put upon. In tern he would be happier so would spend more time with his childeren which would give the mother free time for herself and make her life happier. If everybody was happier( wow thats a lot of happiers, LOL) then their would be less opertunity for breakdowns ect. As we know the main cause for family breakdowns is lack of communication and stress(ect) and where is the supprise in that? in our hectic lives we barely have time to think, let alone comunicate with our spouse.