<p>I really dont’ understand why you would want to be in your 60s and go through pregnancy, delivery, breastfeeding, diapers, middle of the night ear infections…
THen what when he is 15 she will be 77?
My God- when I am 77, I hope I am still fairly active and I am doing my best to physically prepare for that, but raising a teenager, didnt really make my top 10 list</p>
<p>Emeraldkity,
You aren’t able to understand the point of view of people like that mom. You see, she’s convinced that she’ll never get old or have the frailties that people get as they age. And, of course, she’s convinced that her child will always be perfect.</p>
<p>I understand the desire to have children, but I think it’s the height of selfishness to do so as a 60+ year old. I would even question 50 something – early 40’s seems to me to be the outside of the window for responsible child bearing.</p>
<p>I am still gearing up for the fact that when my daughter is my age, I will be 90, G-d willing. That is mighty sobering, considering that my own parents are in their early 70’s. I think I was plenty old enough to have another kid…pushing my own limits at nearly 40.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more that this was a selfish act, but I’m guessing that because she has 3 grown children from a previous marriage, she’s probably expecting that they’ll pick up the slack when she or the father gets too old to help coach the kid’s little league soccer team. I sure hope this was a family decision to have this child because I think that her other children are going to be the stuckees down the road.</p>
<p>Agree with the above. Parents (hey, why are we only slamming Mom? Dad is 60!) probably expect that younger children will raise the kid later on in life. Yes, children a wonderful miracles, blessings, etc., but they are also a tremendous amount of work and, more importantly, are their own people. </p>
<p>I do wish, however, that there was some gender parity to this. While it doesn’t make the news when 60-year-old men have babies, it is still very selfish, IMO. So things are so much better because Mom will outlive him by 20 years? Still losing a father at a very early age. Grandparents are dead before the kid is born.</p>
<p>oh Dad too
If you haven’t had a kid by the time you are 60
Oh…Well…
I think it is selfish frankly
Because I think that it does take a village to raise a child- parents at minimum- and grandparents would be nice- as well as aunts uncles etc.
If something happens to the parents heaven forbid- who is going to raise this kid? His half brothers and sisters?</p>
<p>I also am irritated by the amount of energy that goes into fertility treatments.
SInce this is CC, I can admit that I think that a doctor who allows a women who have a child under 5, to bring to term mulitiples, while risking her health and theirs, or takes the money from someone whose own children have probably reached child bearing age 20 years ago, but wants to still procreate, is behaving unethically.
It boggles my mind, that we agree with pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions if they disagree with the treatment, but we hardly ever hear anything about the doctors that don’t just help someone maintain or regain health, but go beyond the pale .</p>
YEP!! No arguments here. (I was “raised” by my biological parents, and grandparents for the entire summer every year, and aunts, and godparents, and great-aunts & uncles - and now I’m “raising” my adorable half-siblings.)</p>
<p>" I do wish, however, that there was some gender parity to this. While it doesn’t make the news when 60-year-old men have babies, it is still very selfish, IMO. So things are so much better because Mom will outlive him by 20 years? "</p>
<p>I don’t think that people will become concerned about the 60-year-old dads until society becomes much more concerned about the fathers of all ages who aren’t involved at all with their kids. Right now, since so many children grow up in single parent homes due to dads’ ducking out of parental responsibilities (I’m not referring to the situations where women choose to have kids and raise them alone), I don’t think it’s a big deal when men choose to have children with much younger women. Their kids actually may spend far more time with their dads and get far more economic support than the kids born to many married couples.</p>
<p>Well, my mother had me at 40 and my father was 48; my grandmother had her last at 44 with a 50 year old husband; my greatgrandfather had his last two (of 17–and they all went to college, too) in his mid-70s (with wife number 3, who was in her 20s (serial monogramy)).</p>
<p>I certainly wouldn’t chose to have a child at 60 or even 51 (my current age) but …</p>
<p>UK actuarial tables, women. At age 66, the average woman will live for another 18.45 years. So it’s pretty much 50/50 as to whether Mom will live to see her kid old enough to vote (voting age is 18 there, right?) or teach her to drive. </p>
<p>Now, compare DMD’s parents: at age 40, a woman will live about another 41 years. So it’s 50/50 as to whether she’ll throw her kid an over-the-hill party. Just my (always strident) opinion, but those are just different ballgames.</p>
<p>(Now, for all of you Supreme Court junkies with a bit of gallows humour in you, you can figure out the chances that each Justice will make it until Inauguration Day, 2009.)</p>
<p>Northstarmom - it has always been socially acceptable for December men to have babies, even when men had a “breadwinner” responsibility to his family.</p>
<p>If there were an actuarial chart based purely on the life expectancy of Supreme Court justices, you would see very different numbers. It’s been a long time since any of them died before reaching his 80th birthday.</p>
<p>But most of them are at least 60 when put on the bench. You have a much better chance of living until 80 if you’re already 60 than you do of living until 80 when you’re born. The average 60 year old will live until he is just shy of 80 or until she is 83. Compare life expectancy at birth of 74 and 79.</p>
<p>Rehnquist died at age 80, correct? He barely made it.</p>
<p>Of course, they do say that the Fountain of Youth is on First St. in DC. ;)</p>
<p>In the late 1800s when my great grandfather (age 75) was having the last of the children he started having around 1840, he had long outlived his life expectancy of around 45-50. </p>
<p>So I don’t think life expectancy is really relevant. For that matter, not that long ago, one in ten women died in childbirth, and yet women had children anyway.</p>
<p>Kind of astonishing how thoroughly embedded in the psyche the urge to procreate is, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Ginsburg was 60 when she was elevated to the Supremes; Alito and Bryer were 56, Stevens was 55, Kennedy was 52, Souter was 51, Scalia and Roberts were 50, and Thomas was 43.</p>
<p>The screening process probably eliminates a lot of people with a history of bad health, or those who drink to excess, or exhibit some of the other habits that tend to shorten lives.</p>
<p>well and how unreliable birth control is
My grandmother only had one child- because her OB told her she had a “tipped” uterus and shouldn’t have any more children.
So she had a seperate bed.</p>
<p>While the sexual drive is quite strong, it isn’t necessarily connected with the desire to have lots of children ( or any)
I hear for some women the sexual drive increases after they go through menopause.
I haven’t experienced that yet- but I would say that mine was stronger at 40 than it was at 20</p>
<p>I think that there is a difference between a 60+ year old woman having a baby through artificial methods and the fact that some women had children later in life in past generations. Prior to reliable birth control, women didn’t really have much choice in how many children they had. My grandmother had 12 children, and the last one was at least 20 years younger than the first. The difference is that there were many siblings and other extended family members who were available to help raise the youngest children. The woman described in the OP’s link had older children, but that’s not the same as being the youngest of many children who are a few years apart. With choice comes responsibility, and I still think it’s irresponsible to deliberately have children when one is over 45 or so. (Spoken as a 47 year old who can’t imagine caring for a baby or toddler right now!!!)</p>
<p>My great grandmother had 10 girls
HEr husband “forced” her to, as he both wanted a boy and also needed help on the farm.
( but as soon as the first two oldest could, they skedaddled out of there. The oldest had only one kid and the next oldest never had any, so I would say raising their sisters, kind of did it for them)
I like small kids and it certainly is different than when you have to care for them 24/7 but I am looking forward to the next stage of my life- one that doesn’t necessarily include children under the same roof.
WHen I had my first at 24, I had many friends who were 40 when they had kids- their clock apparently went off ( but to make an obvious point- 62 is not 40)</p>
<p>I realize people can be pretty healthy still, 50 is what 30 used to be IMO, and I think it is much better for people to have kids when they carefully consider what a responsibilty it is, than when they have little idea what that relationship means, but there are so many ways to share your life with young people.
Adopt- foster parent- mentoring-
that I find spending thousands to manipulate life at least a decade after nature has ended that possibilty for many women, distasteful.</p>
<p>DMD: the problem with measuring life expectancy is that it changes, depending on how old you are. It used to be that the infant mortality rate was about 30% (still true in many parts of the world). So your life expectancy at birth might be 45; however, once you’re 1 year old, it’s expected that you’ll live until 60 or 70 or whatever. </p>
<p>Great for your family, though (and us, because we get to enjoy your cyber company!) that y’all have such wonderful fertility late in life! </p>
<p>As said above, though, there is a difference between deliberately having a kid using artificial methods and getting pregnant because birth control isn’t reliable, common, or even around. I’m not of the mind that married couples ought to abstain from sex. Nature takes care of most of those issues (assuming both partners are of roughly equal age).</p>
and grandparents would be nice- as well as aunts uncles etc.