I was just flipping through the television channels because I'm bored, and I came across TLC. On it, there is a program called "Pregnant at 70" and it's talking about older women getting pregnant after menopause through a process called "IBM" (or something, I honestly didn't watch it long enough to learn how it's possible). Not sure how the process works, but the point is, how old is too old to be pregnant?

Personally, I think as long as the woman can support the child and has the ability to keep supporting it as it gets older, it doesn't matter the age. If you can chase a baby at age 80, hey, you go girl.

I've always thought that it was rather dangerous for one thing. And selfish for another. I think the health risks are fairly obvious for both mother and child. I believe there's stronger chances of certain problems in children born to older women, but I can't say for sure without research.

As for the selfish part, it's hard to believe that many of these older parents can give their children the same attention and care a younger parent can. It gets harder to run around after your children. And as you get older you'll likely develop health problems and ultimately pass on quite early in your child's life. If you have a child at 70, by the time they're 10, you're 80! If you last to see them turn 20, you'll be 90!

Who looks after your children once you leave anyway? If you're having them that late, presumably, you haven't had any children before, so you won't have older children to look after the younger. All of your own siblings will be older.

It just seems like such an awful idea. Just because science CAN do something doesn't mean that people SHOULD.

As much as I support the idea of women being in control of their bodies and their lives...that's not exactly natural. I mean, if they were somehow able to naturally have a baby at age 70, awesome for them and the best of luck. I guess I just have some issues with a bunch of 70 year old women going off and getting artificial help with having a baby, even though their body has made it clear to them that they are done with having babies.

On top of that, I think that unless they're planning on living into their 100's, there are several issues with having a baby at that age. Who's going to take care of the child if they die in another 5-10 years? You're looking at several potential orphans now. And even if they don't die, those kids are going to have to grow up very quickly. They won't have as much time to just be a kid, because they'll be busy trying to take care of their elderly parents and worrying about problems that most people don't have to come to terms with involving their parents until they're middle aged. Things like the medical decline as we get older and nursing homes.

Again. If it's something that is totally realistic for them, go for it. But these women need to think about the stress they're going to be putting on their children as they continue to age. If they have people willing to support the children with them and take over in the event of a death, great. If they're looking like they could survive another 30-40 years, fantastic.

I just can't believe that all of them are thinking very clearly about this situation...

I think thats to old, I doubt she is going to going to be able to pick up after the baby or breast feed it, and since she is probably she might not be able to financially support. Instead of going and betting an "IBM" she should of just adopted a child if she really wanted one, labor pains when your that old must be miserable! Also its kinda a sad thought that your mom will be dead by the time your 30.

While I'm not particularly a fan of having a child for the sake of having a child at any age (if you want a kid, there's plenty of ones already here that need a home, stop being selfish), I honestly don't have a problem with older women having children. Someone mentioned that it wasn't "natural". Well, if you're defining "natural" as what we would do without technology, then absolutely nothing we humans do is natural. If, however, you define "natural" for humans as we do for all other species -- basically anything they do that they develop on their own and was not forced upon them by another species -- then it's completely natural. As for the woman dying in a few years, that can happen with young women as well. Even ignoring out-of-the-blue deaths, people generally get the warm and fuzzies when a woman who has had serious health problems successfully gives birth (I'm reminded of the woman who refused cancer treatments so her fetus would develop without problem and died not long after it was born). Whether the mother was young or old when she died doesn't really matter as far as the child is concerned, so why the discrimination against older women?

Actually, I really think this has to do with sexism. Men have somewhat made it a tradition to get married and try to produce an heir right before they do something dangerous, such as go off to war, and the concept has long been cast in a very positive light by the media and by entertainment industries. Older men have been marrying and impregnating much younger women for just about as long as the concept of marriage has been around. Yet, when women do the same thing, have a child that they will in all likelihood not see reach adulthood, they're considered selfish and shortsighted. In my opinion, this is because people expect mothers to be the actual parents, the caretakers, and the fathers to simply be role models, when in reality, the only thing a mother can do that a father can't is breastfeed, and there are plenty of other options for that. More than that, though, they expect women to be willing and able to sacrifice everything for the sake of their offspring, including not reproducing when they'd like to because they might not be around very long, while men do not have such an expectation to live up to and when they do something women are expected to do automatically, are either given extremely high praise (single dads vs single mothers) or are viewed as effeminate ("househusbands" vs "housewives"). This is further continued in the view of successful women who have chosen not to have children (cold, too concerned with getting ahead in life; I've even read one author suggest they "forgot to have a family") versus successful men who have done the same (generally nothing is said about them, and if something is, it's praising them for their drive). Basically, women are supposed to put reproduction and child-rearing before themselves and their wants, men are not only free but expected to put themselves and their wants first. If we're going to criticize women for having children late in life, we need to start castrating men at no later than age 50, even younger if we're going to be completely fair, really even younger than the latest women can naturally and safely give birth since women tend to live longer than men nowadays.

If you can't have kids, adopt. I don't like the idea of people making themselves have kids no matter what age since there are a lot of kids in the foster system. Also, at age 70, both the mom and dad are most likely going to be dead by the time the child is 20. There are elderly people that take care of themselves and that are healthy and fit at older ages but the chances of the parents being disabled or becoming ill is greater at that age. It is really kind of selfish to willingly bring a child into the world when both parents are elderly and would need help getting around and be taken care of themselves before the child can take care of themself.

If the father was let's say 40 or 50 and the mother was older and the child was going to have a parent around then it would be less selfish. At least then one parent would at least be around but it's still a shame that people think they have to go and mess with nature.

On the matter of "natural," I say I don't like how it's unnatural because the body is only designed to put up with children for so long. You are born with a set amount of eggs and when you're done, you're done. Your body shuts off your period when it has decided that it is no longer capable of childbearing. This happens as you grow older and if your body mass is below what it should be. There are many things I completely support concerning technological advances, but this is not one of them. It is extremely selfish and dangerous to both the woman and the potential child. By the time you're 70 years old, you had plenty a chance to have a child if that's really what you wanted to do. Having a child DOES require a lot of sacrifice on both parents' parts, and if you waited until you were 70 to take that up, you've already chosen that having a child wasn't worth it to you.

As for sexism, I'm just as against older men impregnating younger women. While that is within natural laws, it becomes a matter of health. If daddy's 70 and mommy's 30, daddy's going to die a lot sooner than mommy (putting aside incidental deaths because there's no way to account for all of the possibilities) and put a lot of pressure on the kid. Remarriages are really tough on children, and parental deaths are really tough on children. Also, a father SHOULD be capable of taking up a reasonable amount of childcare and it becomes just as hard for a 70 year old man as it is for a 70 year old woman.

And as for castrating men to be fair, I think that's a rather ridiculous request. Women can't help it if their bodies shut down childbearing capabilities on their own accord. It's not like society came up and scooped out their ovaries and said "no more having kids." Their own bodies shut the function off and said "no more having kids." Castrating men over 50 would be like punishing them for something women can't control. By the way, post-menopausal women can still have sex. Castrated men...well...not as much.

Really, I just think having a child at 70 is ridiculously selfish.

Originally Posted by HappyStarr

On the matter of "natural," I say I don't like how it's unnatural because the body is only designed to put up with children for so long. You are born with a set amount of eggs and when you're done, you're done. Your body shuts off your period when it has decided that it is no longer capable of childbearing. This happens as you grow older and if your body mass is below what it should be. There are many things I completely support concerning technological advances, but this is not one of them. It is extremely selfish and dangerous to both the woman and the potential child. By the time you're 70 years old, you had plenty a chance to have a child if that's really what you wanted to do. Having a child DOES require a lot of sacrifice on both parents' parts, and if you waited until you were 70 to take that up, you've already chosen that having a child wasn't worth it to you.

Watch yourself, you're starting to get into dangerous territory as far as indirect choice goes. Also, again, how is that unnatural? Obviously the body is wrong, as while there are increased risks to both woman and baby, the pregnancies quite often end in the birth of a relatively healthy infant. Really, if we're going to say that what our bodies want to do is what is natural, having as many offspring as possible is entirely natural, while choosing not to have children when there is a way of doing so is unnatural. Also, natural = good or right is a fallacy, so again, watch your wording.

As for sexism, I'm just as against older men impregnating younger women. While that is within natural laws, it becomes a matter of health. If daddy's 70 and mommy's 30, daddy's going to die a lot sooner than mommy (putting aside incidental deaths because there's no way to account for all of the possibilities) and put a lot of pressure on the kid. Remarriages are really tough on children, and parental deaths are really tough on children. Also, a father SHOULD be capable of taking up a reasonable amount of childcare and it becomes just as hard for a 70 year old man as it is for a 70 year old woman.

And none of that was directed at you. I mentioned it because it's something I've noticed in every argument I've heard on the issue, either said outright, hinted, or suggested by their lack of criticism of men who know they don't have long to live impregnating a woman.

And as for castrating men to be fair, I think that's a rather ridiculous request. Women can't help it if their bodies shut down childbearing capabilities on their own accord. It's not like society came up and scooped out their ovaries and said "no more having kids." Their own bodies shut the function off and said "no more having kids." Castrating men over 50 would be like punishing them for something women can't control.

Not punishing. It's about the kids after all, right? Men over 50 shouldn't be reproducing, by your logic. As you said, women are cut off by their bodies, but men experience no such cutoff, and if a child having both their parents is more important than the happiness of the parent, then castrating older men who are still sexually active is the only way to go. After all, this procedure isn't available to every woman who wants it, but intercourse is available to anyone with a willing partner, and while you can't (probably) become accidentally pregnant at 70, you can accidentally impregnate someone else at nearly any age. As such, there likely are and will continue to be many, many more young children with a father who's died of old age than ones with a mother who has. And on that note, isn't refusing to allow a woman who wants to have children and has a way to do so punishment as well?

By the way, post-menopausal women can still have sex. Castrated men...well...not as much.

Um...yes, castrated men can have sex, their sex drive is simply reduced and they are effectively infertile, not much different from what many women experience after menopause.

Really, I just think having a child at 70 is ridiculously selfish.

As are so many other situations in which people choose to reproduce that such a comment is meaningless. Actually, if we look at the issue of overpopulation and how many more children there are up for adoption than perspective parents looking to adopt, having a child period is extremely selfish. You can grow to love a child who is not biologically related to you just as easily as you can one who is, so really it all comes down to genes, wanting to pass them on and wanting a child who looks like you. If choosing the passing on of your genes over giving an unwanted child a better life isn't selfish, I don't know what is.

I didn't think that was possiple.......

I honestly don't think that it's a really good idea to have a child at that age. I mean, if you are in tip top shape, and are really healthy and what not, then sure. As long as you are able to live up to an age where your child will be able to support themselves without you. Though I don't think that you should have a child at that age, due to the fact that you are going to kill over at any given time. At that age, most people have a hard enough time supporting themselves (not all, but a good majority). So how are you going to support your child when you can't even do so yourself. And if you do die around that time that the child is still pretty young, who are they going to really live with??? Most of your family members are that time are already pretty old themselves. So in my opinion, no, not a good idea to have a child at that age.

I'm not going to argue that this is terribly unnatural. Some older women still naturally conceive. I know in some larger families the mothers will have children later and older siblings tend to step in and help. I still don't think it's the best idea but nobody gets to tell someone else what to do on this matter. But if you are older and haven't naturally conceived, having to leap through twenty dozen scientific hoops just to do so seems even less of a good idea. Does your body really need the barrage of drugs and needles?

My opinion certainly isn't based on sexism. When older men have kids, I think the same thing about them. That they're selfish. Larry King, Hugh Hefner, and Dave Letterman, I'm looking at you guys. I suppose their wives are younger and will be around for their children, but it still seems like it's a selfish move.

If you're having a child, you're making a commitment to raise them and provide for them. That's a lot harder to do when you're older or dead. I think health and age of both parents should definitely be a consideration when planning for children. Having children really should be about more than what you want. Just because you want a baby doesn't mean you should have one. I want a unicorn. I'm shit out of luck. :gonk:

On a similar note, has anyone noticed that it seems more accepted for famous people, like the above mentioned men, to have children older, while if it's a regular Joe or Jane, it seems less accepted?

People are living longer and with more people reaching past 100, it will get harder to argue about age being a factor.
Nutritional improvements and medicine also has pushed up the boundaries; so that being an older parent isn't a disadvantage.
Being older has advantages -- you know more, you are not as self-obsessed, you have more patience and more time for your kids.

But there are two big problems: (a) the health of the child, and (b) possible parental dementia (e.g. forgetfulness).

It's not something I'd want to do at 70, but who knows how different the world will be by the time I hit 70 -- so I reserve judgment...

Why castrate men? Couldn't we just give them vasectomies?

Because I, um, somehow forgot about vasectomies in the heat of the moment? :sweat: That would certainly be a much better option than castration, though somehow I don't think they'd agree with it any more.

It should be noted, before anyone says anything, that I'm not actually supporting the sterilizing of unwilling males. Simply making a point, is all.

I find it to be morally wrong personally, but I don't see any reason for it to be criminalized. As For-Chan said, how are these people going to make sure their children are taken care of in the event of death?

Most of you have touched on the points that I would have, yet I feel that I may be able to add perspective... but before I get into that, I'd like to say I don't agree with it. Your body is done with it at that age for a reason. Now my perspective. I was born to older parents. Not that old, but my mum was 43, and my dad 58 when I was born. My dad is in his 80s now, and is in a state of decline. It's hard on the whole family, and yes, I am expected to help look after him. I don't truly mind, I love him and am glad/lucky that I have him for a father, but it isn't always easy. Most young people would be wanting to get out in the world now, and this sort of thing would be frustrating (it is for me too, but not for the simple reasons stated here.) This is no thing for a large swath of the population to go through.

Thinking vasectomy and not castration made that argument less weird, I must say.

Originally Posted by Philomel

While I'm not particularly a fan of having a child for the sake of having a child at any age (if you want a kid, there's plenty of ones already here that need a home, stop being selfish), I honestly don't have a problem with older women having children. Someone mentioned that it wasn't "natural". Well, if you're defining "natural" as what we would do without technology, then absolutely nothing we humans do is natural. If, however, you define "natural" for humans as we do for all other species -- basically anything they do that they develop on their own and was not forced upon them by another species -- then it's completely natural. As for the woman dying in a few years, that can happen with young women as well. Even ignoring out-of-the-blue deaths, people generally get the warm and fuzzies when a woman who has had serious health problems successfully gives birth (I'm reminded of the woman who refused cancer treatments so her fetus would develop without problem and died not long after it was born). Whether the mother was young or old when she died doesn't really matter as far as the child is concerned, so why the discrimination against older women?

Actually, I really think this has to do with sexism. Men have somewhat made it a tradition to get married and try to produce an heir right before they do something dangerous, such as go off to war, and the concept has long been cast in a very positive light by the media and by entertainment industries. Older men have been marrying and impregnating much younger women for just about as long as the concept of marriage has been around. Yet, when women do the same thing, have a child that they will in all likelihood not see reach adulthood, they're considered selfish and shortsighted. In my opinion, this is because people expect mothers to be the actual parents, the caretakers, and the fathers to simply be role models, when in reality, the only thing a mother can do that a father can't is breastfeed, and there are plenty of other options for that. More than that, though, they expect women to be willing and able to sacrifice everything for the sake of their offspring, including not reproducing when they'd like to because they might not be around very long, while men do not have such an expectation to live up to and when they do something women are expected to do automatically, are either given extremely high praise (single dads vs single mothers) or are viewed as effeminate ("househusbands" vs "housewives"). This is further continued in the view of successful women who have chosen not to have children (cold, too concerned with getting ahead in life; I've even read one author suggest they "forgot to have a family") versus successful men who have done the same (generally nothing is said about them, and if something is, it's praising them for their drive). Basically, women are supposed to put reproduction and child-rearing before themselves and their wants, men are not only free but expected to put themselves and their wants first. If we're going to criticize women for having children late in life, we need to start castrating men at no later than age 50, even younger if we're going to be completely fair, really even younger than the latest women can naturally and safely give birth since women tend to live longer than men nowadays.

but if both parents are in their 70s or something, then how could they take care of the child? both of them would be dead by the time the child is 20 or 30 at the latest (in most cases they would be dead before their child is 15). But if the father is younger (like 40 or 50) then that isn't so bad...what I don't approve of is the fact that if both parents are older, they could die before their child reaches adulthood and orphan the child at a young age. And how could both parents be able to keep up with a child after they learn to walk.

Originally Posted by TheYaoiButterfly

but if both parents are in their 70s or something, then how could they take care of the child? both of them would be dead by the time the child is 20 or 30 at the latest (in most cases they would be dead before their child is 15). But if the father is younger (like 40 or 50) then that isn't so bad...what I don't approve of is the fact that if both parents are older, they could die before their child reaches adulthood and orphan the child at a young age. And how could both parents be able to keep up with a child after they learn to walk.

As far as keeping up with the children is concerned, disabled parents can't either. My grandmother's 82 and not even in the best of health, and she keeps up with her grandchildren and great grandchildren just fine, whereas my aunt, her daughter, couldn't possibly take care of a younger child and my cousin's husband, who is not too many years older than me, cannot care for children period. And there are many other factors that can cause a person at any age to be unable to properly care for children. Age is not a determining factor, health and mentality is, so to bar those of a certain age across the board from having children while allowing those who are younger to have them without any thought to details other than age doesn't make sense, and it doesn't help children be better cared for.

As for the death thing, I've already mentioned that; people can die at absolutely any age. While the older someone is, the better a chance they have of dying sooner rather than later, there are plenty of other risk factors that you are neglecting. Those in dangerous professions (soldiers, firemen, policemen, etc.) are really more likely to die or be put in a condition where they cannot care for a child than an otherwise healthy elderly woman. The same is true for those who engage in risky behaviours (skydivers, for instance) or who have serious medical conditions. If it is all about the wellbeing of the children, then equal if not greater criticism should be directed at these groups for choosing to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Philomel

As far as keeping up with the children is concerned, disabled parents can't either. My grandmother's 82 and not even in the best of health, and she keeps up with her grandchildren and great grandchildren just fine, whereas my aunt, her daughter, couldn't possibly take care of a younger child and my cousin's husband, who is not too many years older than me, cannot care for children period. And there are many other factors that can cause a person at any age to be unable to properly care for children. Age is not a determining factor, health and mentality is, so to bar those of a certain age across the board from having children while allowing those who are younger to have them without any thought to details other than age doesn't make sense, and it doesn't help children be better cared for.

As for the death thing, I've already mentioned that; people can die at absolutely any age. While the older someone is, the better a chance they have of dying sooner rather than later, there are plenty of other risk factors that you are neglecting. Those in dangerous professions (soldiers, firemen, policemen, etc.) are really more likely to die or be put in a condition where they cannot care for a child than an otherwise healthy elderly woman. The same is true for those who engage in risky behaviours (skydivers, for instance) or who have serious medical conditions. If it is all about the wellbeing of the children, then equal if not greater criticism should be directed at these groups for choosing to reproduce.

Alright. I can respect your opinion, but I still don't agree with it. You make some valid points, but I feel you're understating the fact that there is a higher risk for both parents dying within years of each other when they're in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. My main concern with two parents having kids at that age is both parents dying before their child is an adult.

I do understand that there are younger parents who couldn't care for children very well (or at all) due to disability or something else, and that there are grandparents who could take care and keep up with their grandchildren just fine. My second cousin hiked mountains until she was almost 90. I'm just saying I hope that both parents would have put into consideration when making the decision to do this procedure whether or not they have the physical capacity to handle a kid.

I know that there are a lot of professions where there is a high risk of death and that people can die at any time. I know a man who died in his late 20s and had a wife and...2 or 3 kids. He had a heart attack. But you can't ignore the fact that if two people become parents at 70 have a pretty high risk of dying before their child reaches adult hood unless they're in really good health. I understand that there is just as high a risk for death with soldiers, but there's at least one parent left when that happens for the most part. I haven't heard of any cases where both parents are fighting in war, leaving their child in someone else's care. There might be times that's happened, but from what I can see, it doesn't happen very often. I know that there is a possibility of two younger parents dying and orphaning their child/children, but that sort of thing really only happens if both parents are in a car accident or are both murdered...it's a very rare occurrence for both parents to die at a young age within years of each other due to medical reasons. There is a higher risk of both parents dying within years of each other when they're in their 70s-90s and a higher risk of a child being left without a parent. As I said before, if the father was say...in his 40s or 50s when the child is born, if he's in good health, there's less of a chance that he'd die in his 60s or something, and I'd be fine with that.

Originally Posted by TheYaoiButterfly

Alright. I can respect your opinion, but I still don't agree with it. You make some valid points, but I feel you're understating the fact that there is a higher risk for both parents dying within years of each other when they're in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. My main concern with two parents having kids at that age is both parents dying before their child is an adult.

And that assumes it is a two-parent home. Many are not, and that includes what we generally describe as "young parents". So, should we view single young people who have a higher risk of dying than the norm the same as elderly women? And should elderly women giving birth who have a much younger partner be viewed the same as young couples deciding to have a child?

I do understand that there are younger parents who couldn't care for children very well (or at all) due to disability or something else, and that there are grandparents who could take care and keep up with their grandchildren just fine. My second cousin hiked mountains until she was almost 90. I'm just saying I hope that both parents would have put into consideration when making the decision to do this procedure whether or not they have the physical capacity to handle a kid.

Something one would hope everyone does before they choose to reproduce, no less young people than old.

I know that there are a lot of professions where there is a high risk of death and that people can die at any time. I know a man who died in his late 20s and had a wife and...2 or 3 kids. He had a heart attack. But you can't ignore the fact that if two people become parents at 70 have a pretty high risk of dying before their child reaches adult hood unless they're in really good health. I understand that there is just as high a risk for death with soldiers, but there's at least one parent left when that happens for the most part. I haven't heard of any cases where both parents are fighting in war, leaving their child in someone else's care. There might be times that's happened, but from what I can see, it doesn't happen very often. I know that there is a possibility of two younger parents dying and orphaning their child/children, but that sort of thing really only happens if both parents are in a car accident or are both murdered...it's a very rare occurrence for both parents to die at a young age within years of each other due to medical reasons. There is a higher risk of both parents dying within years of each other when they're in their 70s-90s and a higher risk of a child being left without a parent. As I said before, if the father was say...in his 40s or 50s when the child is born, if he's in good health, there's less of a chance that he'd die in his 60s or something, and I'd be fine with that.

This section is ignoring two issues, though:

1) Younger people who have children and are in high-risk careers do not necessarily have partners. This logic supports the idea that people who are single should not be allowed to be parents just as much as the idea that the elderly should not be allowed to be parents.

2) The topic was specifically about elderly women giving birth, and that is what you replied to. No mention was made of the circumstances, and unless I've missed it, there has been not a single mention in any of the replies of "As long as there's someone else to take care of them...", or even the idea of another caretaker until your post. For all we know, all of the women who consider this procedure have younger partners or family members ready and willing to care for the child, should something happen to them. Indeed, I think we should, if anything, give them the benefit of the doubt. Baselessly assuming women cannot plan things or think critically and do not have their own best interests or those of their charges in mind is a dangerous path to go down.

There are some great points brought up on this page.

@Cardinal Biggles: I'd really not considered that one would likely have to take care of their parent in old age. That's a great point. My mom is taking care of my grandma right now and although she's happy to do it, it is a bit trying for her. It's a really big commitment, and is an especially big commitment for a younger person. (And wow, even more so if you wanted to have children!)

@Philomel: Really excellent points. If I'm reading you right I don't totally agree about the disabled part. I've known quite a few disabled folks who have been able to raise their children (sometimes on their own). The rest of what you said is really spot-on. it's easy to look at a case and think something shouldn't be done a certain way... but then not even consider that there are many very similar situations that no one thinks twice about. Kudos!

Originally Posted by cherry cocaine

@Philomel: Really excellent points. If I'm reading you right I don't totally agree about the disabled part. I've known quite a few disabled folks who have been able to raise their children (sometimes on their own). The rest of what you said is really spot-on. it's easy to look at a case and think something shouldn't be done a certain way... but then not even consider that there are many very similar situations that no one thinks twice about. Kudos!

Thank you :heart: And I'm certainly not suggesting that no one with a disability is capable of caring for a child. People are able to do some pretty amazing things, so I've pretty much given up on labeling anything as completely impossible. I really didn't even want to write that, because there are so many counter-examples and I realize it can be quite hurtful to read or hear where someone has suggested that you are incapable of doing something due to factors outside of your control, but I think it's necessary to relate this fairly unheard-of situation, elderly women having children, to something people are more often exposed (and thus, desensitized) to in order to aid understanding, especially when (as I suspect the case is here), even though most of the outcry is seemingly over concern for the children, when it's really just a reaction to something deemed strange and an attempt to justify that response. As you said, though, that is the problem with generalizing, rather than taking it on a case-by-case basis.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Thank you :heart: And I'm certainly not suggesting that no one with a disability is capable of caring for a child. People are able to do some pretty amazing things, so I've pretty much given up on labeling anything as completely impossible. I really didn't even want to write that, because there are so many counter-examples and I realize it can be quite hurtful to read or hear where someone has suggested that you are incapable of doing something due to factors outside of your control, but I think it's necessary to relate this fairly unheard-of situation, elderly women having children, to something people are more often exposed (and thus, desensitized) to in order to aid understanding, especially when (as I suspect the case is here), even though most of the outcry is seemingly over concern for the children, when it's really just a reaction to something deemed strange and an attempt to justify that response. As you said, though, that is the problem with generalizing, rather than taking it on a case-by-case basis.

Ah, yes, that makes a lot more sense. Child raising is hard enough with two able adults, so when you factor in disability, especially with only a single parent, yeah- it's super hard. I've known a few spinal cord injury patients raising two children on their own. It's HARD, and they are super-active in spite of their disabilities. (They have crazy respect from me!) So I can definitely see how it would be impossible for a lot of folks (and my experience is only with that one small issue of spinal cord injuries. There are so many, many other disabilities out there, including mental ones!) Thanks for the clarification :)

I think it's unfair to the child, a selfish desire of the mother.
What quality of life would it have with a parent so old?* The child will graduate as the parent is nearing 100 years old, if they even make it that far.

*This is based on the assumption that the pregnant mother ages and has deteriorating health as most of the elderly do.