A child at 67?

[Lady Crimson]

Is it right to have a child at a later time in life (past 50 years)?

A woman in my country, 67 years old, had a baby girl six months ago. She's fine and healthy and growing steadily. The woman has no husband or other family for that matter, no siblings, no other children.

Is it right to have a child knowing that you might not make it by the time this child finishes college?...The child in question will probably end up taking care of her mother and not vice versa. And sure, I understand that any person might have a child and the next day be hit by a car and not make it by graduation day...but being older raises the procentage of possible death.

I'm divided...I don't agree with this, but I also understand the woman's loneliness and want of a child...What do you think?

 

[michel]

Is it right to have a child at a later time in life (past 50 years)?

A woman in my country, 67 years old, had a baby girl six months ago. She's fine and healthy and growing steadily. The woman has no husband or other family for that matter, no siblings, no other children.

Is it right to have a child knowing that you might not make it by the time this child finishes college?...The child in question will probably end up taking care of her mother and not vice versa. And sure, I understand that any person might have a child and the next day be hit by a car and not make it by graduation day...but being older raises the procentage of possible death.

I'm divided...I don't agree with this, but I also understand the woman's loneliness and want of a child...What do you think?

I am going to do something I try hard not to do - I'm going to go with my instincts and emotions - No, it is not right.

When the child is 20, Mum will be 87.
In this particular case, it is worse, because you say "The woman has no husband or other family ". I have two sons in their early twenties; maybe I am not fit enough to play football with them - whatever - we have arguments, but I know that both love both their Mum and me.

Children may mature faster phtsically now than they did 30 years ago - but the mental 'bit' the 'experience' (Which, at the end of the day is what makes a person), is still missing.

Just to think of that twenty year old, left alone in the world.............I can't even bear to think about it.

 

[Lady Crimson]

Just to think of that twenty year old, left alone in the world.............I can't even bear to think about it.

I agree...and the child might not even make it to 18 before her mother passes...and then the poor thing will have to finish the rest of her teens in an orphanage.

 

[michel]

I agree...and the child might not even make it to 18 before her mother passes...and then the poor thing will have to finish the rest of her teens in an orphanage.

I don't even want to think about it - the idea hurts so much

 

[Zephyr]

Kids are a lot tougher than most people give credit. I have a friend whos single mom died when he was 13, but he was adopted and turned out fine.

 

[Valjean]

People are resilient. People are embedded in a whole society. Plenty of people, even very young children, are left "alone in the world" and turn out fine.

Still, I'm confused about the motives of this woman. Did she have this planned out or was it an accident -- or was she just not thinking at all? How does the father fit into this equation? Does this woman have other children who might assume care of this child should the worst come to pass?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I don't think its right. I think there were many other ways that this woman could cure her lonliness. For instance, she could have adopted an older child, who would have had to live in an orphanage instead anyway. She could have been a foster parent, (do you guys have a foster system?), or, she could have just been like every other old lady and gotten a couple of cats!

Having a child at her age was overly dangerous to her health, and the health of her unborn child. There are some elderly people who stay very active well into their eighties, (I've heard tell that the 80-something y/o Pope Benedict runs about 3 miles every day), but if she's not one of them, her kid may as well be in an orphanage, because they're not going to have mom there for support.

 

[Lintu]

No, I don't think it's right. It sounds pretty selfish and dangerous, and is not so great to the kid. I had a neighbor as a kid who was 13 with 60 year old parents. Her father died suddenly and it really impacted her life for the negative. There's a reason women go through menopause...I don't think it only has to do with running out of eggs!

 

[Melody]

No, I think it's extremely selfish. So she's lonely...get a dog or join an organization with people of similar interests. At 67, there is a very good likelyhood that she will not leave to see her child reach its teens. Then what? No problem for her since she's dead, but this child now has no support system during the years he/she will need it most. He will most likely end up in the foster care system because he's too old to adopt and when he's 18 will be thrown out into the real world...again with no support system.

It's bad enough when things like this happen anyway, but to deliberately create such a situation because you need a companion....she doesn't sound mature enough to have a child.

 

[Pah]

)( Ah yeah - nobody has mentioned (have they?) that she might have been trying to set a world record (which she did) eclipsing the old record of 62. :biglaugh:


:clap (for the new world record)

 

[Crystallas]

If she was trying to set a record.. then that is selfish LOL.

I don't think its wrong for her to do what she wants. Stupid, maybe...wrong, nope.

 

[James the Persian]

I agree...and the child might not even make it to 18 before her mother passes...and then the poor thing will have to finish the rest of her teens in an orphanage.

And, having personal experience of the Romanian orphanage system, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. The woman was quite clearly selfish - but I think that's what comes of thinking that people have a 'right' to a child. Children have a right to have (a) loving parent(s) but for the life of me I can't see how having a 'right' to a child is doing anything other than treating children as a commodity for our own satisfaction.

James

 

[Lady Crimson]

Still, I'm confused about the motives of this woman. Did she have this planned out or was it an accident -- or was she just not thinking at all? How does the father fit into this equation? Does this woman have other children who might assume care of this child should the worst come to pass?

She had it planned out. She had been trying in-vitro insemination for several years until it actually worked. The woman has no other family.

I don't think its right. I think there were many other ways that this woman could cure her lonliness. For instance, she could have adopted an older child, who would have had to live in an orphanage instead anyway. She could have been a foster parent, (do you guys have a foster system?), or, she could have just been like every other old lady and gotten a couple of cats!

I agree...adopting an older child would have been a lot better. But no one would have let her receive a child. Adopting is hard enough when you would be a single parent, but when you're 67 years old it's a lot harder. Cats would have been a good decision.

And, having personal experience of the Romanian orphanage system, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. The woman was quite clearly selfish - but I think that's what comes of thinking that people have a 'right' to a child. Children have a right to have (a) loving parent(s) but for the life of me I can't see how having a 'right' to a child is doing anything other than treating children as a commodity for our own satisfaction.

True, true...and even though the orphanage system has improved in the last 10 years, it's still not the best place for a child.

I don't think she just did it to set a world record...that would just be so...selfish is to good a word. :banghead3

 

[James the Persian]

True, true...and even though the orphanage system has improved in the last 10 years, it's still not the best place for a child.

No orphanage is a good place for a child. It's always at best the lesser of two evils. And you're right, the situation has improved in Romania over the last 10 years but, having worked in an orphanage in Siret in '95, it's hard to see how things could have got worse. And they still aren't good by any means.

James

 

[michel]

This , I think, is a perfect example of a much larger problem in life.

Nothing is 'right' or 'wrong' - in scientific achievements; in-vitro insemination is not a medical advancement that is good or bad; it is the application of the system that defines the rights and wrongs, based on each individual case.

This also touches on the much wider question of "why do we have children ?" - as in 'For what motive' - but that would have to be on a seperate thread.........