Is This Ethical?

What do you think folks...is this ethical?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-in-her-70s-may-be-oldest-ever-to-give-birth/

Just reading the title... I think it's wrong for either parent to be so old :( It's too hard for the kids. My dad was 40 when he had me. Not nearly 70, but I hate how old he is because I want him to live forever. 70 means you'll probably be on your way out when your kid is graduating high school. Ugh. Heart breaking. Don't we all want our parents to be around longer? Don't do this to your kids.

I agree Jane...there is very little chance that the parents will be around for graduation and other milestones in this child's life. I assume that this egg was a donor egg and wondered if the donor would have agreed to have it harvested by such an elderly couple.

Nope, I'm 20, my ex step mother is 74 or something ( who cares) and being brought up by her in her German-Jew dictatorship with no understanding was hell itself, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the things she did for me, but it's not worth a lack of love and care.

On an impersonal note, it really is awkward at school for kids with old parents as most have young vibey parents and those with older parents sometimes get asked things like " how old is your grandma/ grandpa" when it's their parents and that hurts

The question is not whether an older person should have a child, it is this:

Is it better to have a good parent for 10 - 20 years that provides their child with all the tools they need to lead a happy healthy life, or a bad parent for 60 - 70 that causes a lifetime of damage through poor parenting?

^very insightful

I had my first son when I was 54, my second at 56......do I regret not having them younger, hmmm I don't think I would have been a good father early on in life, do I wish I could keep up with them better....there's not a day goes by that I don't ache, and wonder how much longer I will have the energy to fully participate in their lives, yet I was the last surviving male in our family tree, now there are two boys to carry on our family history. I'll probably be long gone before they have kids, but what's important to me now is instilling in them good values, morals, and principles, and yes ethics.....Is it ethical to look down upon others who make decisions that go against the grain.....hmmmmm

I see two very clear sides to this story, and I have an emotional dog in this fight.

This woman struggled with infertility her entire life. 50 years of marriage and probably most of those years dealing with the heartache, hurt, and longing that comes with every unsuccessful month. As a woman whose own body is currently failing to help fulfill her longing, the one thing a woman should be able to do... my heart feels for this woman. Infertility is hard, not just emotionally, but physically, psychologically, relationally, financially...honestly I wouldn't wish this on my worst "enemy", and I'm only 2 years into this journey. A lot of people commenting on this on FB are saying "why not just adopt" - but that does not truly fulfill the longing to carry a child. It's just different when you're in this position. I know those of you who haven't endured it don't understand - I don't expect you to, and I don't want you to understand, because it's HARD. Infertility causes you to do such strange things, some in your control, some feel out of your control, and some are out of your control.

On the flip side of that coin, while she's finally fulfilled and full, now she has the selfishness piece -- not thinking of the child when the inevitable happens. And that's the part I struggle with in the story, because now a multitude of what-if's play out.

In the long run, I have the utmost compassion for this woman, because I feel like this could be me in 40 years. You just never know.

Bob, your commentary on being the last male in your family and having male kids to pass the history on struck a chord with me. My dad had 2 girls, no boys. I can't speak for my sister, but it really pisses me off that throughout western civilization, men keep their identities and women lose theirs. My name and my history is a large part of who I am and I want my kids to be part of that. My boyfriend on the other hand is not very interested in history and feels a name is just a name. We're starting to discuss the possibility of if we have kids, half of them will take my last name. The "confusion" at school is a very tiny price to pay for my family history to be carried on. I think hyphenated names can be a pain in the ass and people usually drop one half anyway once entering adulthood. I think more and more women will make the choice to not only keep their last names after marriage, but to have some if not all of their children take their last name as well. There are several cultures that follow a matrilineal line of descent. It's a shame really that there isn't some way to keep both names. Sure, one can be a middle name, but nobody cares about middle names :/

Anyway, been thinking about this topic a lot lately. My friend Alice changed her last name to her husband's last name and she regrets it. She feels like she's lost a part of herself. I know I'd feel the same. I wonder how many women have grieved the death of a family name after marriage.

Edit: I don't mean to shame people who have kids late in life, but your kids will suffer for it if they love you. Take care of your health. Try to give them as many years as your body can handle. I feel real jealousy that most of my friend's dad's are in their 50s and mine is a few years shy of 70. I want him to see my kids graduate from high school. My dad is my rock.

I don't get the idea of losing your identity if you change your last name? I guess my last name didn't hold an identity for me?

ETA: I don't mean to sound like a brat there. Read that with a genuine question. I'm still me, even with a different last name. Heck, I work with seniors and most of them can't remember my name (even with my nametag!)... I've been called all kinds of things... ;) haha. I kid, I kid, but in all seriousness I have never felt a pang of loss of identity once I got married.

I have to agree with Michael and Bob. Age is less relevant than the quality of love that's given. I think there certainly comes a time when - purely from a physical point of view on both sides - it is not as practical, but still, if every child had love and respect taught to them for 20 years rather than hate and bad morals for 40, the world would be a better place.

I know, Britt. Some women don't have an attachment to their last name and don't care if it dies with them/ceases to be passed down. Some women do care though, like me. Ask any man here if he cares. Bet most would say yes. Ask them why. We probably have the same reasons. Most men don't have to think twice about it though because it's just expected that their wife will take their name and so will their children. That's male privilege.
As in the past, I've never suggested you shouldn't take the last name of your husband. You should have the choice. There shouldn't be pressure or expectation one way or the other. You should be able to take your husband's last name without judgment and my husband should be able to take mine without judgment. Kevin wouldn't though - even if his last name doesn't mean much to him, it means just enough for him to not want to give it up. And he shouldn't have to give it up, no matter how small the sacrifice.
Really, you shouldn't have to explain why your last name doesn't mean anything to you and I shouldn't have to explain why mine means a lot to me.
That I would even need to explain why and a man wouldn't says something about our culture.

Okay, Ben, Michael, Bob, let's flip that on its head. Would you rather have a good parent for 40 years or a bad parent for 20? Would you rather have a good parent for 40 years or a good parent for 20? A good parent for 40 wins every time. No one wants a bad parent for any amount of time... Middle age might make some people more apt to be good parents. Might make others more apt to be bad. I'm not saying kids should be having kids, but age 25-39, give or take, seems ideal. Old enough to be financially stable and set down roots, young enough to see grandchildren become adults.
But hey, if you're going to have kids late or you already had them late, take care of your health!! My empathetic heart aches for your kids not having you around for longer. If they're like me, they want you to live forever.

One final thing, back to the last name topic: I think for lots of men there is a certain pride in their woman and children taking on their last name. I have to admit I'd feel the same weird pride if my husband and children took my last name. But you lucky devils are more likely to have it happen for you! Grr.

Edit: Alright, alright, I had to come back and say something else lol. I was talking to my boyfriend about last names just now and it occurred to us both how engrained it is in young girls that one day they will have a different last name, so that by the time they're women, they don't think twice about it. I remember being in elementary school and writing my name plus the last name of my crush over and over again in a notebook with little hearts. By age 8, I was romanticizing marrying and taking a boy's last name! All of my female friends did this... Whereas a boy, like Kevin, has never had to consider taking someone else's last name. He's never had to consider that someday he won't be Kevin Barr, but Kevin ------. He tried right now to imagine giving up his last name simply because it's the custom, and was lost for words. This from a guy who has zero interest in history and heritage. He still couldn't fathom it. Made me laugh.

Jane,

What you are doing, essentially, is highlighting a perfect scenario. Of course, in a perfect world, we would all be having children whilst aged 20-35; we would all be perfect specimens that passed on good looks, health and perfect DNA to our offspring and we would all be financially secure enough not only to support our kids, but do so in luxury.
Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect and despite what people don't want, lots do have terrible parents for considerable amounts of time, so we can only judge the situation on reality, not a hypothetical scenario. Bearing that in mind, and understanding that there are older parents out there, we can only look at what is actually there. And ultimately, I don't feel age is all that relevant in the real, less than perfect world we live in compared to other, more considerable problems with parenting in general.

As for names, in some countries the pressure is much greater than others. I would have thought in the 21st century, pressure in the west is minimal. I know numerous people who haven't taken their husband's name and suffered no ill effects from those around them. I also know numerous people who have simply because they want to and like the tradition that surrounds it.
My wife took my last name. We never discussed it otherwise, but she knows she could have kept hers if she wanted to but we wanted the same last name because that's what we regarded was part of being a complete family. In truth, she hates her father and hasn't seen him for years so she was more than willing to........drop his name, lol :)
In honesty, would I have given up my name so easily? Hard to say, but like you acknowledge, it seems more engrained in women, rightly or wrongly and although it is changing, it will be a while before it fully sinks into society.

It's all down to personal choice. I have to be honest though, I personally wouldn't think that calling your children different names to acomadate the wishes of both parents was the way forward. There must be a way around them having different surnames, but that is entirely up to you. The point is, everyone has different ideas nowadays but the pressure is less and less on women in the western world to automatically assume a name - and rightly. It should be choice.

All the best

*edit I am aware, after reading my comments back, that the idea of there being NO pressure for some women is na�¯ve and a little too easy for me to say as a man. But, I don't think women are automatically expected to take the last name of their man these days -at least not in Britain. Heading in the right direction.

Personally, i believe that age is just a number and my reasoning for this is because as Michael says you can be a bad parent for your child throughout life I.e 40-50 years or you can be a good parent for say 20 years. Yes, it works both ways but what does age matter of you truly love your child and nurture them correctly?

My best mates mum has just had her last child at 50 and though older i know she will be a great parent even if she does need a bit of help but then where i live i see many young mums who treat their child atrocious.

Jane with regards to that you could always get him to take your last name (if you marry) that way any children have your last name, i know many people do that instead of double barrelled names.

Em, problem is neither of us would want to give up our last name and both of us would like our children to have our last name. At the same time, both of us would feel guilty asking the other to make the sacrifice. As a woman, I do feel more pressure to be the one to drop my last name, which makes me angry with society. Maybe Britt didn't feel that pressure. Maybe Ben's wife didn't. I can't speak for them, but I can speak for myself. My womanhood makes me feel all kinds of pressure. There is a tiny part of me that feels selfish, or like it would make me a bad wife if I kept my last name. My mom kept her last name and she got a lot of shit for it throughout the years. When I was a kid, girls were mean to me about it. Fortunately this had the affect of making me more confident and very proud of my strong, independent-thinking mom. I'm still proud of her for keeping her last name, but not because I think all women should. Instead, because she made a choice that was right for her even if it was less socially acceptable. It makes me proud of my dad too because he supported her decision 100%, and he stood up for her when his mom, a very traditional woman, tried to shame her.

I know if Kevin dropped his last name, not everyone would think it's "cool." I'm sure plenty of people would view him as "whipped" and view me as "controlling." We haven't found a perfect solution yet, but we still have time to figure it out. Yes, Ben, it would be my husband and my choice, but I realize some people feel the need to voice their opinion and some people might feel it is their prerogative to shame us even though our choice has nothing to do with them. My point here is to shed light on how there are sill skewed expectations that favor men. Having different last names for our kids is one option we've considered, and I find the concept no less potentially damaging to kids than young girls only taking their father's last name and learning early in life that male heritage is more important.

Parents. I'm not talking about a perfect world, I'm talking about should someone who is 70 years old have a child, and I think the moral answer is no. Can they? Apparently. Could they be a good parent for the next 20 years? Who knows. They might not live to see their child graduate from high school. We're talking about child-baring age, and I think it's selfish to have a kid in elderly years. A large part of being a good parent is being present. You have to be there. The average life expectancy for women in the U.S. is 80. If this woman bears a child at 70 and dies at 80, she hasn't seen her child reach adolescence. She's left behind a 10 year old. Men have a slightly shorter life expectancy.

Coming back to the argument that "better to be a good parent for a short time than a bad parent for a long time," well, that's a fallacy -- an incorrect argument in logic when we're discussing if it's ethical to have a child at age 70. It's not like the older we get, the better new parents we become, and there isn't a cap. There's a cap. An apex, and then the likelihood of being a better new parent drops off again.
Research shows that parents who have children in their 40s or later wish they had them in their 30s. Young and old parents today overwhelmingly believe having kids in their 30s is (or would have been) the optimal balance between emotional intelligence, financial security, and the energy to raise kids to adulthood. Energy starts to peter off after age 40. I'm sure any of you who have kids can testify to how much energy they require.
Maybe some of you weren't ready to have kids before age 40. For one reason or another, you weren't emotionally ready or financially stable. At 50, you were ready. 50 is still a long way from 70!

I think some of you guys are viewing this discussion only from the perspective of the parent. Try viewing it from the perspective of the child. What if your mom was 70 when she had you? She'd be 80 when you're 10 years old and maybe homebound. I don't know about you guys, but activities with my parents were a large part of my happy childhood and a large part of my happy relationship with my parents today. My mom and I went horseback riding together a couple days ago and my dad and I built a beer keezer together 2 weeks ago. If they had me when they were both 70, they'd be 97 years old today. Or more likely, deceased.

Again, we're not talking about a perfect world. When I talk about ideals, I'm talking about responsible parenting, morality, and intelligent planning. Choosing to have a baby at age 70 is my idea of irresponsible parenting, immorality, and unintelligent planning.
In the article, the new mom was age 72 and her husband was age 79...

Britt, I know you're scared that it could take 50 years to get pregnant, but IVF success rates are progressing rapidly. I don't know yet if I'm fertile, but I have lots of faith in science and believe both of us will become moms in the next decade one way or another. Meanwhile, I'm praying for you.

No pressure whatsoever to change my name. I was actually really excited to. I'd always dreamed of it as a girl, I didn't like that people couldn't spell or pronounce Heth, lol. I had no strong ties to it because I knew I'd be changing it. Asking me to go back to it now, and I'd struggle. My name is Closner, and that's the name I now have a strong connection to. If we were to divorce, I'd only change back if we didn't have kids..and it'd probably be a really hard thing for me to do.

Without grossing people out with TMI type stuff, my uterus probably can't carry a baby to term, it's more than just my PCOS wreaking havoc on my body unfortunately. It truly may be one of those things that science can't fix right now.. there's currently no cure or surgery for me yet. I know medical marvels happen daily, so in the mean time I'm just waiting for God to move, and living my life to the fullest I can :)

Bob, your commentary on being the last male in your family and having male kids to pass the history on struck a chord with me. My dad had 2 girls, no boys. I can't speak for my sister, but it really pisses me off that throughout western civilization, men keep their identities and women lose theirs.

^clearly you don't give this topic enough thought, the women in the shank family have never , ever lost their identity, not even the ones (my natural mother) that shouldn't even be a consideration. As a matter of fact, most of the woman in the shank family have their maiden names on their tombstones, and most of them have been heralded though out our family history. So basically it's up to the family itself to make sure they aren't forgotten, if you marry a self centered asshole who thinks it's all about him and his legacy, then, yes, they will be forgotten. There's not a month that goes by that I don't talk to my sons about their Grandmother and their Aunt Florence, and their Great Grandmother "Feather", who lived her entire life as an "Indian Woman" in this very town until the day she died....So it's not really about the name, that's only being used as a way to keep chronological track of families, it's up to the family members themselves to to make sure nobody is forgotten, even those we'd all like to forget.

Okay, Ben, Michael, Bob, let's flip that on its head. Would you rather have a good parent for 40 years or a bad parent for 20?

^i'd rather have a parent, being a mother or father is the easy part, if you earn the title parent, you're doing your job, and I don't mean this idiotic self proclaiming thing people do, oh I'm a good parent, I'm this, I'm that......we all lack in that department, some are better than others, but there is no perfect parent, however, if you do the very best, and put forth your best effort, than you've got my respect and I will consider you a parent, but I don't consider any sperm or egg donor a parent until they meet the responsibilities and challenges of truly being one. As for length of time, that's not promised to anyone, I've seen 20 year old parents die, 30 year old parents die. It's a known fact that children with older parents are more well rounded, I really don't know, but I guess it depends who is doing the stats and like everything else they can be misleading....Personally I feel like this, live your life, let others live theirs and try to help one another whenever possible, other than that, stop worrying about things that really don't concern you, or things you have no control over. Because for all of you that are concerned about their ages, if they die, are you gonna send the kids money, if not, shut up.....lmao

BTW Britt Amanda had her second child, she had those same fears.

Bob, I saw that! We've had many a talk about infertility. :)

Because for all of you that are concerned about their ages, if they die, are you gonna send the kids money, if not, shut up.....lmao

^^^

This may have been a flippant comment Bob but...who will look after this child when the parents pass? Family? (if there is any left) the state? Will they be fostered?... placed in an orphanage? These are things that should have been considered (IMHO) before any IVF was started. I mean....they would not have made the adoption waiting list because of their age.

I knew someone would say, "your parents can die at any age" as an attempt to minimize the concern that a new 70 year old parent is likely to die early on in their kid's life. A 35 year old parent is statistically less likely to die in a freak accident (or from any cause whatsoever) than a 70 year old parent is to die from 'natural' causes within ten, twenty, or thirty years of their kid's life. Elderly parents have an above average likelihood of dying before their kids reach adulthood simply because they're elderly. A young parent doesn't go into parenthood knowing their life expectancy is short, and it probably isn't. Older parents are only better than younger parents, on average, when we're talking about a 35 year parent versus a 20 year old parent. Not a 70 year old versus a 35 year old.

I was touched, Bob, that your family remembers female family and honors them. So does mine. Last names do matter a lot to some of us though, and I ask that you likewise consider exactly what you are talking about before suggesting that no one does or should care about theirs. If it means so little to you, might I ask who took whose last name in your own marriage, if anyone?

Telling me or anyone in this thread "mind your own business" or "shut up" when this topic was created so we could share our opinions isn't appropriate. The title of this thread is "Is this ethical?" The purpose, I believe, is for everyone to answer that question. This is a great, increasingly relevant topic, and it's interesting/enlightening to read everyone's thoughts. It'd be nice if we could focus on the arguments being shared, not the people who have them.

"Because for all of you that are concerned about their ages, if they die, are you gonna send the kids money, if not, shut up.....lmao"
^
This is exactly my point. I'm concerned about parents' ages because children deserve good parents who are going to be present in their lives, as in not have parents 70 years older than them. People shouldn't have kids when they know full well how likely it is that someone else -- someone who didn't sign up to be their parent -- will have to raise them. It's not about money, it's about having parents alive and present.
I won't shut up about my concerns because as a matter of fact, yes, I plan to help kids whose parents are deceased or absent. I plan to help financially and otherwise, using my Masters in Social Work in whatever way possible. Additionally, I want to become a foster parent, hopefully in the next decade. So let's please not make assumptions about each other. The happiness of all children (and animals) matters very much to me. As adults and humans, I think it's our responsibility to care for those weaker, smaller, and/or more innocent than ourselves.

(and animals)

^^^^

I love that Jane - all else aside, that made me laugh simply because I know how sincere you are about it - and rightly.

Having a baby at 70 is ridiculous. Come on.

Thinking purely on if the Childs needs are being met then it is ethical if they are but on age I feel it's a little unethical now because like many of you have stayed there is more chance of them dying when the child is younger thus being left alone, sent to care or adopted.

Jane, then you have that right to weigh in on it, because you'll do something to help with the situation, old adage, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. We can sit back and judge all we want, but who is to say these parents can't provide a quality of life to this child that 20 or 30 year old parents could only dream of, I didn't see anyone saying Dave lettermen was too old when he became a new father in his mid 60's.

"Having a baby at 70 is ridiculous. Come on."

^apparently not to those who matter the most.

The question I'd like to ask is.. What if it was their first child and could only conceive then?

^absolutely not, one must be put into a box, they must fit certain criteria in order to escape society's wrath......we paint these scenario's of what people should be able and not be able to do, not understanding their motives. What I find hilariously funny, is most of those who have spoken out against this couple, are the main ones supporting the transgender bathroom issue.....and please don't say it's different altogether, because 70 years ago, nobody would have even thought to raise such an issue. People are living longer, experimenting with new things, the world is evolving, not always for the better, but evolving none the less. I'd rather see a 70 year old mother than a 10 year old mother....think about that......

I'd rather see a 70 year old mother than a 10 year old mother....think about that......
^
I'd rather see neither.

Not sure how transgender issues have anything to do with age of becoming a new parent.

Ive been trying to comment on this thread but hadn't had the chance

I have a cousin who is about 7 yrs old. Her parents are in their late 40's. She once asked them, "why did you have me at such old age? Why didn't you think of me? You are going to die soon and who is going to take care of me."

My cousin seems to be concern about her future. Also, her having friends with parents that are younger, in their 30's, have made her ponder about her future.

I have not read the article but I have schemed through some of the posts. In my opinion for a woman to have a baby at that age is risky. I don't find any problem if the man is older.

I mean I have seen couples, one who the man is 60 and the woman in their 30's. I think so long as the woman is between 20-35, it would okay to have a baby without the pregancy being too risky for both the mother and the baby.

I'd rather see a 70 year old mother than a 10 year old mother....think about that......

^^^

It is medically possible to impregnate a pre-pubescent girl using the same technique. Would opinions change if the headlines had read..."10 year old girl gives birth after reciving IVF treatment"?

I don't feel like that's a fair comparison (the 10/70 difference). One is a grown woman, an adult, the other is a child that is still developing.

The idea of a 10 year old being a parent shatters my heart.

The point I'm trying to put across is this...Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's ethical.

The idea of a 10 year old being a parent shatters my heart

^you'd be surprised how many 10-13 year old mothers there are, and what's even worse is how many there would have been if not for a medical procedure......

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's ethical.

^a lot of things are possible that aren't really ethical, and yet who is to really say what is or isn't ethical, in some tribes cannibalism is acceptable, it's unethical in most places, some people deem taking body parts from the deceased to enhance someone else's life unethical, yet it is done daily.....

Everlasting, when we worry about how people view us, and compare ourselves to others, that becomes our problem, when we live our own lives accordingly and not worry about what others think of us, we have truly understood the concept of freedom.

Cannibalism in western culture is taboo, but I don't view it as unethical, more a practice that has no use in western culture. It serves a purpose in other cultures (either to prevent starvation by eating limbs/the elderly who walk out into the cold to die for the sake of their families, or eating powerful members of warring clans, etc).
Taking body parts from the deceased to save the dying... are you talking about organ donors? How could that be unethical when the person volunteered to donate their organs upon death (pink sticker on the license)? Seems to me there is nothing more selfless and honorable. I'd like to hear someone explain how it's unethical because maybe I'm missing the point.

I view having a baby at age 70 universally unethical, regardless of culture.

Everlasting, if the baby is healthy, there should be no difference in whether the mother or father or both are any age. This 72 year old woman's baby was born healthy. So you're on board with the idea then? What do you take from what your young cousin said about her older parents?

Someone should mention that IVF did fail twice for this elderly woman before she had a baby come to full term. She endured 2 miscarriages. I'm not sure if either was partially due to her age/age-related factors, but I would guess so.

The parents might live longer than their own child, who knows?!

It's ironic how such expensive procedure for a post-menopausal woman is so affordable in an overpopulated society like India, strange world indeed!

Someone should mention that IVF did fail twice for this elderly woman before she had a baby come to full term. She endured 2 miscarriages. I'm not sure if either was due to her age/age-related factors, but I would guess so.

^you would guess so, probably wrong on that too, because she had a healthy one the third time, many even a lot younger women don't go full term and have many miscarriages......and who are you to say it's universally unethical, so basically you're saying you speak for everyone and can say what's ethical and what's not.....seriously, get off your high horse. They seem to be happy, and I've already addressed the question you asked everlasting, teach the child not to worry about how others view her, or what others do in their families, worry about your own, we could all benefit from that practice

IVF fails alllllll the time. That's a huge reason why I'm not going down that path right now. It's highly expensive, and the success rate isn't high enough to be able to just "try" it. I have a friend who, in my opinion, is the epitome of health - as is her reproductive system (according to her doctors, unexplained infertility, hubby is fine, too) and she went through IVF failure 4 times... 5th times a charm in her case. She's 25.

I can't comment on the cannibalism, because I literally gagged when I read the comments... lol.

What I would say is that if anybody puts themselves and their bodies through that at that age, they are desperate to have a baby. I am not woman, but I hear a woman's mind can do funny things to her where kids are concerned. Maybe the need simply was too overwhelming. It sounds like she wanted it badly enough that she will give it all the love, care and attention she can for as much time as she can; how unethical can that really be?
Jane, I do see your point, and am tempted to agree to an extent, but as has been mentioned above, there are just too many other dreadful parenting traits that need addressing before we worry too much if age should be included in that.

Bob, you need to stop being disrespectful when we're all here to share our opinions.
I said "I view," not "this is fact." By "universally," I meant I view it as unethical across cultures, not that every person views it as unethical. I've been speaking for myself this whole time, not for anyone else. Get off your own high horse, especially when you have the audacity to speak for other people. You answered the question I asked Everlasting, so that means she doesn't have to answer it? She can choose to answer my question or not without your say so.

Britt, you're right, IVF often fails no matter the age of the mother and it's the mother's choice if she wants to endure potential miscarriages.
Age is a confounding variable since the health of babies born to mothers at age 70 is considerably less guaranteed than the health of babies born to mothers at age 35, all other factors aside.
And yeah, cannibalism lol. I took a few anthropology classes and had my eyes opened to some bizarre practices in other cultures. Not bizarre for them though of course.

Ben, I do totally see where you're coming from. Maybe a good parent at age 70 is still better than a bad parent. I have no idea though. Sometimes I think loving someone with all your heart and having them pass away without having enough time together is the worst pain of all.
Of course we'd have to somehow determine a scale for bad parenting because there's a large spectrum, from negligence to abuse. I suppose I think someone who wants to have a baby at age 70 has already exhibited selfishness and poor judgment, so I worry for their child-rearing practices. I just hope the elderly couple in this case has fully thought through their child's well-being and have come up with a backup plan.

As for motherhood, I know for myself personally that if I simply cannot have children by age ~45, I'll accept that I'm not going to be a mother and perhaps just be the best cat mom and best aunt that I can. I hope it never comes to that because I would love to be a mom.

I read this article this morning and found it informative. It discusses both perspectives in this thread. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922699/

Anyway, I've given my two cents and then some, so I'll step out of this thread now. Thanks for creating such an interesting discussion, Hellon. I enjoyed reading everyone's perspectives and was quite surprised by most of the responses.

It's disrespectful to say it's universally unethical, that's not an opinion, that's a judgement, and again I ask, who are you to make that call......you get what you give, if you consider my response disrespectful, then we are even, it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to harshly ask you who do you think you are to make that assertion, I found your comment disrespectful, you found mine the same, let's leave it at that.

As for motherhood, I know for myself personally that if I simply cannot have children by age ~45, I'll accept that I'm not going to be a mother and perhaps just be the best cat mom and best aunt that I can. I hope it never comes to that because I would love to be a mom.

^ that is your choice, it wasn't theirs and we shouldn't look down on them for it, just like some shouldn't look down on you for maybe trying at 45, some even deem that too old.

Most of the comments have been insightful so please keep it that way folks. I've read that this couple, and the two other elderly mothers from India to give birth (through IVF) in recent times, have mainly done so to lift the stigma attached to childless couples. Apparently they are viewed as 'unlucky' and are avoided by their community. They are considered 'socially unacceptable' and are not invited to participate in village gatherings. From what I've read, this seems to be the main reason for them seeking IVF treatment and not, as some seem to believe as a longing to give birth to their own child.

^you'd be surprised how many 10-13 year old mothers there are, and what's even worse is how many there would have been if not for a medical procedure......

^^^

Regarding this statement Bob..I know it happens but...narrowing it down slightly, how many of these children fell pregnant as a result of an IVF treatment?

It's ironic how such expensive procedure for a post-menopausal woman is so affordable in an overpopulated society like India, strange world indeed!

^^^^

Very good point Samia!

EDIT...

I'd love to hear a comment from our mod Meena who lives in India regarding this matter???