extreme shellfish?

[R.D. Silverman]

See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...6pLid%3D442537

A woman decided to get pregnant.

At age 57.

Will she even be alive when her kids become teenagers?
How will someone who is 70+ cope with teenagers?

I see this as extremely selfish.

Opinions please?

[pinhodecarlos]

I agree with you.
How can she be able to play with her kids, in a wheel chair?
The society is twisted.
Even with my age (34) I think I am already late but it is due to the fact that I can't manage to settle down with a decent job where I can safely earn money to sustain a family. So far I only managed to earn money to pay the bills.
I know I can't think this way but I won't put a child in the world if I can keep the child.
But I really regret not having kids.... but now I am doing everything I can to change this. Probably I will give up my PhD because my scholarship is not enough to sustain me and my wife.

Carlos

[fivemack]

A lot of fifty-seven-year-olds end up with child-care responsibilities: if they're lucky it's a day a week because their daughter has horrible work commitments, if unlucky it's ten years straight because their daughter is behind bars.

A fair number of disabled people have kids: they cope.

The mother in the story has thirteen siblings: if the extended family holds together at all, that's almost a superabundant endowment of aunts and uncles.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by fivemack

A lot of fifty-seven-year-olds end up with child-care responsibilities: if they're lucky it's a day a week because their daughter has horrible work commitments, if unlucky it's ten years straight because their daughter is behind bars.

Certainly.

But you describe situations created out of strong NECESSITY.

Getting pregnant at 57 isn't necessary.

Doing so deliberately is unfair to the children.

The mother may be able to cope. However, you did not answer my primary question: Was her behavior selfish?

[chappy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Getting pregnant at 57 isn't necessary.

Getting pregnant at any age isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Doing so deliberately is unfair to the children.

The mother may be able to cope. However, you did not answer my primary question: Was her behavior selfish?

If by selfish you mean likely to result in the continuation of her genetic information then yes (ala Dawkins). If you mean something more sinister then I can't imagine the difference between this an a much younger person who works in a dangerous line of work.

I plugged some guesses into a Life Expectancy Calculator and came up with a reasonable guess that she can be expected to make it to 87 years of age. 30 year old children. Who wouldn't have existed otherwise.

My own life expectancy is 70 years, I am now 41. Would I be "selfish" to have a child now?

I'm much more offended by all the new-agey holistic meditating under a full moon and 'energy' healing crap.

[TheMawn]

I have a very different definition of selfish than most but I understand that your meaning is "immorally" selfish. By my definition, she is selfish, as is every person on earth during every second of their life. By moral definition... maybe?

None of us really have any right to tell her what she can and can't do. It's her choice to get pregnant just like a 37-year-old, or 17-year-old. Years ago in the Guinness book of World Records, I read of the oldest woman to give birth: one day before her 65th birthday. Same kind of crap.

One legitimate question here is can she survive labour? Being older and weaker than your typical late-twenties breeding stock, the kid is likely to be a lot smaller on its way out so maybe she can. I don't give a rat's ass about the danger she is putting herself in. On the other hand, I do give several rats' asses about the danger she is putting the kid in.

If she is risking bringing this kid into the world with nobody to care for it when she passes (highly likely she will be dead before the kid is self-sufficient) or worse, giving it a really bad start by virtue of she's fucking 57 years old, then she is in fact putting her own needs before those of her child, which is bad.

So, who knows if she's thought this through or not? I can't tell her she can't do this. As her doctor, I would probably refuse to perform the operation, but I can't tell her doctor what to do, either. As the man donating the sperm, I certainly would refuse, but I can't tell him what to do either.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

One legitimate question here is can she survive labour?

Here in the over-developed world, labour and child-birth are correlated but not perfectly.

FWIW, my mother was 42 when she had my youngest brother. She had a natural birth, two weeks later than predicted, but the surgeons were standing by to intervene at most 36 hours later.


Paul

[Brian-E]

One thing I note from the linked article is that the woman is now 66 and had her twins 9 years ago. There is no mention of any difficulties at birth. Or of any particular difficulties at the moment for that matter. So it would seem to be "so far so good" at the moment.

If she sought and took appropriate medical advice 9 years ago I would certainly not call her selfish. If she failed to consult any doctors, or if the doctors strongly advised against becoming pregnant, then I do have difficulty with her decision.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by xilman

FWIW, my mother was 42 when she had my youngest brother. She had a natural birth, two weeks later than predicted, but the surgeons were standing by to intervene at most 36 hours later.

Ouch!!!

We men have no idea how easy we have it.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

A woman decided to get pregnant.

At age 57.

Tweren't me that porked 'er, yerroner.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by xilman

FWIW, my mother was 42 when she had my youngest brother.

Paul

Mine was 43 when she had my youngest sibling. Normal birth.