British woman pregnant at 63.....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AchtungBono

Refugee
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
1,300
Location
Tel-Aviv, Israel
I have to say that I am totally against this - it is so not fair to the child.

I'm a 46 years old single woman and I realize that I will probably never have children because of my advanced age and the danger of giving birth to a child with a possible defect. Even though I'd love to be a mother I wouldn't be so selfish as to saddle my child with a mother who will need taking care of at such a tender age.

What do you think?

+++++++++++

From the CNN website:

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A 63-year-old hospital consultant is set to become Britain's oldest mother after undergoing fertility treatment, the Italian doctor who treated her said.

Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychologist from Lewes, East Sussex, was given in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment last October, Severino Antinori told Reuters.

Antinori, who said he was "excited and proud" about the treatment, gained notoriety in the early 1990s when he helped a 62-year-old Italian woman give birth following fertility treatment with a donated egg.

Italy has since introduced some of Europe's most restrictive laws on assisted reproduction and Antinori said he had carried out the procedure on Rashbrook in an unnamed former Soviet republic.

"The case of the English woman gave me great joy," he said, adding that the treatment was successful at the first attempt, using a single embryo.

He said Rashbrook, whom he last saw in November, was "perfect" for the treatment, because although she was 62 at the time, she had a biological age of about 45.

"She came here with her husband, the couple love each other, she is very slim, blonde and in perfect condition, she fits all the criteria for maternity."

"She should live for at least 20 to 25 years -- we are not giving birth to an orphan," he said.

Rashbrook's 61-year-old husband, John Farrant, told the Sun newspaper that his wife was seven months pregnant.

"We are of course both very happy and looking forward to the birth," he said.

"Obviously at our age it is quite a daunting prospect."

Farrant is Rashbrook's second husband and she has a 26-year-old daughter and a 22-year-old son, the paper said.

In a joint statement the couple said: "We wish to emphasize that this has not been an endeavor undertaken lightly or without courage."

"A great deal of thought has been given to planning and providing for the child's present and future well being, medically, socially and materially."

Many fertility clinics in Britain will not provide treatment for women past the normal age for childbirth.

In 1997, Welsh woman Liz Buttle became Britain's oldest mother at the age of 60. Media reports said she had obtained fertility treatment after lying about her age to doctors.

Last year, a 66-year-old Romanian, Adriana Iliescu, became the world's oldest mother when she gave birth to a baby girl after IVF treatment.
 
I don't know, it's not for me to tell anyone what to do about having a child at any time. Of course when there is a child involved it's not just a question of just your own life anymore.

On the other hand there are some kids with young parents who are terrible parents and their age doesn't matter at all. I'm sure she must have legal provisions for the child and for her own care and she will probably give him/her all the love she can for as long as she can. There are many kids who have younger parents who have physical limitations unrelated to age and who could die early from them -should they not have kids either?
 
I think that age and the potential for birth defects needs to be weighed out. There have been studies documenting that birth defects, particularly chromosomal disorders, increase as the mother ages. While senior citizens giving birth isn't an everyday occurence, this information still warrants mentioning.


"While the general population of childbearing women has a 3% chance of
delivering a child with a birth defect, after age 40 this risk rises
to between 6% and 8%. The likelihood of having a baby with Down's
syndrome is approximately 1 in 365 at the age of 35. This number
increases to 1 in 100 by the age of 40 and up to 1 in 40 at the age of
45."

Chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus also increase with maternal
age. In a recent study, in the age group 35 and younger, 63.6 percent
(7 of 11) had normal fetal chromosome makeup; in the elder maternal
age group, 35 and older, only 22 percent (9 of 41) had a normal fetal
genetic makeup (Schmidt-Sarosi, 1998).

With facts like that, I don't know if "celebrating" a mother giving birth at this age is the right approach.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't know, it's not for me to tell anyone what to do about having a child at any time. Of course when there is a child involved it's not just a question of just your own life anymore.

On the other hand there are some kids with young parents who are terrible parents and their age doesn't matter at all. I'm sure she must have legal provisions for the child and for her own care and she will probably give him/her all the love she can for as long as she can. There are many kids who have younger parents who have physical limitations unrelated to age and who could die early from them -should they not have kids either?

exactly. :up:

it's her choice and her business, period.
 
dandy said:
exactly. :up:

it's her choice and her business, period.

If she were doing it on her own, I would agree. But you have state funded fertility treatments (which are not cheap) - so its not just "her business, period".
 
nbcrusader said:


If she were doing it on her own, I would agree. But you have state funded fertility treatments (which are not cheap) - so its not just "her business, period".

seeing that the procedure took place in 'an unnamed former Soviet republic,' i suspect that she wasn't taking advantage of government-funded/subsized services.
 
I'm not defending what this woman did and of course there are ramifications, but there are also people who have genetic defects and diseases that can be passed down yet they have them anyway. Is that wrong? My brother is diabetic, that can be passed on-and had his first and only kid at the age of 40. His life could be shortened (most likely will be) because of diabetes and it could be passed down to his son. He is now divorced too.

Birth defect issues aside, where is the concern over men like Larry King, Don Imus, and non-celebrity men who have kids at "ripe old" ages?

And of course the fact that so many kids need to be adopted is relevant, but so many people have kids when they could adopt-that's just the reality.
 
I don't want to sound bitter about this, but it seems that pure vanity was the only reason to do that procedure. I mean, if nature decides when a woman must stop being fertile, it is because there is a reason, and in this case there was no need to act against the course of nature (the woman had already two children). Why she didn't adopt a kid?
 
AchtungBono said:


He said Rashbrook, whom he last saw in November, was "perfect" for the treatment, because although she was 62 at the time, she had a biological age of about 45.

"She came here with her husband, the couple love each other, she is very slim, blonde and in perfect condition, she fits all the criteria for maternity."


This bit of the article you quoted made me laugh. Good job she's slim and blonde - wouldn't want any fat, brown haired women having kids at 62! :huh:
 
Re: Re: British woman pregnant at 63.....

Tilli said:


This bit of the article you quoted made me laugh. Good job she's slim and blonde - wouldn't want any fat, brown haired women having kids at 62! :huh:

yeah... i was going to say the same thing... according to that, even If i'm way younger I wouldn't be a good candidate for pregnancy :lol:
 
Muggsy said:
I don't want to sound bitter about this, but it seems that pure vanity was the only reason to do that procedure. I mean, if nature decides when a woman must stop being fertile, it is because there is a reason, and in this case there was no need to act against the course of nature (the woman had already two children). Why she didn't adopt a kid?

I tend to agree. Yet, it's her business as others have said. But having never desired children, I just can't relate to this on any level.

I did recently meet an 87 year old man who hikes 10 miles in the mountains every single day. His face looks old but he's tan, dies his hair black, his posture and his body are amazing, all giving the appearance of a very fit person 25 years younger. A friend who is in her early 50s and very athletic went hiking with him once and said she could barely keep up. Sixty-three was old when I was a kid but now there is at least the potential for people to live longer and to be stronger and healthier late in life than used to be the case. Maybe the fact that nature complied with this un-natural method of getting pregnant indicates that nature is changing and evolving along with us. :shrug:
 
Re: Re: British woman pregnant at 63.....

Tilli said:


This bit of the article you quoted made me laugh. Good job she's slim and blonde - wouldn't want any fat, brown haired women having kids at 62! :huh:

Yeah, I had a good laugh at that too! :lol:


I can't really say what is right or wrong for anyone else, and I know many older people who are really great parents, but I wouldn't even consider doing it myself.
 
Wow she does not look 63

capt.24e8cda05e86428b845da4d6f5c6029a.britain_elderly_mother_lon808.jpg


timesonlineUK


Yesterday, Dr Rashbrook stepped out with her husband, John Farrant, 61, and said that she was “delighted with the pregnancy”. She is believed to be expecting a son. She said: “We are very happy to have given life to an already much loved baby and our wish now is to give him the peace and security he needs.”

When news of her pregnancy became public on Wednesday evening the couple hired a PR agency, which issued a statement saying: “This has not been an endeavour undertaken lightly or without great courage. A great deal of thought has been given to planning and providing for the child’s present and future wellbeing, medically, socially and materially.”
 
It's interesting why she would want to have a child at this time in her life, the sleepness nights, the breastfeeding, the nappies, the spewing, the crying, the washing, not to mention chasing after a 1 year old at 64!!!!....then first day of school when she is 70!!!!putting up with FBT's (f****bastard teenagers) and their FBT's friends around your house, when she is 80!!!!!

Personally when i'm 63 i would like to think i would be sunbaking on the island of Crete having a glass of plonk, looking at my grandchildren playing in the sand!!!!! :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom