British woman pregnant at 63..... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-04-2006, 08:51 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 11:55 PM
British woman pregnant at 63.....

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.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 09:21 AM   #2
War Child
 
MsGiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 905
Local Time: 09:55 AM
__________________

__________________
MsGiggles is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:25 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:55 PM
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?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:35 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 06:55 PM
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.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 11:07 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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.

it's her choice and her business, period.
__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 11:12 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dandy
exactly.

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 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 11:18 AM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:55 PM
... and yet another child goes unadopted ...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-04-2006, 12:17 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 01:13 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:55 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 01:57 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
... and yet another child goes unadopted ...
Word!

Now many of you know, I've chosen not to have children, but if I did I think I would adopt an older child. I have no desire to pass on my DNA. It's not that great.
__________________
Golightly Grrl is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 02:09 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Already having two children, it was not a matter of Rashbrook wanting to pass on her DNA.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 03:19 PM   #12
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 06:55 PM
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?
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 03:26 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Tilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6,500
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Re: British woman pregnant at 63.....

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono


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!
__________________
Tilli is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 03:44 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Re: Re: British woman pregnant at 63.....

Quote:
Originally posted by Tilli


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!
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
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 04:52 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy
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.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com