SO wrong! 67-year-old mother gives birth to twins

Give me any person, and I can come up with reasons why that person won't be a perfect parent. This woman is no different. Just like everyone else, she has some unique difficulties, and she has some unique advantages.
Ghost Poster, how old were your parents when you were born, and how did they conceive you?

I don't think ALL your issues with them are due to their age, but SOME definitely are.

For the record, I also don't think teens having children is generally a good idea nor do I think the majority of teenage parents are good parents. However, teen pregnancy is generally not a choice people make (if it is, I disagree with that choice.) And I don't think anyone would argue that it is not extremely difficult for both the parents, the child and their families or that it is anything that we want to encourage. Same for people nearly 70 getting in-vitro. I don't think it's bad to say that.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Ghost Poster, how old were your parents when you were born, and how did they conceive you?

I don't think ALL your issues with them are due to their age, but SOME definitely are.

For the record, I also don't think teens having children is generally a good idea nor do I think the majority of teenage parents are good parents. However, teen pregnancy is generally not a choice people make (if it is, I disagree with that choice.) And I don't think anyone would argue that it is not extremely difficult for both the parents, the child and their families or that it is anything that we want to encourage. Same for people nearly 70 getting in-vitro. I don't think it's bad to say that.
Originally Posted by Amneris
See, that is your opinion. Saying it's "shameful" for this woman to have children? That's a judgement call, and includes a moral/ethical aspect that an opinion does not.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Rock on with your bad self.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Be excellent to each other. ~ Abraham Lincoln

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ghost Poster - I do think your situation is partly just bad parenting. Sadly, there ARE lots of younger parents who raise their cihldren in the same way. Obviously (and very understandably!) your opinion in this situation will be affected by your personal experience with your parents, but I don't think *all* situations will be that way with older parents. No doubt a lot of what you mentioned DID have to do with the age of your parents, and not just bad parenting. I'm sorry you went through all of that... it sounds terrible.

Overall, I do think older people are probably not going to be capable of raising their children to adulthood successfully, but as others have pointed out, there ARE lots of bad parents at many ages.
Ghost Poster, how old were your parents when you were born, and how did they conceive you?

I don't think ALL your issues with them are due to their age, but SOME definitely are.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Agreed, and I believe GP said she was adopted, not conceived by the older parents that raised her. Correct me if I'm wrong, GP
Ghost Poster, how old were your parents when you were born, and how did they conceive you?

I don't think ALL your issues with them are due to their age, but SOME definitely are.

For the record, I also don't think teens having children is generally a good idea nor do I think the majority of teenage parents are good parents. However, teen pregnancy is generally not a choice people make (if it is, I disagree with that choice.) And I don't think anyone would argue that it is not extremely difficult for both the parents, the child and their families or that it is anything that we want to encourage. Same for people nearly 70 getting in-vitro. I don't think it's bad to say that.
Originally Posted by Amneris
See, that is your opinion. Saying it's "shameful" for this woman to have children? That's a judgement call, and includes a moral/ethical aspect that an opinion does not.
Originally Posted by PartyHair
ITA.
This is shameful, with all the children in the world waiting to be adopted or fostered or mentored who need loving homes or the support of someone living in the west. It's too bad that this woman preferred to use an egg donor than help some existing children.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Be careful, there. It's not too far a logical leap to go from this statement to saying the same thing about any woman choosing to get pregnant rather than adopt/foster/mentor "some existing children" "who need loving homes or the support of someone living in the west."

I really don't think you want or mean to say that, but you're standing on a slippery slope with THAT argument.
Originally Posted by fig jam
I was just about to post the same thing. Amneris, what if someone said what is bolded to you but instead of saying "use an egg donor" they said "choose to become pregnant"? How would you respond?
Originally Posted by Peppy
To an extent, I do feel guilty about becoming pregnant when there are so many kids in need, so I wouldn't get all up in arms if someone said that. My husband and I ALWAYS said we want to adopt or foster at least one or two kids and give them a home whether or not we have biological kids. It was so important to me that I made sure it was discussed and he was on board before we got married. We have been sponsoring two children since we got married and would love to add more.

We are having biolgical children because to us in our faith, it is a spiritual thing - one of the main elements of marriage to us is procreation and an openness to being blessed wit children if this is God's will. We could not get married in our Church unless we promised in our pre-nup with our priest to be open to having children together. We were taught that if we were deliberately to prevent ourselves permanently from conceiving a child that we could be jeopardizing a Church wedding. Plus we have the usual reasons of couples who conceive children for desiring a family, and I have always loved kids and seen motherhood as a vocation that I am called to.

But I also always said that if there were medical reasons preventing us from conceiving, we would take that as God's will that we were meant to become non-biological children. We decided that we would not use IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, surrogates etc. because we are morally opposed to that. Instead, we would allow ourselves to be blessed with adoptive kids.

If we were able to conceive (which apparently we are), one or two of the three or four kids we want will be adopted or fostered, and I have already made that vow to the Lord. In this way, I feel good about having a biological child because he or she is preparing the way for us to open our home to another child.

It's not my place to judge what others do, but I do wish more people out there, whatever their fertility status, would consider adoption or fostering.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Just another thing to think about, but some agencies may put you lower on the list if you have bio children of your own. There are a lot more things that affect your ability to adopt a child than just having home studies and background checks.

My best friend has adopted three children. The third one and the first one have the same birth mother. That's the ONLY reason that she was able to adopt him IMMEDIATELY without having to go through more cr@p from the agency. She has a friend who wants to adopt, but is on a 5 or more year waiting list, because she all ready has bio children.

Having a bio child is "preparing the way for us to open our home to another child." Are you serious? Wow. Just. Wow.
My mom did not discuss menstruation, sex, drugs, drinking with me. She smoked and allowed me to begin smoking at 17--when I finally asked her if it bothered her, she said no. I think that was my final cry for help, and she ignored it.

She was too out of touch and knew nothing about the latest drugs, pop culture influences, music, and behaviors of teens. She let us run completely wild. We NEVER had to ask permission to do anything. I would be gone for days at a time with my friends. She was completely intimidated by us. I exhibited every bad behavior you can think of and had no one to answer to. My friends thought it was great, but deep down, I knew it was a bad thing.

Some of this was just the times. You said you are 40? I'm 44, and smoking was fine with my parents too when I was a teenager...and they were signficantly younger than your parents. Smoking was just more socially acceptable then. I smoked at home and school...there was a student smoking lounge. Drinking wasn't so bad either. Hell, the drinking age was 18 then, not 21, and we'd all go out after high school at 3pm and drink at the bars. Drugs were common and readily available. I certainly never told my young parents that I was smoking dope outside the cafeteria at lunch time. Lots of kids run wild and intimidate their parents of all ages. And, after working in the field of women's health for a decade, I can't tell you how many young teen girls I had to explain the facts of life to, because they didn't have a clue.

That said, I don't agree with this 67-year-old mother. I think the risks of her dying before her children reach adulthood are too great to make it a wise choice. You'd think by 67, the woman would be wise enough not to do something so incredibly foolish.

Old men father children all the time, and very few people seem to comment about that though. Granted, mothers are generally more important in raising children than father are, but this topic really reveals a double standard.
Ghost -- I am truly sorry for your horrible childhood circumstances. Nevertheless, a large portion of what you mentioned is not a function of age. It's a function of neglect. My mother was 26 whne I was born. Her only information about menstruation was when I got my period. I didn't know about tampons b/c they weren't advertised on tv.

She was too out of touch and knew nothing about the latest drugs, pop culture influences, music, and behaviors of teens.

You could say the same about my mother.

When I was around 12 - 17, my mom "checked out." I guess looking back on it she might have been depressed. I don't know and don't care. My dad drank a lot of the time eventhough he held down a good job and did a bunch of the stuff a good father is to do. Nevertheless, I had primary responsibility for a 3 yo and a 7yo. I took it on b/c neither of them would consistently need what needed to be done: I washed my families clothes, taught myself to cook (Bisquik and frozen broccoli with cheese sauce are a 13 yo's best friend), cleaned the house, wrote the grocery list for my mother/father b/c I had a better sense of what was/was not in the fridge, what I needed for meals and what extras my bro & sis wanted. I made sure their permission slips got signed, that my parents got their butts in gear to take the kids to places on time, made sure permission slips got signed, packed school lunches, laid out clothes and monitored the sibs homework. Most of the time I didn't start my own homework until after 10 pm.

I love my parents, but WTH?

Crummy parents come at all ages. Other than extremely failing heath, I don't agree with reasons the "so wrong" people have sited.

KCL -- I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not pretending I don't think this is wrong or to a certain extent dangerous. A decision like the one this woman made is extraordinarily personal and it's not my place to condemn her.

I think it's an extremely slippery slope to say some categories of people should be excluded from being biological parents.
My mom did not discuss menstruation, sex, drugs, drinking with me. She smoked and allowed me to begin smoking at 17--when I finally asked her if it bothered her, she said no. I think that was my final cry for help, and she ignored it.

She was too out of touch and knew nothing about the latest drugs, pop culture influences, music, and behaviors of teens. She let us run completely wild. We NEVER had to ask permission to do anything. I would be gone for days at a time with my friends. She was completely intimidated by us. I exhibited every bad behavior you can think of and had no one to answer to. My friends thought it was great, but deep down, I knew it was a bad thing.

Some of this was just the times. You said you are 40? I'm 44, and smoking was fine with my parents too when I was a teenager...and they were signficantly younger than your parents. Smoking was just more socially acceptable then. I smoked at home and school...there was a student smoking lounge. Drinking wasn't so bad either. Hell, the drinking age was 18 then, not 21, and we'd all go out after high school at 3pm and drink at the bars. Drugs were common and readily available. I certainly never told my young parents that I was smoking dope outside the cafeteria at lunch time. Lots of kids run wild and intimidate their parents of all ages. And, after working in the field of women's health for a decade, I can't tell you how many young teen girls I had to explain the facts of life to, because they didn't have a clue.

That said, I don't agree with this 67-year-old mother. I think the risks of her dying before her children reach adulthood are too great to make it a wise choice. You'd think by 67, the woman would be wise enough not to do something so incredibly foolish.

Old men father children all the time, and very few people seem to comment about that though. Granted, mothers are generally more important in raising children than father are, but this topic really reveals a double standard.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Just to kind of expand, I agree with you that some of that was just the sign of the times, and how things were. My mom, 54, was also like this when she was younger. Drinking, smoking pot (she was a teen in the late 60's, early 70's) and some of the things that she used to do, and have her mother not know or not care was just how it was.
i think it's a completely unconscionable decision on the part of this woman, for many of the reasons stated.

there is a student in my class whose mother is not able to raise him, so the grandmother (whom i suspect is about this same woman's age) has stepped in to raise him. she loves him like the sun and moon and stars, but she is entirely unable to parent him. he runs rampant, and she does not have the werewhithal to give him limits or consistency in discipline. it is deeply affecting him adversely, and makes it very, very difficult for him to progress academically in my class, because the behavior issues are so taxing for both he and i.

i feel very sad for this child, and not a little bit depressed about the prospect of a happy future for this family.

m
coarse, thick 3a
modified cg







I think Bailey better read MY post! If you all only knew all the details of my upbringing, you would know how dangerous such a practice is. Let me put it this way...if I were growing up in the same situation today, I would likely be dead.

Not only this, but several of my son's friends are being raised by their grandparents, and believe me when I say it is very obvious that grandma and grandpa are neither in possession of adequate energy levels nor health to keep them in check. Nor can they relate to the issues and dangers these kids have to deal with today. They are completely out of touch--guess what: it's a significantly different world than it was 60 years ago.
Originally Posted by ~Ghost Poster~
I did read your post, and I'm sorry you had such a bad upbringing. I do however think it's very presumptuous for you to apply your situation to everyone. My parents were 19 when I was born, and guess what? They were also completely out of touch. They never talked to me about alcohol, drugs, or sex either. I don't think your situation had as much to do with age, as much as your parents having absolutely no clue what they were getting into when they had children
*Poster formerly known as Bailey422*

Here's all you have to know about men and women: women are crazy, men are stupid. And the main reason women are crazy is that men are stupid. ~ George Carlin
My mom did not discuss menstruation, sex, drugs, drinking with me. She smoked and allowed me to begin smoking at 17--when I finally asked her if it bothered her, she said no. I think that was my final cry for help, and she ignored it.

She was too out of touch and knew nothing about the latest drugs, pop culture influences, music, and behaviors of teens. She let us run completely wild. We NEVER had to ask permission to do anything. I would be gone for days at a time with my friends. She was completely intimidated by us. I exhibited every bad behavior you can think of and had no one to answer to. My friends thought it was great, but deep down, I knew it was a bad thing.

Some of this was just the times. You said you are 40? I'm 44, and smoking was fine with my parents too when I was a teenager...and they were signficantly younger than your parents. Smoking was just more socially acceptable then. I smoked at home and school...there was a student smoking lounge. Drinking wasn't so bad either. Hell, the drinking age was 18 then, not 21, and we'd all go out after high school at 3pm and drink at the bars. Drugs were common and readily available. I certainly never told my young parents that I was smoking dope outside the cafeteria at lunch time. Lots of kids run wild and intimidate their parents of all ages. And, after working in the field of women's health for a decade, I can't tell you how many young teen girls I had to explain the facts of life to, because they didn't have a clue.

That said, I don't agree with this 67-year-old mother. I think the risks of her dying before her children reach adulthood are too great to make it a wise choice. You'd think by 67, the woman would be wise enough not to do something so incredibly foolish.

Old men father children all the time, and very few people seem to comment about that though. Granted, mothers are generally more important in raising children than father are, but this topic really reveals a double standard.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Just to kind of expand, I agree with you that some of that was just the sign of the times, and how things were. My mom, 54, was also like this when she was younger. Drinking, smoking pot (she was a teen in the late 60's, early 70's) and some of the things that she used to do, and have her mother not know or not care was just how it was.
Originally Posted by M2LR & Co.
My mom was like that too when she was a teenager. She's almost 53. She smoked from the time she was 9, her mom didn't mind. She drank quite a bit as a teenager, and smoked pot a lot (her mom knew). She also took a lot of prescription diet pills and "white crosses." She wasn't overweight adn they weren't prescribed to her... Of course, her mom was doped up on valium 24/7 and also an alcoholic, so that probably had a lot to do with it...
My not choosing to call this person's situation "wrong," "shameful," or "selfish," does not mean I'm in favor of fertility clinics changing their policies to accept 70+ year-old women into their programs. These types of cases are few and far in between. A lot of REs have serious moral and ethical dilemmas with cases such as the one we're discussing, so I don't see a trend starting.

But I know nothing about this woman's situation, so I can't say whether it's right or wrong for her. This is not about being PC or enlightened or whatever word was used by KCL earlier. It's about my discomfort with passing judgment about something I know nothing about. In my world, reserving judgement is not the same as condoning something. I'm not sure how some of you made that leap.
In my world, reserving judgement is not the same as condoning something. I'm not sure how some of you made that leap.
Originally Posted by medussa
My take on this part is because some people feel that if you don't say that you're against something, then you're obiviously FOR it. You can't just NOT say anything...

ITA with the rest of your post as well.
My not choosing to call this person's situation "wrong," "shameful," or "selfish," does not mean I'm in favor of fertility clinics changing their policies to accept 70+ year-old women into their programs. These types of cases are few and far in between. A lot of REs have serious moral and ethical dilemmas with cases such as the one we're discussing, so I don't see a trend starting.

But I know nothing about this woman's situation, so I can't say whether it's right or wrong for her. This is not about being PC or enlightened or whatever word was used by KCL earlier. It's about my discomfort with passing judgment about something I know nothing about. In my world, reserving judgement is not the same as condoning something. I'm not sure how some of you made that leap.
Originally Posted by medussa
I missed where anyone said you condoned it, medussa.

However, as far as "judgment" goes, I think it's about more than whether this is right for the woman, but also, is it right for the kids and whoever else may end up supporting them? And does it set a precedent for other people? And is it right morally or biologically? Isn't there a reason menopause generally happens at a certain age?

For me, I don't reserve judgment on things I think are morally wrong. and to me, IVF in general falls in that category, as it does for my Church. That's not even taking into account the woman's age, which only intensifies the issue. That to me is not the same as judging a person. We all make mistakes and have weaknesses and desires and circumstances. I understand that. I understand that the impulse to want children is very natural for most women. I think the doctors who performed the procedure are more to blame than the woman. And I can see why people who don't have a problem with IVF would think differently from me.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Well if nature didn't intend it, we shouldn't do it. No IVF for anyone. No viagra for anyone. No botox. No surgery to remove that malignant tumor; nature wants you to die. Just accept it all.
nature wants you to die.
Originally Posted by Lucille
Whether we accept it or not, we are all going to die so it would seem reasonable that we try to accept it.

Having some sort of standard for what behavior is acceptable or not (productive or not, moral or not, promotes survival or not, etc) is the age-old dilemna of being a human.

Attempting to use a natural standard for our behavior seems as reasonable an endeavor as any.
If there were more people on earth who desired their own happiness more than the unhappiness of others we would have a paradise ~ Bertrand Russell
nature wants you to die.
Originally Posted by Lucille
Whether we accept it or not, we are all going to die so it would seem reasonable that we try to accept it.

Having some sort of standard for what behavior is acceptable or not (productive or not, moral or not, promotes survival or not, etc) is the age-old dilemna of being a human.

Attempting to use a natural standard for our behavior seems as reasonable an endeavor as any.
Originally Posted by KatieCoolLady
How do we decide what is a natural standard though? Do we base it on animal behavior? If so, we are in trouble--many normal animal behaviors would be considered unconscionable if performed by humans.

Old men father children all the time, and very few people seem to comment about that though. Granted, mothers are generally more important in raising children than father are, but this topic really reveals a double standard.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
This is true.
If there were more people on earth who desired their own happiness more than the unhappiness of others we would have a paradise ~ Bertrand Russell

Trending Topics


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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com