Skip to main content

CheekyPixie
There's a woman who has been in the news all morning, aged 66 years old, who has had IVF to get pregnant, (because of course it's impossible to get pregnant 'naturally' at that age...) She is due to give birth soon...

So what are peoples' views and opinions on this? Personally I think it's ludicrous and outrageous. A woman of 66 having a baby should be against the law. (In fact, I think it IS in this country, because she had to go to an eastern block country, to get the IVF treatment!)

I think she is plain selfish, and has not thought this through at all.. When the child is at school, they will get teased, as most of the children will have GRANNIES younger than their mother. Also, the child is probably going to end up an ORPHAN, by the time he/she is a teenager or in their early 20s.... (As the woman is going it alone, and using a sperm donor, so there is no father..) Trust me, even if you are an ADULT (according to the law,) when you lose your parents; it's devastating, but to have NO parents by the time you're maybe 15 to 22 years old, is heartbreaking...

The younger a person is, the more traumatising and devastating it is to lose their parent. And there is a very high chance that this child will not have any parents left before the age of 20. Why do these people over 55/60 not think about this, when they choose to have IVF treatment?

In this country, you cannot have IVF over the age of 50, and with good reason. Having a baby over that age is unreasonable and ridiculous IMO. Women cease to conceive naturally by their mid to late 40s, for a reason. I am all for IVF for women who cannot get pregnant; if they are of a reasonable age... in other words; an age where most women could/would conceive 'naturally...' (ie; under 50...)

The woman said 'but I feel like I'm 39 years old, not 66.' Newsflash dear; you're NOT 39! You're 66!!!

In 10 to 12 years time, she may well need constant care, as she will be neary EIGHTY! The child will not even have reached their teens at that point. All she is thinking of is herself, and I think at THAT age, (66 years old,) she should be getting herself a puppy or a kitten, NOT a new baby. Shake Head

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2...6/66-year-old-mother
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ

Replies sorted oldest to newest

CheekyPixieCheekyPixieMember
In answer to your post singingringingtree:

Usually when a man has a baby at an older age (like over 55/60,) he has a wife/partner who is of child-bearing age, and so if he dies just 10 years after the baby dies... then the child will still have his/her mother, for quite a number of years probably.

This child is guaranteed to be an orphan before they are 20. Has anyone any comprehension of how devastated this child is going to be, when they are an orphan at 15 to 20 years old -possibly younger... all because this woman wants to satisfy her selfish needs? Having a child is a gift and a privilege; not a right.
CheekyPixie
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
CheekyPixieCheekyPixieMember
quote:
Originally posted by china:
des o'connor knocked one out not long ago-he's about 100!
Again China, as I pointed out above... his wife is of child bearing age (only in her 30s...when she had the baby,) and is a lot more likely to be there for many years for their child, after Des has gone. The child I am on about, will be ALONE at a young age, with NO parents.
CheekyPixie
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
HH Hotpants HelenMember
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
In answer to your post singingringingtree:

Usually when a man has a baby at an older age (like over 55/60,) he has a wife/partner who is of child-bearing age, and so if he dies just 10 years after the baby dies... then the child will still have his/her mother, for quite a number of years probably.

This child is guaranteed to be an orphan before they are 20. Has anyone any comprehension how devastated this child is going to be, when they are an orphan at 15 to 20 years old -possibly younger... all because this woman wants to satisfy her selfish needs? Having a child is a gift and a privilege; not a right.


No one is guaranteed to have a mother into their adult life. A tragic event can happen at any time.

And if the 66 year old woman had a partner in their 30's/40's would that make it acceptable to you.
HH
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
CheekyPixieCheekyPixieMember
quote:
Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
loosing your father at a young age is no picknick.
My point is that this child will be ALONE, with NO parents, as this woman is 66 and has no partner. So having NO parents at a young age is worse than losing one parent at a young age. Which is exactly what theis thread is about. Your last post here confirms what I think; that having babies when you are older (over 50,) is selfish and wrong.
CheekyPixie
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
The Singing Ringing TreeThe Singing Ringing TreeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
In answer to your post singingringingtree:

Usually when a man has a baby at an older age (like over 55/60,) he has a wife/partner who is of child-bearing age, and so if he dies just 10 years after the baby dies... then the child will still have his/her mother, for quite a number of years probably.

This child is guaranteed to be an orphan before they are 20. Has anyone any comprehension how devastated this child is going to be, when they are an orphan at 15 to 20 years old -possibly younger... all because this woman wants to satisfy her selfish needs? Having a child is a gift and a privilege; not a right.


No one is guaranteed to have a mother into their adult life. A tragic event can happen at any time.

And if the 66 year old woman had a partner in their 30's/40's would that make it acceptable to you.
The Singing Ringing Tree
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
kattymieowwkattymieowwMember 10 years
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
In answer to your post singingringingtree:

Usually when a man has a baby at an older age (like over 55/60,) he has a wife/partner who is of child-bearing age, and so if he dies just 10 years after the baby dies... then the child will still have his/her mother, for quite a number of years probably.

This child is guaranteed to be an orphan before they are 20. Has anyone any comprehension of how devastated this child is going to be, when they are an orphan at 15 to 20 years old -possibly younger... all because this woman wants to satisfy her selfish needs? Having a child is a gift and a privilege; not a right.


My niece was an orphan at 19,her mum died when she was two(her mum was 28).Her dad died nearly three years ago(he was 53). She's 22 this year and lives with me.So being "young" parents still doesn't bring guarantees.
kattymieoww
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
CheekyPixieCheekyPixieMember
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
if the 66 year old woman had a partner in their 30's/40's would that make it acceptable to you.


No.

Nature dictates that women should no longer have babies after their mid 40s. A woman having a baby at 66 is ridiculous, as most people here have stated.

Why do you think a woman should have a right to have a baby at 66 years old? Moreover, the ONLY way she can have it is through IVF... She will probably leave the child an orphan in the teens or younger, or a carer to a very elderly person in their teens or younger; one or the other.

Is that acceptable to you? For a young child/teeneger to be placed in this situation?
CheekyPixie
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
The Singing Ringing TreeThe Singing Ringing TreeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
loosing your father at a young age is no picknick.
My point is that this child will be ALONE, with NO parents, as this woman is 66 and has no partner. So having NO parents at a young age is worse than losing one parent at a young age. Which is exactly what theis thread is about. Your last post here confirms what I think; that having babies when you are older (over 50,) is selfish and wrong.
no it doesn't.
The Singing Ringing Tree
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
chinachinaMember
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
quote:
Originally posted by china:
des o'connor knocked one out not long ago-he's about 100!
Again China, as I pointed out above... his wife is of child bearing age (only in her 30s...when she had the baby,) and is a lot more likely to be there for many years for their child, after Des has gone. The child I am on about, will be ALONE at a young age, with NO parents.


i agree with ya on the womans being selfish-but the women who do this are usually mega-rich, so money can buy them what they want-so while the kid will probably be motherless by the time their teen/twenties arrive-it will be finacially secure
AGAIN-NOT! the best/ideal situation to bring a child up in-im just pointing out the financial side-they kid will never want for anything, as far as possessions go anyway,
i suppose thats her 'argument'

however i'd rather have my dad back and my mom in good health-than a few squillion in the bank
china
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
CheekyPixieCheekyPixieMember
quote:
Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:no it doesn't.


yes it does. You have confirmed that it's no picnic losing your father at a young age, which confirms what I said, that losing parents at a young age is upsetting. So you're agreeing with me. How can you say losing your father at a young age is upsetting and is 'no picnic,' and then go on to support this woman? You're contradicting yourself.
CheekyPixie
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
The Singing Ringing TreeThe Singing Ringing TreeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:no it doesn't.


yes it does. You have confirmed that it's no picnic losing your father at a young age, which confirms what I said, that losing parents at a young age is upsetting. So you're agreeing with me. How can you say losing your father at a young age is upsetting and is 'no picnic,' and then go on to support this woman? You're contradicting yourself.
Who says I suport this woman?
The Singing Ringing Tree
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
HH Hotpants HelenMember
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
quote:
Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
if the 66 year old woman had a partner in their 30's/40's would that make it acceptable to you.


No.

Nature dictates that women should no longer have babies after their mid 40s. A woman having a baby at 66 is ridiculous, as most people here have stated.

Why do you think a woman should have a right to have a baby at 66 years old? Moreover, the ONLY way she can have it is through IVF... She will probably leave the child an orphan in the teens or younger, or a carer to a very elderly person in their teens or younger; one or the other.

Is that acceptable to you? For a young child/teeneger to be placed in this situation?


As I said in a previous post a parents age is no guarantee that they will be with them until they are an adult.

As medical advances has allowed women to become pregnant later in life why should they be denied the use of these advances.
HH
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
Next

Add Reply

Views: 4,495

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×

Access to this requires a premium membership.

VIP

Upgrade to VIP premium membership for just $25/year to unlock these benefits:

 

Ad-FreeSearch SiteStart Dialogs
Upload PhotosUpload VideosUpload Audio
Upload DocumentsUse SignatureBlock Members
View Member DirectoryMark All Topics As ReadEdit Posts Anytime
Post To Walls  
$25.00 per 12 Months (plus tax if applicable)
×