IVF clinics are helping women have babies at 60, despite greater risk of miscarriage and stillbirth - because there is no legal age limit, as Britain's oldest mother, 66, says it's how you feel inside that counts

No cut-off in law or guidance from regulators that tells doctors to restrict ages
Doctor says it is 'sexist' that older women cannot have kids when older men can
British women are at greater risk of miscarriage or stillbirth after menopause
Elizabeth Adeney became Britain's oldest mother in 2009 at the age of 66

For years many medical experts have refused IVF for women over 50 using donated eggs from a younger woman to become pregnant.

But there is no cut-off in law, and no guidance from the fertility regulator, leaving clinics free to push the limits. Critics now say they must face stricter rules.
Dr Macklon said: 'Women over 50 are asked to confirm with an obstetrician that they are fit and healthy for pregnancy, while their medical and social circumstances are assessed from a child welfare point of view.'

Dr Gaudoin said: 'There is a sexist element in saying women cannot have children in their 50s, when men can do so in their 70s and 80s. There is a 'yuck factor' and these prejudices should be challenged.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6587581/British-IVF-clinics-helping-women-babies-60-no-legal-age-limit.html

I don't see the sexist element at all. There's a very good reason a woman's fertility drops off at that age.

Amazingly in the UK more women are now having babies aged 40 and beyond than teenagers are.
Society has changed, many women want to establish a career before having kids, it's harder to afford to buy a decent home, people are no longer past it physically in their 40's and older, those reasons are easy to understand.

However, why any woman wants a baby at 66 is a mystery to me. My grandson was starting uni when I was 66.

Add to that the very real fact that people who have older parents (especially mothers) may end up caring for them instead of living their teenage years free from stress makes me think ….in some situations we shouldn't mess with nature.

+1

Syl wrote:However, why any woman wants a baby at 66 is a mystery to me. My grandson was starting uni when I was 66.

Good question. I've always assumed it was because having babies proves one's femininity. There are manly things, and there are womanly things.

It it's something else, I'm open and listening.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:However, why any woman wants a baby at 66 is a mystery to me. My grandson was starting uni when I was 66.

Good question.  I've always assumed it was because having babies proves one's femininity.  There are manly things, and there are womanly things.

It it's something else, I'm open and listening.

Maybe to some women having babies does prove femininity, but I would think just being a woman proves ones feminity.
I think the over riding reason women do have babies is because they have motherly instincts, it's a basic natural feeling of needing to nurture a child with the man they love.

However, when a woman reaches a certain age where she can no longer conceive naturally, I think she should accept that she has missed that particular boat, there is always fostering or adopting.
Women have on average 25 or 30 natural child bearing years, to wait till they are drawing their old age pension seems very selfish to me.

Syl wrote:Maybe to some women having babies does prove femininity, but I would think just being a woman proves ones feminity.

Perhaps I should have said, drives home the point more forcibly. Being a man is self-evident too, but some men will act more macho in order to emphasize their manhood.

Syl wrote:I think the over riding reason women do have babies is because they have motherly instincts, it's a basic natural feeling of needing to nurture a child with the man they love.

If that's the motive, I think there's nothing wrong with it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I think the over riding reason women do have babies is because they have motherly instincts, it's a basic natural feeling of needing to nurture a child with the man they love.

If that's the motive, I think there's nothing wrong with it.

Nothing wrong with it if you are of an age to bring up your child, if you are an OAP chances are you will either die or lumber the poor child with being a mother to you rather than you doing the job you started.
This sense of entitlement some women have, even when the reality is they could be causing ill health, deformity or death to any child they may have, proves that older women who insist on getting pregnant through artificial means are just selfish and self indulgent imo.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If that's the motive, I think there's nothing wrong with it.

Nothing wrong with it if you are of an age to bring up your child, if you are an OAP chances are you will either die or lumber the poor child with being a mother to you rather than you doing the job you started.
This sense of entitlement some women have, even when the reality is they could be causing ill health, deformity or death to any child they may have, proves that older women who insist on getting pregnant through artificial means are just selfish and self indulgent imo.

I think you are speculating too much about what will happen.  There's no certainty.

As age progresses, so does wisdom.  How valuable to have a wise mother teaching you, eh?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Nothing wrong with it if you are of an age to bring up your child, if you are an OAP chances are you will either die or lumber the poor child with being a mother to you rather than you doing the job you started.
This sense of entitlement some women have, even when the reality is they could be causing ill health, deformity or death to any child they may have, proves that older women who insist on getting pregnant through artificial means are just selfish and self indulgent imo.

I think you are speculating too much about what will happen.  There's no certainty.

As age progresses, so does wisdom.  How valuable to have a wise mother teaching you, eh?

Has your age stopped progressing?

I think it's incredibly selfish to be having a kid at 66

by the time the kid is 10 it could well be caring for parent

and parent could well be dead by the time the kid reaches 18

+1

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Nothing wrong with it if you are of an age to bring up your child, if you are an OAP chances are you will either die or lumber the poor child with being a mother to you rather than you doing the job you started.
This sense of entitlement some women have, even when the reality is they could be causing ill health, deformity or death to any child they may have, proves that older women who insist on getting pregnant through artificial means are just selfish and self indulgent imo.

I think you are speculating too much about what will happen.  There's no certainty.

As age progresses, so does wisdom.  How valuable to have a wise mother teaching you, eh?

Not always sadly....if it did these women who are in their 60's would be clever enough to realise having a baby so late in life is a stupid, selfish decision.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are speculating too much about what will happen.  There's no certainty.

As age progresses, so does wisdom.  How valuable to have a wise mother teaching you, eh?

Not always sadly....if it did these women who are in their 60's would be clever enough to realise having a baby so late in life is a stupid, selfish decision.

Haha...good point.

But you still haven't made an argument why older women shouldn't give birth. Even if I don't come up with a good reason why they should, it seems to me it's up to them.

Family burden is not very strong...after all, the family can say no.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
Not always sadly....if it did these women who are in their 60's would be clever enough to realise having a baby so late in life is a stupid, selfish decision.

Haha...good point.

But you still haven't made an argument why older women shouldn't give birth.  Even if I don't come up with a good reason why they should, it seems to me it's up to them.

Family burden is not very strong...after all, the family can say no.

I think I have made several good reasons, age and health of an ageing parent being a burden on a young child or teen...increased risk of giving birth to a baby with severe medical problems, increased risk of still birth.

You however haven't given any good reason why a woman in her 60's should be entitled to be given treatment to enable to give birth.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...good point.

But you still haven't made an argument why older women shouldn't give birth.  Even if I don't come up with a good reason why they should, it seems to me it's up to them.

Family burden is not very strong...after all, the family can say no.

I think I have made several good reasons, age and health of an ageing parent being a burden on a young child or teen...increased risk of giving birth to a baby with severe medical problems, increased risk of still birth.

I don't think age is a good reason. Burden on others is not an impediment. No more than when you are young. Just make enough money.

Syl wrote:You however haven't given any good reason why a woman in her 60's should be entitled to be given treatment to enable to give birth.

Because she wants to. There is no law against it, is there?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think I have made several good reasons, age and health of an ageing parent being a burden on a young child or teen...increased risk of giving birth to a baby with severe medical problems, increased risk of still birth.

I don't think age is a good reason.  Burden on others is not an impediment.  No more than when you are young.  Just make enough money.

Syl wrote:You however haven't given any good reason why a woman in her 60's should be entitled to be given treatment to enable to give birth.

Because she wants to.  There is no law against it, is there?

No law, but in this country a woman has to go abroad if she is past a certain age and wants IVF....so there is a semblance of good sense here at least.
Age is a good reason, if you are pushing 80 when your child is just leaving primary school, I pity that child.
Money helps, at least you can hire other people to bring your kids up when you are no longer physically or mentally able....but doesn't that sort of defeat the object?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
Not always sadly....if it did these women who are in their 60's would be clever enough to realise having a baby so late in life is a stupid, selfish decision.

Haha...good point.

But you still haven't made an argument why older women shouldn't give birth.  Even if I don't come up with a good reason why they should, it seems to me it's up to them.

Family burden is not very strong...after all, the family can say no.

Huge physical strain on the woman's body.
Increased chance of eclampsia
Increased chance of birth defects
Increased risk of gestational diabetes
Increased risk of premature birth
Increased risk of miscarriage
Ischaemic stroke - the type caused by a blood clot - increased by 60 per cent

And don't think men aren't affected.
Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30 because age affects the DNA in both sexes. Google the Paternal age effect

And all this without even touching on the psychological impact of having elderly parents when you're just a kid with no siblings. You lose mum and dad you're alone. That's an awful burden for a child.

But there's no law that says she can't.

I was surprised to hear Syl say that beyond a certain age people are prohibited from having ivf in Britain. But that's the conception procedure...not the birth.

I'm sure there is no law saying a couple in their 90's can adopt either.

I'm sure most people would say it's a bad idea to adopt at that age.

I'm sure there is someone on this forum, that would disagree with that.

Original Quill wrote:But there's no law that says she can't.

I was surprised to hear Syl say that beyond a certain age people are prohibited from having ivf in Britain.  But that's the conception procedure...not the birth.

There's no law on cannibalism in the States. Does that make it OK?
There is no federal law in the States which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals. Is that OK?
In 34 states it's legal to fire someone for being transgender. Is that OK?
there are still 27 states in the US where you can be fired for being a homosexual. Is that OK?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But there's no law that says she can't.

I was surprised to hear Syl say that beyond a certain age people are prohibited from having ivf in Britain.  But that's the conception procedure...not the birth.

There's no law on cannibalism in the States.  Does that make it OK?

Cannibalism is prohibited in Idaho, Title 18, Chapt. 50:

"(1) Any person who wilfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism."

HT wrote:There is no federal law in the States which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals.  Is that OK?

In Texas bestiality is legal. In most states it is not. If it's not illegal, it is legal.

In 34 states it's legal to fire someone for being transgender.  Is that OK?
there are still 27 states in the US where you can be fired for being a homosexual.  Is that OK?

Those are unconstitutional. Many laws are still on the books, but they are dormant because they have been declared unconstitutional.

The Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution or federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender are commonly interpreted to include transgender people and discrimination based on gender identity. President, Dr. Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in employment by the federal government and its contractors.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

There's no law on cannibalism in the States.  Does that make it OK?

Cannibalism is prohibited in Idaho, Title 18, Chapt. 50:

"(1) Any person who wilfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism."

HT wrote:There is no federal law in the States which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals.  Is that OK?

In Texas bestiality is legal.  In most states it is not.  If it's not illegal, it is legal.

In 34 states it's legal to fire someone for being transgender.  Is that OK?
there are still 27 states in the US where you can be fired for being a homosexual.  Is that OK?

Those are unconstitutional.  Many laws are still on the books, but they are dormant because they have been declared unconstitutional.  

The Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution or federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender are commonly interpreted to include transgender people and discrimination based on gender identity.  President, Dr. Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in employment by the federal government and its contractors.

Still got a point though, haven't I? Constitutional or not.

HT wrote:Still got a point though, haven't I? Constitutional or not.

Yes. Neither one of us are right...or wrong.