valB Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I have just heard that a woman in India has given birth thanks to IVF at the ripe old age of 70...right or wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Right, just saw it on the France 3 news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valB Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 Oh my gosh. What are the views of forum members on this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nectarine Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 didn't Antony Quinn, the actor, become a father again at the age of 72? And I recall that so many people wre congratulating him on still "having it in him" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Framboise Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 All I can say is that she must be flaming deranged! [:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 It was reported in the Times in August (article below - scroll down to end):http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4450425.eceIs the one reported the same one and French news has only just found out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 No, the mother in the Times report had twins. The video is here, the report starts at about 1 minute 20 http://jt.france3.fr/1213/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cendrillon Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 [quote user="valB"]I have just heard that a woman in India has given birth thanks to IVF at the ripe old age of 70...right or wrong ?[/quote]70 nowadays is not as old as 70 used to be, indeed seventy year olds these days can often be very fit and active. However by the time said baby is grown up, say age 20, the mother if she is still alive will be 90! What a thought, I pity the poor child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Selfish...The poor kid will very probably lose his mum at an early age. Sad . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valB Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 I had my fourth baby when I was 36 and I used to cringe at ante natal classes as most of the new mums were in their twenties. When I was in labour I was actually asked by a nurse to help calm dowm a screaming teenage mum in labour. I did this by informing her she was not the only one suffering and to shut the f**k up, it worked. Seriously, though I am not sure even though the new 70 is 60 if it is right to do this as I know I got very tired at times and I had a very good baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Framboise Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Times have changed of course.Twenty eight years ago when I had my eldest son at the grand age of 22, all the other mothers were about the same age as me apart from one "antique" in her forties having her second child. Now contast that with eighteen years ago when I had my fourth child I was the second youngest mum-to-be in there. The youngest woman and I had other children already and ALL the rest were having their first babies!!!I can tell you from personal experience that having looked after my grand-daughter three days a week whilst her Mum worked that I was knackered by the time she was collected! I couldn't do all that again NOW, let alone at seventy!![:'(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ysatis Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I too was 36 when I had my fourth child. I didn't feel at all old, but my brother thought I was. He was horified I was having another child at 'that' age. He said 'you'll be 54 when he's 18' as if to say 54 was incredably old, which of course it's not.I agree that there are many in there 70's and older who are in good health but one doesn't know when our good health will start to fail. It often only takes a relatively short time. At 80 she could be a totally different person and perhaps be too frail to look after her child. It's the child I feel sorry for. Children want there parents to be as active as possible, it's part of there childhood. I would feel awful if I couldn't do such activities like the mum's race at school sports day, beach games, theme parks, etc. I would hate too that there could be the possibility of the child being made fun of at school for having aged parents. There is of course that a young parent could have health problems, but the risks are lower and less likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cendrillon Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Let's hope the mother in India has an extended family living close by then perhaps they will help take care of this baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 You can't compare 36 and 70 !! [blink]I had my son when I was 29 ( first baby), I thought all the other mums at ante natal classes would be younger than I, ... in fact , I was like many others, and there were several mums aged 40 ; but this can't be compared to 70! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callie Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I wonder why this woman wanted to have a baby at 70. I presume it wasn't her first.Is she looking for a home-grown carer to look after her in her old age ?However fit she may be at 70, did nature design women to have babies at that age? I don't believe she gave any thought to anyone but herself - she certainly didn't think of the life her little baby would lead.As someone has said, let's hope there is a caring extended family - that baby will need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 They had been trying for a baby for 50 years! Tellingly, her husband hadn't managed to have children with either of his previous two wives either [Www] I'm guessing that neither of them are the biological parents, and no-one is saying who donated the eggs or the sperm. Due to their ages, I don't much like the idea of nature being messed about with in such an unnatural way, but if the baby has two loving parents that have been longing for a child all of their lives, isn't that better than never having been born at all? The mother has already said that there is a large extended family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 While I agree that times have changed I really do think that this must have been a major risk to this seventy year old's life. As I understand it the child can't be the biological child of either of them and so I don't really see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valB Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 It was a donated sperm and egg obviously as she would have been passed childbearing age and her husband had not produced children with his previous wives. The doctors examined her thoroughly and decided she was fit enough to give birth. Then it all begins, sleepless nights, teething and childrens infections which would knacker a woman half her age. They were apparently subject to ridicule as they had not borne any children so this was their way of showing people that they were able to have a child...allegedly !!!!!! My eldest daughter had her fourth baby at 41 years of age and she was like a zombie as he did cried for the first three months day and night and he is now 18 months old and still does not sleep. Lets hope these two people have a very, very good baby otherwise they will be suicidal unless family step in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cendrillon Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 "Then it all begins, sleepless nights, teething and childrens infections which would knacker a woman half her age."Indeed, having children is not just about giving birth, there's the next 18 years (or more) to consider[8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callie Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 There you have hit the nail on the head, Cendrillon. When someone decides to have children in their 40s or older (!), I wonder if they think ahead to how they will support them later on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I feel nowadays having a child in your 40s is no real problem if you re in good health.I am 43 and I would still be able to bring up a child. ( Life has decided otherwise for me, unfortunately.)But that case in India is " une autre paire de manches " .. ( Know that phrase ? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now