Getting Pregnant After 50: Risks, Rewards

CNN:

The average American woman can live long enough to celebrate her 80th birthday, so if a woman is able to become pregnant using in vitro fertilization with a donor egg at 56, she could still watch her child grow into an adult. But just because it's possible, does that mean she should?

Read the whole story: CNN

Comments

[afsocsargesgirl]

07:46 PM on 07/18/2009

If a woman wants a child later in life, that is HER business! How small minded and judgemental it is for ANYONE to assume to know why people make choices that they do in THEIR lives. To all of you who had children early, if it worked out for you--GOOD! To those who may want to have children later in life, I say--GOOD! To the rest of you MIND YOUR BUSINESS!

[FabulousAt52]

03:00 PM on 07/20/2009

Maybe the THIRD time will be the charm?? Stop deleting my posts, PuffHo!!

"If a woman wants a child later in life, that is HER business! How small minded and judgemental it is for ANYONE to assume to know why people make choices that they do in THEIR lives."

We are a society. And we, as individuals in that society, are *always* judged on our merits, which include our contributions to society, our drain on society, the way we raise our kids and treat others around us. That is what societies DO. We judge what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

You say "mind your own business!!" but what about minding YOUR own business when someone wants to get an abortion, or smoke weed, or not use a seatbelt, or spank their kids, or cheat on their spouses, or keep their kids out of school, or skate on thin ice, or smoke cigarettes and eat tons of red meat?
There are plenty of so-called "personal choices" that may not be illegal or outlawed (but some are), Society still judges people who do them and as a society we have that right. I am not proposing there needs to be a "law" against older women having IVF or even adopting babies after 45-50, but we (society) sure as heck have a right to critique such a stupid decision.

[Ascoli]

10:30 AM on 07/18/2009

Why the hell would you WANT TO!!

[quietreader]

10:09 AM on 07/18/2009

No. Actually people should stop having children altogether. The world is beyond overpopulated. Having more than 2 children is irresponsible and selfish at this point. The best thing is to adopt children as long as the world is overpopulated. There are more than enough unwanted children out there.

[neurogrl]

09:54 AM on 07/18/2009

Should you get pregnant over 50? No, there are many social and biological reasons not to. Should there be a law prohibiting it? No. People should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, even if others find it distasteful or even deplorable. Personal responsibility and social responsibility are the things that should keep a woman from doing this.

[ChristopherAtom]

08:49 AM on 07/18/2009

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOONONONONONONONONONONONO!

[jsomerville5]

09:18 AM on 07/18/2009

My grandmother back in the 1920s had a child a few months shy of her fiftieth birthday, and my grandmother lived til she was 95.

It's a personal choice and I think women - if they have the financial resources and support system- should be allowed to have a child after fifty.

What about all the welfare moms in their twenties who can't take care of their kids?

[ChristopherAtom]

12:39 PM on 07/19/2009

I'm zero population growth, so don't even bother attacking me. Go waste your time on someone else.

[afsocsargesgirl]

10:24 PM on 07/19/2009

Excellent point jsomerville5!

[thinkingwomanmillstone]

08:14 AM on 07/18/2009

"Starting a baby'" by a man or a woman after age 50 shouldn't be done in my opinion. Of course I've never had someone come up and ask me. People do a lot of things that I don't think they should. I believe it's self indulgent and immature without thought for the child. BUT, it shouldn't be illegal. What kind of punishment would you have. Forced abortion, forced adoption. Get real. Prohibition doesn't work....not for alcohol, not for drugs, not for sex(abstinence only, yeah right!). People have varied levels of intellect and maturity and there are a lot of idiots out there. Also is having a baby at that age worse than participating in dangerous activities when you already have children. Popular culture admires risk takers whether those risks are necessary or not. I don't happen to admire unneccessary risk especially by people who've chosen to have children or who expect rescuers to risk their lives to help them when their escapades go wrong.

[raymurt]

06:32 AM on 07/18/2009

Umm, no.

[tb92]

06:17 AM on 07/18/2009

Only the woman involved can answer if she "should" get pregnant after fifty. My question is why would anyone want to?

[ramal]

05:13 AM on 07/18/2009

In a word, "NO!"

[pipetoe]

08:14 AM on 07/18/2009

Are you in favor of a law legalizing abortion?
Can't have it both ways....

[Quaoar]

09:47 AM on 07/18/2009

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's something desirable.

[FabulousAt52]

08:07 AM on 07/21/2009

BTW. Abortion IS legal in this country. Thanks.

[mawied]

05:11 AM on 07/18/2009

Should you get pregnant if you're 50 or older?

No.

[groosemoose]

01:45 AM on 07/18/2009

No. NOR should men. It's cruel to the kid, who's much more likely to experience the traumatic loss of a parent at a very young age.

[dansup]

01:18 AM on 07/18/2009

if one can get knocked up unaided by dr's and drugs, go for it, nature says it's o.k. - if not, then don't

[yellowdoggie]

07:37 AM on 07/18/2009

Interesting point. I like your qualification. I would go so far as to say that MOST people who have to use docs and drugs to get pregnant probably should not do so. I know that is awfully Darwinist of me, but nature should be paid attention to.

[peacekitten]

01:12 AM on 07/18/2009

biologically, 17 & 18 year olds make perfect parents. but emotionally, in terms of maturity? no.

just like the issue of ab0rtion, this is yet another personal choice that is absolutely NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS except the couple (or mother) involved, and their physicians. i've seen plenty of women in their fifties that look better and are far healthier than many women in their twenties.

there are no guarantees in life. both myself and my significant other lost our fathers when we were teenagers, after long illnesses. in fact, i never knew my father as anything BUT ill, because he became ill before i was old enough to even go to school. yet my mother was still well within her childbearing years.

so that is really no criterion. i've also known women who had IVF in their fifties, gave birth to beautiful, healthy children, and were terrific mothers because they had the benefit of WISDOM and PATIENCE to let their kids have a childhood.

this is a PERSONAL choice. and it's NONE OF ANYBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS. anyone can pop out kids, but not anyone can be a parent. the two are NOT automatically linked.

[groosemoose]

01:46 AM on 07/18/2009

I agree it's a personal choice. But we're allowed to have opinions.

[smileatfear]

02:00 AM on 07/18/2009

As long as people don't try to codify their opinions into law. That, unfortunately is what often happens.

[lianmolive]

02:17 AM on 07/18/2009

great post... i agree 100%

[01202009]

12:29 AM on 07/18/2009

What a ridiculous idea and so selfish.

[smileatfear]

02:01 AM on 07/18/2009

Is it selfish for a woman who has had cancer to have a child? A woman with MS? A man who has already had one heart attack? Is is selfish to have a child if you are not perfect, don't meet somebody else's standards of what a perfect parent should be? Your opinion is selfish and callous.

[lianmolive]

02:23 AM on 07/18/2009

agreed... and what about those who are physically handicapped? I hear so many complaints that older women can't run around and keep up... well that would be the same for someone who is in a wheelchair. Is it selfish of them to have children?

If people are going to argue against older women conceiving, then that standard/criticism ought to apply to a whole range of people, including the poor for not being able to provide financially, the disabled (can't run around), gays (unnatural like IVF), those who have had cancer (as it may return and they could die), anyone with AIDS (as they could die young), anyone who is young but is infertile (because IVF is unnatural), career-minded women (they can't watch them full time), and so on and on and one...

I would say that love and nurturing the child is the single most important thing any parent can do... the rest just has to be dealt with like 99% of parents out there!

[steele967]

05:13 AM on 07/18/2009

The answer to your questions is yes, that is selfish. To me, it's obvious that anybody who is not in good health shouldn't run the risk of disadvantaging their children. If you have cancer and risk death, or have MS and are dependent on others for survival, how can you honestly mold and nurture a child to the extent that is needed?

I have no idea how an opinion like this is selfish, it's actually completely selfless. Calling it callous is pretty trivial.

And I'm not saying that there should necessarily be laws or forces governing this issue, but I am saying that if you are over the hill and having children, the only reason to me is selfishness, and it's wrong.

[VOTER]

12:21 AM on 07/18/2009

NO!