It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Women who want to have children when their approaching 60

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2003 @ 05:10 AM
What does everyone think?

Wrong or right? If it's wrong why is it wrong? if it's right, why is it right?

Personally I think it's wrong, but let me know your thoughts.

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by Pocket]

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 05:27 AM
This is a fair question. I wonder why it causes you concern.

There are only two things that would bother me.

1. The risk of birth deformity is higher for women having their first child beyond early 40s.

2. If the mother lives a normal lifespan, a child is going to be bereaved at a younger than expected kind of age.

However, men can reproduce into their 90s, so why should it not be the same for women who are lucky enough to still be producing eggs?

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 06:04 AM
Good lord no, I'm a long long way off 60.

It's not the birth defects I'm concerned about, although that is a serious problem. It's the fact that by the time the child is 10, the mother will then be 70..... I don't think the child would then have a normal life and be able to go ice skating, swimming etc with a mother of that age.

Also there is the issue of the child feeling embarrassed due to having a mum that's 70 instead of one that's in their 30's or 40's.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 06:09 AM
I didn't think you were close to 60.

By the time the child is in late teens the 60-year old mother would be discarded by society as useless in most cases.

Actually, a woman age 60 capable of bringing a child into the world might have the resources to pay for lots of carers giving maternal substitute physical play etc for her child.

No, it's not 'normal', but why are we so ageist?

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 06:17 AM
Good point...

I suppose if the mother already had grown up children she would have far more experience then say a 15 year old, plus she would have help from family around her.

I still think it's a bit odd for someone of that age to want another child.

You would think that they were ready to retire to spain and sit back in the sun whilst their hubby played golf instead of coping with sleepless nights and dirty nappies

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 06:20 AM
well at the moment I believe its wrong basically because the remainin life span of the mother is far too short. If bio-technology had lept ahead and could ensure the mother would live well pass 100 in full health and vitality then I see no problem.

Many western countries are faced with a top heavy age group that effectively means there is population shrinkage with the native population. Look at growth rates for germany and England. It could well be by extending the period women are able to give birth that there are enormous benefits (if as with all things it is properly managed) to be had

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 06:41 AM
For one-birth defects are a concern but most women in their mid-30's are at if you thought of only 'that' issue then no woman beyond 30 should really ever get pregnant.
I don't think age makes you 'old' I know women who are 70 and have more energy then a 25 year old. My grandmother(on my ex's side) just got her first tattoo on her bum for her 70th birthday. And I personally would never be ashamed of my mother for her age. A mother is a mother-no matter how old..
Death is an issue..but whose to say a 20 year old might have a child and die 3 years later? We live in the land of the living until we die, therefore we shouldn't really think about 'can't do this or that' because I may die soon. If a woman wants to and 'can' have a child at 60-then great! She obviously knows what is abound for her as a parent and noone else should tell her otherwise..
And that's my personal opinion


posted on May, 30 2003 @ 07:27 AM
WRONG omg it is so wrong. you wana know why? OLD PEOPLE SEX ewwwwwwwwwwww omg ewwwwww
(no offence to 40+ posters)

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 07:29 AM
Who writes the rules.

Humans are supposed to reproduce, nobody said there is a time limit on when a women can have children. As long as both parties are healthy. Why not have children, if you have the ability, DO IT.

So some people might find it strange that the mother is 60. so what. Narrow minded people would find it strange.

My opinion.

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by boomhaur]

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 07:30 AM
Hiya Mag,

Thanks for your reply... I know it's obviously possible for a mother in her 20's to die no matter how tragic, but it surely isn't as common as someone passing away in their early 70's. I just don't think it would be fair for a child of 10+ to loose it's mother.

I'm 21 and if I lost my Mum or Dad now I would be devastated, but, at least I know that I had a wonderful fun packed childhood. My mother had me when she was 34. Some say that's too old, but in my mind I think that's just right.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 08:07 AM
I think it's a bad idea...

At that age, you're only a decade away from your average life expectancy. Not to mention, the chances of YOU requiring care are drastically greater, but now you want to take on the care of another? Not to mention, at 60+, your generation gap is going to put you WAY out of touch with today's youth pressures, etc. So far, I see the negatives tipping the scales over the positives. Every case is different, I mean, if the mother is well off, can afford a nanny, and is in good health, etc., but other negatives still apply. All in all....bad idea.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 08:19 AM
Exactly... Well sais Gazrok

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 08:49 AM
You certainly made some very valid points...I mean I would not have a child over 40, but that's me..anyone else can do what they want, if they feel they can and must..

Alot of women today are having children later in life(much later) because these were the women who could not conceive, but technology has progressed and with the help of a specialist those women can now have a child that they longed for, for 40 years or so..and that's why I say...go for it!

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 08:57 AM
If she wants one, she should have one.

That said, it's not perhaps the best of ideas. Most grandparents find that a couple of hours with a toddler can wear you out -- and dealing with a teenager when you're in your 90's may be even more difficult on the grounds of age and energy.

From the child's standpoint, it's difficult to have a mom (or mom and dad) who are VERY different from their peers' parents. Although older parents TEND to be more financially and emotionally stable, this is not always true. 70 is also the age that dementia (if it hits) begins to rear its ugly head, and while this is hard for a family to cope with, it can be devastating for a child.

I'd say it was a better idea if the husband was in his late 50's or early 60's. But if he's older than she, it's not as good an idea.

Adoption or foster parenting would be a better option.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 09:02 AM
Why would it be a bad idea? Personally, I think it's great.

If a 60 year old woman can have a baby and if she wants it then she should pursue her aspirations to have one. It's a gift. There's women in their 20's that can't produce a baby because some kind of problems.

If a 60 year old can have a baby, then go ahead and have it.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 09:02 AM
well Im sorry but I dont think someone approaching 60 yrs, is fit enough to start having a family.

some of us here, already know what its like to bring kids up, whether with a partner or not ( it is harder trying to be a mum and dad to kids as well) so can you imagine a 60 something woman running around a playground after their kids? (and not handing the kids back at the end of the day, like grandparents etc do)

Its not only risky for a baby to be born to a woman late in life, where the baby is more likely to have something wrong. But also the woman is at a much higher risk of becoming ill herself after the baby is born, there are also more complications for her as well!

But as like was said earlier, if you have the money then you would get the best care that money can buy you!!!


[Edited on 30-5-2003 by blackwidow666]

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 09:18 AM
Thanks for all your replies, this is wicked

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 12:55 PM
If the woman wants the child, is physically fit and can concieve and birth naturally, let her get on with it. It's nature and who are we to say that nature is wrong?
Age does make a difference but it can be overcome and as long as the child and the mother are happy it is nobody elses buisiness.

But if the woman needs to turn to medical science to provide herself with a child then no. I disagree with using technology for this purpose.

I may sound hypocritical, because I do believe in artificial aid for young people. Some of them just got an unlucky hand when it was dealt.
But a woman who has lived most of her life and has had the chance to have a kid naturally, should have taken that opportunity when it was given to her. Falling back on technology is the wrong thing to do.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 01:03 PM
I should also point out what some of you may not be aware of -- that increasingly, young people are having kids, splitting up, and the small children end up in the care of the grandparents or great-grandparents.

It's quite a burden for someone on a fixed income, but the rearing of kids by grandparents is becoming a lot more common nowadays.

posted on May, 30 2003 @ 05:53 PM
having children at the age of 60, whether your a male or female, seems a little masochistic to me. and i do not think this trait should be geneticaly propagated. someone talk the poor woman out of this idea

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in