When is Too Old well Too Old?

[Trousers]

Here's a thought for late on a Saturday early on a Sunday. . .

With the progress made in Fertility treatments it is possible (well it's actually happened) that 60 year old women can still bear children.

Ok this really is a double edged sword because (I believe) most women will only get pregnant whilst in a relationship (my opinion based on evidence I have acquired over my travels thru life only) so one assumes that the decision to enter parenthood is shared. Maybe not a 50/50 share but the XY chromosome has some power over the decision of the XX chromosome (there may be a flaw in that logic tho!).

So looking at the issue from an age perspective when the child is 20 how old will the parents be? How about when the child is 7 how old will the parents be?
What parent child activities should a growing child be entitled to with out question? Can a 67 year old woman teach a child to ride a bicycle or rough n tumble in a garden.

I hope you see what I’m trying to get at.

So the conundrum – How old is too old for a man to become a father and a woman to become a mother. And lets keep to the point no tales of Masai Warriors fathering children at 80 because those tales whilst endearing aren’t relevant to us (unless u are very tall have a wickedly long spear and live in a mud hut).

I await your thoughts on this matter. . . .(not on the spear and hut tho)

[David Franklin]

With the progress made in Fertility treatments it is possible (well it's actually happened) that 60 year old women can still bear children.

~snip~ looking at the issue from an age perspective when the child is 20 how old will the parents be? How about when the child is 7 how old will the parents be?
What parent child activities should a growing child be entitled to with out question? Can a 67 year old woman teach a child to ride a bicycle or rough n tumble in a garden.I'm sorry, but I don't get the obsession with the age of the mother when men have been having children at far older ages for hundreds of years. After all, lots of 67 year old women are perfectly capable of the things you describe (I accept lots aren't), while 87 year old men that can run around after a toddler are few and far between. [Recent well publicised case: James Doohan ("Scotty" in StarTrek) who fathered a child at 80 and died at 85].

I know you mention the age of the father, but your post very much reads as if it's the 60 year old mothers you object to.


And lets keep to the point no tales of Masai Warriors fathering children at 80 because those tales whilst endearing aren’t relevant to us (unless u are very tall have a wickedly long spear and live in a mud hut).***?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Here's a thought for late on a Saturday early on a Sunday. . .

With the progress made in Fertility treatments it is possible (well it's actually happened) that 60 year old women can still bear children.

Ok this really is a double edged sword because (I believe) most women will only get pregnant whilst in a relationship (my opinion based on evidence I have acquired over my travels thru life only) so one assumes that the decision to enter parenthood is shared. Maybe not a 50/50 share but the XY chromosome has some power over the decision of the XX chromosome (there may be a flaw in that logic tho!).

So looking at the issue from an age perspective when the child is 20 how old will the parents be? How about when the child is 7 how old will the parents be?
What parent child activities should a growing child be entitled to with out question? Can a 67 year old woman teach a child to ride a bicycle or rough n tumble in a garden.

I hope you see what I’m trying to get at.

So the conundrum – How old is too old for a man to become a father and a woman to become a mother. And lets keep to the point no tales of Masai Warriors fathering children at 80 because those tales whilst endearing aren’t relevant to us (unless u are very tall have a wickedly long spear and live in a mud hut).

I await your thoughts on this matter. . . .(not on the spear and hut tho)
I think you yourself are in a dreadfully poor position to be able to make judgements on what a man or woman who has a child later in life can offer to that child in the way of parenthood, unless you are such a parent - or such a child.

People who say "such and such a kind of person shouldn't have children because they are *insert your choice of personal criticism here*" are, I feel at best misguided, and at worst, evil busybodies.

Are you suggesting that men in wheelchairs of all ages should be denied the opportunity to have children because they might not be able to teach those children to ride a bicycle, or play rugby? What nonsense.

[Clive Long]

Not nonsense to me.

I am 43. I don't understand teenagers. What they wear, the trousers that hang round their knees, their writing like text messages and their speech punctuated by "whatever", "low", and "check it".

Can you imagine the total lack of communication between me at 60 and a teenager ??

I, for one, have left it too late to have children

Clive

[fletch]

I was classed an 'old mum' when I had my two (32-35) the timing was right for me, I dont think I would have made a very good mum before, I was out every night parting, but when I had mine I was ready to make the commitment to them.
I also have friends who had there children very young, and didn't make a very good job of bringing them up (only my opinion)
So I think the timing is for the individual there is no hard and fast rule, although if a woman has gone through the change may be its her body telling her something.
As for the 50/50 don't get me on that one....................................
But as a child from a very traditional family, dad was the bread winner and never helped with 'woman's tasks' (kids included) so it was like been in a single parent home, he was never around work, pub, etc.
Its more important for a child to be in a loving home with good values than worrying about the age you are when you have them.
:flower:

[fletch]

Not nonsense to me.

I am 43. I don't understand teenagers. What they wear, the trousers that hang round their knees, their writing like text messages and their speech punctuated by "whatever", "low", and "check it".

Can you imagine the total lack of communication between me at 60 and a teenager ??

I, for one, have left it too late to have children

Clive
NO you havn't :mad:
I hope you don't put people off with your above comments, I was talking to a guy at Southport in his 40's who was still hoping to find someone to settle down with and have a family. He would make a fab dad.
If you aint cool you aint cool, thats not the issue, do the best job you can,love will find a way :flower:

[Tiggerbabe]

I don't understand teenagers.
:rofl: You're not supposed to :D

Can you imagine the total lack of communication between me at 60 and a teenager ??
Not really, they don't come into your life as teenagers and by the time they get there, you will have been sharing the things that make them tick. I'm sure at that age you felt your parents didn't understand you, it's in the Teenagers (How Not To Communicate with Anyone Over 19) Handbook. :hug:

[DavidY]

As we get older, men are still capable of fathering children, but I believe the risk of birth defects increases.

I believe (not sure of the exact science) that as we get older, the cells producing sperm are a "copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of ...". The more times this happens, the more chance of errors creeping in. :eek: :sick:

[Little Monkey]

I think my concern for people who have children when they are 60+, is: How long will they be around for their kids??

Of course anyone could die at any time. A 25 year old mother is just as likely to be hit by a car as a 65 year old. But you can't deny that people generally don't live forever, and very often the older you get, the more health problems you're likely to get. So if you have a child at 60 or older, then a few years later you get a stroke/ heart attach or simply just die, what will happen to the child then?

The child with parents this old will very likely not have any parents by the age they go to uni. Or maybe even high-school or earlier??? I think this is quite sad.

Saying this - my mum, at 55, feels too tired to keep up with her grandchildren all the time. For her to become a mother again would be completely out of the question. But people 5-10 years her senior might still be extremely fit and healthy, and could maybe cope quite well with babies crying all night, two-year old's temper-tantrums, etc. Well, I salute them.

My dad, who's 60, is going to be a father again. As far as I know the mother is much younger. At 31, I'm going to become a big sister!!! :eek: Somehow it doesn't seem like such a big deal when men decide to have kids at a ripe old age, with their very much younger wifes. Although I can't quite get comfortable with that idea either.

Personally, I don't think it's my right to denie anyone to have children, at any age. But nature quite clearly doesn't mean us (at least women) to have children when we're old. I would not want to have children after I'm 40(ish), for the sake of myself and the kids! Oh, that means I've got 9 years left.... Uh-oh...... TICK-TOCK, TICK-TOCK!

Then again, I might just get another dog instead of a child!! :rofl: :rofl:

LM

[LMC]

I'm with fletch in that "the change" is nature's way of telling a woman that she is too old to have children. Men don't have similar physical limitations, but IMO, it is unfair on a child to have either parent so old that there is a high probability of the parent/s dying of old age before the child is even 18. Of course kids sadly lose parents all the time to illness or accidents - but those can't be predicted, old age can.

If older people have children 'naturally', then fair enough - also as fletch said, a loving home is most important. But to waste resources on fertility treatment for people over about 50 is immoral - whether they pay for it or not. If you have left it too late, well, tough.

(I don't have children)

[Minnie M]

......... I don't understand teenagers. What they wear, the trousers that hang round their knees, their writing like text messages and their speech punctuated by "whatever", "low", and "check it".

:rofl: :rofl:

[djtrev]

Clive,you are not to old to have children.We had Oliver;he's 11;when I was 53,but my wife is 24 years younger than me.
As for communicating with teenagers.Is it any different to communicating with some adults.
My idea of bringing up a child at my age is somewhat different to my wifes because I use the values that I had as a child.It's important that you adjust to the present climate of change.I may not be on the same wavelenght as a lot of the kids today but I like to think that I can communicate with them at some level.

[djtrev]

Sorry LMC but

But to waste resources on fertility treatment for people over about 50 is immoral - whether they pay for it or not. If you have left it too late, well, tough.

that is too much of a sweeping statement.
Been There Done That. and bloody glad I did!!!

[philsmove]

At a rough guess I would say about 50

E.g. the parents should be alive and in good heath to look after to children until they are able to look after them selves


I am 43. I don't understand teenagers. What they wear, the trousers that hang round their knees, their writing like text messages and their speech punctuated by "whatever", "low", and "check it".
Don’t worry teenagers cant understand teenagers

[El Salsero Gringo]

... it is unfair on a child to have either parent so old that there is a high probability of the parent/s dying of old age before the child is even 18.It's fine to make general statements like this, but it's meaningless unless you're prepared to apply your statement in every particular circumstance. Presumably then you don't think that Mrs. Diane Blood - who fought all the way to the Court of Appeal for the right to be inseminated with her dead husband's sperm - shouldn't have followed this path?

I think you are all idealising some utopian idea of having parents who live until we are middle-aged on some pseudo-socialist basis that it's somehow unfair to the child for it to be otherwise.

[LMC]

Presumably then you don't think that Mrs. Diane Blood - who fought all the way to the Court of Appeal for the right to be inseminated with her dead husband's sperm - shouldn't have followed this path?
No, I don't think she *should* have followed that path. Just because something is medically possible doesn't make it morally right - how much resource/time/money was wasted on this legal battle? In the natural course of events, she would not have been able to have a child by her husband. That was a lifestyle choice at the time, of course it was tragic that he died - but that doesn't give her a moral right to have his babies.

EDIT: as for utopian ideal - no, not at all. I'm arguing that it is wrong to intervene if the "ideal" is not possible in the natural course of events owing to age.

AFA as the fertility treatment/age argument is concerned - well, it's all going to be opinion. And it's an emotive topic. I've expressed mine and will watch the rest of this thread with interest - but since I'm already in disgrace will bow out from contributing further (unless of course I find it impossible to resist... :devil: )

[El Salsero Gringo]

No, I don't think she *should* have followed that path. Just because something is medically possible doesn't make it morally right - how much resource/time/money was wasted on this legal battle? In the natural course of events, she would not have been able to have a child by her husband. That was a lifestyle choice at the time, of course it was tragic that he died - but that doesn't give her a moral right to have his babies.OK, well, that's a point of view. Are you prepared to hold to it consistently if you are ever (and I hope you aren't) in a similar position?

EDIT: as for utopian ideal - no, not at all. I'm arguing that it is wrong to intervene if the "ideal" is not possible in the natural course of events owing to age.I don't accept for an instant that your narrow view of what is "ideal" for other people is any kind of global absolute. In any case, medical treatment always involves some kind of intervention in the natural course of events. No HRT for you, then, or treatment for any number of chronic or acute diseases of the elderly?

[LMC]

OK, well, that's a point of view. Are you prepared to hold to it consistently if you are ever (and I hope you aren't) in a similar position?
How can I say until I am in that position? But from where I am now, yes, absolutely.


I don't accept for an instant that your narrow view of what is "ideal" for other people is any kind of global absolute. In any case, medical treatment always involves some kind of intervention in the natural course of events. No HRT for you, then, or treatment for any number of chronic or acute diseases of the elderly?
My opinion applied to fertility treatment only. Which is the topic of this thread. Perhaps I should have made that clearer at the outset, I hope it's clear now.

[El Salsero Gringo]

My opinion applied to fertility treatment only. Which is the topic of this thread. Perhaps I should have made that clearer at the outset, I hope it's clear now.I didn't read the original post as whether to provide fertility treatment - although it used it as an example. I read it as whether older people "should" in some moral sense, have children at all.

If you refuse fertility treatment not on the probability of success (which is no doubt age-based) but on a moral judgement of whether older people should parent - I think that's wrong.

[LMC]

Going back to the original post (all fuzzy-headed and forgetful today) you are right.

Naturally conceiving older parents - "no problem", as I said.

It appears to me that you are working on the assumption that everyone has the right to reproduce. That also is IMO, a utopian ideal. If someone is too old, they are too old. That's not from any particular moral judgement as to older parents being somehow "worse" than younger ones. It's not even particularly related to 'success of treatment' probability. If a woman has gone 'through the change', that is nature's way of telling her she is too old. End of. Of course, men don't have this physical limitation - but on the basis that nature tells a woman of around 50 that she is too old to have children, it seems only fair to apply the same cutoff point to men and apply limited resources to younger parents (DavidY's post applies here too).

[El Salsero Gringo]

Going back to the original post (all fuzzy-headed and forgetful today) you are right.

Naturally conceiving older parents - "no problem", as I said.

It appears to me that you are working on the assumption that everyone has the right to reproduce. That also is IMO, a utopian ideal. If someone is too old, they are too old. That's not from any particular moral judgement as to older parents being somehow "worse" than younger ones. It's not even particularly related to 'success of treatment' probability. If a woman has gone 'through the change', that is nature's way of telling her she is too old. End of. Of course, men don't have this physical limitation - but on the basis that nature tells a woman of around 50 that she is too old to have children, it seems only fair to apply the same cutoff point to men and apply limited resources to younger parents (DavidY's post applies here too).
No, of course no one has the 'right' to reproduce. No one has the right to good health, or the right to live to 80, or the right to a hot meal and somewhere dry to sleep. BUT - society develops mechanisms to assist with all these things. We have a social security system that assists people with finding somewhere warm to sleep. We have a health service that assists people in maintaining good health. We have fertility treatment that helps couples conceive. And given that we already have those treatments, we don't have the right to deny it to some couples but not others, based on arbitrary criteria.

As for the "Natures way of saying" argument: I don't agree. "Nature" - and I don't really know what you mean by that - decreed that I have poor eyesight, presumably "nature's way of telling me" that I should be eaten by a predator. Luckily we have eyeglasses and contact lenses to tell "Nature" that we know better.

I won't go on about what the discovery of penicilin, hygeine, clean water, sanitation, safe child-birth procedures and so-on say for what what "Nature's way" means in actual fact. You can't divorce what "Nature says" in one field from what "Nature says" in any other, and you're quite wrong to try to do so.

[LMC]

As for the "Natures way of saying" argument: I don't agree. "Nature" - and I don't really know what you mean by that - decreed that I have poor eyesight, presumably "nature's way of telling me" that I should be eaten by a predator. Luckily we have eyeglasses and contact lenses to tell "Nature" that we know better.

I won't go on about what the discovery of penicilin, hygeine, clean water, sanitation, safe child-birth procedures and so-on say for what what "Nature's way" means in actual fact. You can't divorce what "Nature says" in one field from what "Nature says" in any other, and you're quite wrong to try to do so.
Why not?

Not having children is not life-threatening (not on an individual basis anyway, of course if nobody did the race would not last much longer!). Which means, IMO, although it is not justified to differentiate from a scientific point of view, it is absolutely fair to differentiate from an emotional point of view.

[fletch]

As for the "Natures way of saying" argument: I don't agree. "Nature" - and I don't really know what you mean by that - decreed that I have poor eyesight, presumably "nature's way of telling me" that I should be eaten by a predator. Luckily we have eyeglasses and contact lenses to tell "Nature" that we know better.

I won't go on about what the discovery of penicilin, hygeine, clean water, sanitation, safe child-birth procedures and so-on say for what what "Nature's way" means in actual fact. You can't divorce what "Nature says" in one field from what "Nature says" in any other, and you're quite wrong to try to do so.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

[Trousers]

Hey is this turning into debate. Excellent!

My opininion is only any good for me I wouldn't presuppose to physically enforce my morals or lack of on some one outside the scope of my own relationships. However to enlighten someone on that opinion may possibly change their stance (not saying that would be right either) but when we have opinions we do tend to seek similar minded people. For example we all love to Jive and I bet all our muggle friends have all been told the benefits and fun to be had by taking up dance. Yet it was only our opinion that has managed to get people through the door. We didn't physically drag them (well not too many)

oops wrong button will have to type quick now


Personnally I have kids I was 28 my wife 32, the eldest is 13 now and just getting to the "Whatever" "Minger" point. I am however an estranged daddy. I personally wouldn't dream of having any more children. The thought of being 60 like in my original post scares me. It may work for some but the main overpowering force in my life is was will always be to provide for the kids I have. At 60 i doubt I will be able to do such a thing if im here at all.

Having a failed marriage is another issue - do I want another set of children that would possibly end up fatherless, well in a split marriage? They say once bitten twice shy - but with marriage once you find out how to escape the temptation must get worse the next time when things go wrong and more divorce occurs.

Kids and remarriage eeeeek But that's only my opinion

[El Salsero Gringo]

Why not?

Not having children is not life-threatening (not on an individual basis anyway, of course if nobody did the race would not last much longer!). Which means, IMO, although it is not justified to differentiate from a scientific point of view, it is absolutely fair to differentiate from an emotional point of view.That's silly. Lots of things that we do better than "nature" in aren't life-threatening, and we make them available to all on the basis of need. You even admit that you want to make an exception for child-bearing from an emotional point of view. And "LMC's emotions" are not really a very good way of setting public policy.

[LMC]

No, rather the reverse.

But I am increasingly feeling that you are turning a very specific argument on how old is too old for people to become parents into a very general one on medical intervention.

IN MY OPINION - after the age of about 50, medical intervention should not be used to assist conception.

I'm not going to argue on the rest, it's tiresome and pointless, I don't know enough about medicine, and I'm not as good a debater as you are - especially not when I'm groggy and virus laden.

I definitely quit now. You win.

[El Salsero Gringo]

No, rather the reverse.

But I am increasingly feeling that you are turning a very specific argument on how old is too old for people to become parents into a very general one on medical intervention.No - I'm trying to point out that your objection....
IN MY OPINION - after the age of about 50, medical intervention should not be used to assist conception.is arbitrary and inconsistent, and appears to be grounded in emotion and prejudice against older people rather than on any kind of rationality.

I'm still finding (probably unintended) humour in the suggestion from Trousers that the epitome of good parenting is found in "teach[ing] a child to ride a bicycle or rough n tumble in a garden."

[LMC]

I think I must be delirious, I'm definitely inconsistent.

You rejected the 'nature' argument as unreasonable. In the case of fertility, I think it is perfectly reasonable. You don't. We agree to differ. Have a nice day.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I think I must be delirious, I'm definitely inconsistent.

You rejected the 'nature' argument as unreasonable. In the case of fertility, I think it is perfectly reasonable. You don't. We agree to differ. Have a nice day.You call it reasonable - but you are unable to reason it. So really it should be you that calls it unreasonable. For my part, nonsense is a better description!

[CeeCee]

Wow, thanks all of you for a fascinating discussion. I’ve really enjoyed reading it and so been inspired post. Come on LMC don’t quit when you are doing so well, ESG isn’t telling you not to have an opinion, he loves it.

We can all have opinions on suitable ages to bear children. What is wrong with that? After all we have opinions on everything else. However, I believe that there is no right or wrong, there are always variables and exceptions to the rule.

Can we really say that having a child at a ‘ripe old age’ is detrimental to the child? Anyone can teach them to ride a bike, there is so much more to parenting… Yes of course we know that we are going to die but we don’t know when. Is having the joy of a loving, caring relationship with a devoted father for five years not better than a lifetime of misery with an uncaring, distant, unsupportive, shallow, abusive, lazy parent?
Perhaps it’s like being in love. Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? Anyway, where was I …

Fortunately, or unfortunately we are not the decision makers. Advances in obstetrics have made it possible. Women considered to be ‘too old’ to have children, will continue to do so for a very simple reason. Because they can. There will always be an obstetrician willing to assist. Different areas of the country have their own criteria, including setting their own upper age limits. This enables couples to try different health authorities until they find one willing to accommodate them. Failing this they find ways to finance their project privately.

Unless we have personally been in the position of desperately wanting a child and being unable to have one we really cannot comment.

Having worked in an infertility clinic I never cease to be amazed at the time, effort, expense and indignation that women will put themselves through to become a mother.
What drives them? Who knows?

The desire becomes greater and greater, the desperation to achieve this goal, to become a parent, becomes all encompassing, the harder it becomes to achieve the less anything else matters, the couple become desperate and the project has to be seen to the end.

Yes it costs the health service money to help infertile couples and it is easy for some to suggest that the money could be better spent on other causes. What about the couple that become emotionally and physically unwell, due to the strain of being unable to achieve what they feel is their right, that is, to be parents. Their inability to achieve their goal affects them leading to more health issues which have to dealt with, taking up the time and finances of the health service in another way.

This subject can be debated until the end of time and probably will be.

[David Bailey]

Sorry I got into the fight late, I look away for 1 day... Bear with me:


I think you yourself are in a dreadfully poor position to be able to make judgements on what a man or woman who has a child later in life can offer to that child in the way of parenthood, unless you are such a parent - or such a child.
Honestly, I don't think that argument holds water - do we have to be a soldier to express an opinion about the Iraq war? More relevantly, do we have to be a female to express an opinion about abortion?


People who say "such and such a kind of person shouldn't have children because they are *insert your choice of personal criticism here*" are, I feel at best misguided, and at worst, evil busybodies.
It's true that not even commie China doesn't try to mandate who should and shouldn't have children. And certainly, that way lies eugenics, albeit possibly a long way away.

But almost all governments do make decisions about "worthiness of parenthood" for adoptive purposes, so such criteria do exist for parenting, if not for birthing.


Are you suggesting that men in wheelchairs of all ages should be denied the opportunity to have children because they might not be able to teach those children to ride a bicycle, or play rugby? What nonsense.
No - but again, this is a flawed analogy. Your wheelchair-bound parent has no element of choice in his disability. When commenting on the "choosing to have a baby at 80", the important thing is the element of choice - and the implication that you could, for example, be leaving a 5-year-old as an orphan.


I, for one, have left it too late to have children
With respect, Clive, that's utter and total hogwash.

An age of 43 does of course have medical implications for women in terms of fertility (yes, nature's unfair, blame her not me), but it's certainly not too late for you.


I didn't read the original post as whether to provide fertility treatment - although it used it as an example. I read it as whether older people "should" in some moral sense, have children at all.
True - the area of resource allocation is not the same as any area of morality.


If you refuse fertility treatment not on the probability of success (which is no doubt age-based) but on a moral judgement of whether older people should parent - I think that's wrong.
Again, that's what governments do all the time when assessing prospective adoptive parents.

There are, it seems, at least two distinct issues here:

Whether XX age is too old to become a parent
Whether YY age is too old for a woman to give birth


It's quite possible to believe in different values for XX and YY (or indeed, not believe in any such values).


That's silly. Lots of things that we do better than "nature" in aren't life-threatening, and we make them available to all on the basis of need.
You're talking about resource utilisation here again, rather than "morality".


And "LMC's emotions" are not really a very good way of setting public policy.
Well, I'd trust LMC more than I'd trust Blair - I almost feel a poll coming on. Had to have at least one fatuous remark somewhere...

[Aleks]

:devil: I'm with LMC.

My opinion is that a person (male or female) that is unable to create a child through natural means is purposely-designed not to.

I thought about this subject long and hard when in my late teens/early 20s and came to the above conclusion. I have never changed my mind. I do not yet have children. I may not be able to create children with hubby. If it turns out that we can't I will live with it. I could adopt or foster. These seem viable options to me. I may even do that even if I do have children of my own. I should point out that we've talked about this many times and are in agreement.

However, this is ONLY how I choose to live my own life. Anyone else can make their own choice.

I haven't yet directly answered the original thread question...but reckon that if a person is still able to create a child and wants to do so with whomever they choose, they should. My grandfather had a daughter with his second wife a year after I was born....I haven't seen her 'suffer' because her father was older....in fact, she probably got a better deal than my father, her half-brother, because my grandad took a much more active part in her upbringing.

[LMC]

Well, I'd trust LMC more than I'd trust Blair
:what:

:eek:

Does Blair deserve to be insulted THAT much???

[Tiggerbabe]

No - but again, this is a flawed analogy. Your wheelchair-bound parent has no element of choice in his disability.
But he may have had an element of choice over his having children or not - the first post (by Trousers) made the point that because you could not play rough n tumble with your children, you were somehow less of a parent.

[David Bailey]

But he may have had an element of choice over his having children or not - the first post (by Trousers)
There was a first post? Darn, missed that in all the excitement... Plus, I got confused over the whole warrior thing there.


made the point that because you could not play rough n tumble with your children, you were somehow less of a parent.
I think there's a hard reality here.

I'm not sure if the phrase "less of a parent" is helpful here, it's emotive. Certainly there's no doubting that parents of course love their children, no matter what problems they or their children may have.

But... Some things may make parenthood more difficult and less fulfilling, and things such as disabilities or age could fall into these categories. And yes, I think someone who has certain problems which could make parenthood more difficult (such as extreme disabilities or age), should consider carefully whether it's a good idea for them to become a parent.

Becoming a parent is both the most life-changingly selfless, and simultaneously selfish, act I can conceive of (pun intended).
But you've got to get the balance right between selfless and selfish. Call me boring, right-wing, or whatever, but I think some parents are just not cut out to be good parents from the start...


Does Blair deserve to be insulted THAT much???
Ooh yes. "Bit of politics, nudge nudge" {/Ben Elton}

[El Salsero Gringo]

It's true that not even commie China doesn't try to mandate who should and shouldn't have children. And certainly, that way lies eugenics, albeit possibly a long way away.

But almost all governments do make decisions about "worthiness of parenthood" for adoptive purposes, so such criteria do exist for parenting, if not for birthing. Of course they do. They make decisions based on lots of criteria. That doesn't mean that age alone is one of them - or that if it is that it's correct. (There are lots of criteria about whether to provide fertility treatment to couples - including the probability of success which is age related. BUT - I don't accept that age alone is should be a bar to parenthood.)


No - but again, this is a flawed analogy. Your wheelchair-bound parent has no element of choice in his disability. When commenting on the "choosing to have a baby at 80", the important thing is the element of choice - and the implication that you could, for example, be leaving a 5-year-old as an orphan.The eighty-year old has as little choice over his age as the wheelchair bound has over his disability. They could both choose not to have children - if they so wished. In both cases they will both have decided that the child will not be disadvanged by their own parenting. So I don't follow your distinction.

Again, that's what governments do all the time when assessing prospective adoptive parents.Even if they did, it wouldn't make it right. Besides, they're allocating a scarce resource to the 'best' adopters, which is not necessarily the same as saying that fertility treatment is to be denied de facto because of age.

You're talking about resource utilisation here again, rather than "morality".Alright - I'm saying that 'older' people should be given their fair share of fertility treatment, just as they're given their fair share of cancer treatment, spectacles, or prosthetic legs. But fair does not mean "none at all".

[El Salsero Gringo]

My opinion is that a person (male or female) that is unable to create a child through natural means is purposely-designed not to.Presumably you do think that other medical conditions should be treated and not left as 'nature intended'? And if so, how on earth can you draw the distinction between one and the other?
However, this is ONLY how I choose to live my own life. Anyone else can make their own choice. Not if you choose to deny them fertility treatment they can't - no.

[LMC]

Ah, DJ, it's good to see you back...

And that's not only because you appear to be agreeing with me on this one :D

However, I must take you to task (now now, you're not supposed to ENJOY it) on one teensy weensy thing:

Having said that the phrase "less of a parent" is emotive, I would argue that


I think some parents are just not cut out to be good parents from the start...
is also emotive. (my bold formatting)

I don't think age or 'ability' has anything to do with "quality" of parenting, which is, er, qualitative.

[robd]

The concern for me, at 34, around potentially fathering children is twofold

1 - Would I be a good parent? Could I deal with the responsibility? Could I deal with the sleepless nights :what:

2 - Working in Local Govt (as I do) you see a lot of (forced) retirements for people in their 50s. Financial security at that point (kids going into higher education hopefully) would be critical.

I realise this doesn't really answer the original query but hopefully gives a spotlight onto a different element of it.

Robert

[LMC]

Alright - I'm saying that 'older' people should be given their fair share of fertility treatment, just as they're given their fair share of cancer treatment, spectacles, or prosthetic legs. But fair does not mean "none at all".
Disagree.

Cancer treatment and spectacles do not help to create a new life. Fertility treatment does (or at least is intended to!).

A child has a right to at least one parent that, all other things being equal, has a fair chance of being able to bring him or her up to adulthood. Yes that's an emotive statement, but human beings are emotional creatures - I persist in thinking that there is no inconsistency in thinking that it is morally perfectly acceptable (even necessary) to allow an 80 year old to have a hip replacement (or whatever) to improve their quality of life. However, giving them fertility treatment is morally wrong. If it is an 80 year old man married to a 24 year old woman and they conceive naturally, then fair enough - who am I to judge?

But you cannot deny that it would be better for that child's quality of life to have a father as well as a mother. An 80 year old is already 'beyond' the average male life expectancy. Of course a child could lose his or her father at any time through illness or accident. But dying of old age is a dead (sic) certainty at some point or other and is way more likely for an 80 year old than a 50 year old.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't think age or 'ability' has anything to do with "quality" of parenting, which is, er, qualitative.In that case, what is your objective to providing fertility treatment for older couples?

[El Salsero Gringo]

But you cannot deny that it would be better for that child's quality of life to have a father as well as a mother. An 80 year old is already 'beyond' the average male life expectancy. Of course a child could lose his or her father at any time through illness or accident. But dying of old age is a dead (sic) certainty at some point or other and is way more likely for an 80 year old than a 50 year old.I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?

[David Bailey]

Of course they do. They make decisions based on lots of criteria. That doesn't mean that age alone is one of them - or that if it is that it's correct. (There are lots of criteria about whether to provide fertility treatment to couples - including the probability of success which is age related. BUT - I don't accept that age alone is should be a bar to parenthood.)

Actually, I don't actually have a major position on the whole "Is it too old" issue, but I haven't had a good argument in, ooh, days...

The incredibly New-Labour-speak UK government consultation paper (http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/93/57/04079357.pdf) says "Children’s ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language will be fully recognised and positively valued and promoted when decisions are made."

It also talks about "stakeholders" :rolleyes:

And it seems specific criteria are up to the local authorities.

But buried in the jargon, there's a section saying

"...The application form should ask for details about the applicants that enable legal and agency eligibility criteria to be checked. This should include details of:
• marital status, nationality, domicile, ethnicity, language, religion, age, criminal convictions;..."
(my emphasis)

So, age is a consideration for adoption.


The eighty-year old has as little choice over his age as the wheelchair bound has over his disability.
They could both choose not to have children - if they so wished. In both cases they will both have decided that the child will not be disadvanged by their own parenting. So I don't follow your distinction.
The distinction is that a man of 80 has had quite a few earlier years, in which he presumably chose not to be a parent - that's the choice part of it. Whereas someone in a wheelchair may not have ever had such a choice.


Even if they did, it wouldn't make it right. Besides, they're allocating a scarce resource to the 'best' adopters, which is not necessarily the same as saying that fertility treatment is to be denied de facto because of age.
Errr, I'm confused, are we talking about adoption or fertility here?

For adoption, it seems quite clear there are a set of values, it's not a question of resources. For fertility, it may well be different.


Alright - I'm saying that 'older' people should be given their fair share of fertility treatment, just as they're given their fair share of cancer treatment, spectacles, or prosthetic legs. But fair does not mean "none at all".
But deciding what level "fair" is at, that's the tricky bit... The NHS has a rationing system, whether we like it or not, and that means value judgements must be made. Is fertility treatment more important than cancer treatment? If so, by how much?

[El Salsero Gringo]

However, giving them fertility treatment is morally wrong. If it is an 80 year old man married to a 24 year old woman and they conceive naturally, then fair enough - who am I to judge? Quite - who are you to judge in the one case, yet absolve yourself of responsibility in the second!!??

[El Salsero Gringo]

The distinction is that a man of 80 has had quite a few earlier years, in which he presumably chose not to be a parent - that's the choice part of it. Whereas someone in a wheelchair may not have ever had such a choice.You are *so* grasping at straws to draw this distinction. The man in the wheelchair also might have had years before becoming wheelchair-bound in which he presumably chose not to be a parent Alternatively, the man of 80 might never until that age have found a partner with whom to build a home in which to bring up children - and so *not* had that choice.

[LMC]

I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?
OK, fair enough - my statistical knowledge was incomplete.

But your statement is possibly also flawed - the 90-year old average life expectancy for 60-year olds is for those in good health - what about for all 60-year olds?

EDIT: the devil obviously does make work for idle hands, I swore to myself I wasn't going to get dragged into this one again :sick:

My argument is that intervention in the form of fertility treatment for is wrong for peoole over a certain age. Nature has its own control mechanisms. Too old is too old. I know I keep coming back to that argument, but IMO, that's the way it is. Reproduction is a choice, illness/injury is not.

[David Bailey]

The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90.
Yay!

The MSN Money (!) life expectancy calculator (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/calcs/n_expect/main.asp) says I'll live until 93 :grin:

And if you can't trust Microsoft, who can you trust? :devil:

[El Salsero Gringo]

OK, fair enough - my statistical knowledge was incomplete.

But you statement is possibly also flawed - the 90-year old average life expectancy for 60-year olds is for those in good health - what about for all 60-year olds?That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.

[frodo]

I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?
90 at 60 sounds surprisingly high. Maybe it depends on how good health is defined.

[LMC]

That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.
Unfortunately, it is rare that you can separate age from the factors that age affects. DavidY's point about the increase in birth defects with the age of the parents is a case in point.

If it comes down to it (and I'm sure this is where the negative rep will start rolling in :rolleyes: ) I have reservations about the provision of unlimited fertility treatment out of public funds "altogether" - whatever the age of the prospective parents. That's a question of limited resources.

[El Salsero Gringo]

90 at 60 sounds surprisingly high. Maybe it depends on how good health is defined.I just used David's link and put in my own details, excepting that I gave my current age as 60. It said my life expectancy would be 101.

[David Bailey]

That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.
There's a line in the classic Sandman collection "Brief lives", where Death says "You got what everyone gets - one life, no more, no less."

Whilst I love that and agree with that principle, the average ( :devil: ) 25-year-old has a greater chance of seeing their kids grow up than the average 80-year-old, and presumably that's what influences the government criteria, beaurocrats not being Neil Gaiman fans and all.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Unfortunately, it is rare that you can separate age from the factors that age affects. DavidY's point about the increase in birth defects with the age of the parents is a case in point.Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath. Just don't apply arbitrary age barriers. Trivially simple, really.
If it comes down to it (and I'm sure this is where the negative rep will start rolling in :rolleyes: ) I have reservations about the provision of unlimited fertility treatment out of public funds "altogether" - whatever the age of the prospective parents. That's a question of limited resources.Public funds are not used to provide unlimited fertility treatment, so you don't have to worry.

[LMC]

... the average ( :devil: ) 25-year-old has a greater chance of seeing their kids grow up than the average 80-year-old...
And inevitably, if not scientifically, influences my thoughts too.

[LMC]

Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath. Just don't apply arbitrary age barriers. Trivially simple, really.
Now THAT I could quite happily go along with :devil:

[David Bailey]

Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath.
That's a Wuthering Heights thing, yes?

OK, I admit it, I had to make a cheap shot, because it's a very good point, and I don't want this to degenerate into an agreement-fest, where's the fun in that?

[LMC]

That's a Wothering Heights thing, yes?

OK, I admit it, I had to make a cheap shot, because it's a very good point, and I don't want this to degenerate into an agreement-fest, where's the fun in that?

:rofl: :worthy: - missed that one

(but it's Wuthering Heights)

EDIT: re: post #58 - hee hee

[David Bailey]

:rofl: :worthy: - missed that one

(but it's Wuthering Heights)
Blimey, woman, give me a chance - talk about hair-trigger-response. :rolleyes:

[DianaS]

Here's a thought for late on a Saturday early on a Sunday. . .

So looking at the issue from an age perspective when the child is 20 how old will the parents be? How about when the child is 7 how old will the parents be?
[snip]...
I hope you see what I’m trying to get at.

I await your thoughts on this matter. . . .(not on the spear and hut tho)

I had Jason one month before I was 21. He will be 20 himself in November. The upside he had a mum who hopefully will be around until he is old, the downside when I'm 80 he will be sixty and the way he smokes and drinks will be in no fit state to look after me in my old age! :( :rofl:

[Minnie M]

I had Jason one month before I was 21. He will be 20 himself in November. The upside he had a mum who hopefully will be around until he is old, the downside when I'm 80 he will be sixty and the way he smokes and drinks will be in no fit state to look after me in my old age! :( :rofl:

I had my Jack at 22 similar age to you - don't expect Jason to look after you in your 80's start working on the grandchildren :flower: I got mine in my 50's and the training is going well :whistle: by the time I get my 80s I'll have a couple of hunky 30 something year olds to look after me :drool:

[Aleks]

Presumably you do think that other medical conditions should be treated and not left as 'nature intended'?

Having a little knowledge about the side-effects of many medical treatments and how they can affect quality of life, on balance I'm not sure whether I would choose them for myself. I would, however, seek an 'alternative', but maybe that's because of the way I choose to earn a living.


And if so, how on earth can you draw the distinction between one and the other?

It is not for me to make the distinction. Providing more people with more options and knowledge would then give them the opportunity to make their own informed choice.


Not if you choose to deny them fertility treatment they can't - no.

You assume in all of this that I wish to be in a position of power within the system - I don't. I choose to opt out of this system and leave it for others to make their own decision. It is not for me to decide how others choose to live their lives or tell them that they are right or wrong (in relation to fertility treatment/medical intervention), unless they invite my opinion, in which case it is just that, an opinion - they can then still make their own choice.

[David Bailey]

You assume in all of this that I wish to be in a position of power within the system - I don't. I choose to opt out of this system and leave it for others to make their own decision.
Well, except that you pay taxes, and vote, I assume? In that case, this is your money we're talking about, and your elected representatives splashing it out...

[DianaS]

I had my Jack at 22 similar age to you - don't expect Jason to look after you in your 80's start working on the grandchildren :flower: I got mine in my 50's and the training is going well :whistle: by the time I get my 80s I'll have a couple of hunky 30 something year olds to look after me :drool:
Bless, My dad was sprang early from hospital recently. I was at work an hour a way when he was due home in 10 mintes. I phoned JAson and got him to go around let the ambulance men in and get him some shopping
He did
What a sweetie!!

[Aleks]

Well, except that you pay taxes, and vote, I assume? In that case, this is your money we're talking about, and your elected representatives splashing it out...

I do pay taxes, but I can't vote in Britain.
What the system does with the money I am obliged to pay is of little concern to me. What I do in my own life and the choices I make is of importance. It may seem a contradiction, but it works for me.
The [very] little I contribute I see as paying for the roads to be kept in a reasonable condition, my rubbish to be taken away, the streets kept clean, an ambulance service, police etc.
I no longer 'waste' energy worrying about what I can't change and make the changes I can.

[Little Monkey]

I just used David's link and put in my own details, excepting that I gave my current age as 60. It said my life expectancy would be 101.

Well, I answered the questionnaire and stated my true age, 31. I'm going to live until I'm 102. What utter rubbish! It was a very generalised and incomplete questionnaire, and left out a heck of a lot of important health questions.

But hey, if I'm gonna live til I'm 102, I'll wait until I'm about 70 before bothering to have kids.... :whistle:

LM

[Lucy Locket]

Not nonsense to me.

I am 43. I don't understand teenagers. What they wear, the trousers that hang round their knees, their writing like text messages and their speech punctuated by "whatever", "low", and "check it".

Can you imagine the total lack of communication between me at 60 and a teenager ??

I, for one, have left it too late to have children

Clive


Trust me you haven't, you'd make a great daddy!!! :clap:

My ex was 52 when our youngest was born, he was great with them, admittedly he had a very young wife (22 yrs younger) & admittedly we haven't seen him for 12 years, but when he was around he was a great dad & they didn't miss out on swimming & learning to ride bikes etc etc

However i do think it's a little selfish & unfair on the child as other parents will be younger & the chances are they won't be around to see that child grow up become a teenager, graduate, marry, have their own children.

I think there is an age when it's just not right.

I'd have another baby now but even i think 'i'll be drawing my pension & he/she could still be studying' :whistle:

:flower: :flower: :flower:

[ducasi]

A pattern seems to be emerging here...

The best way for an older guy to have kids is to marry a girl much, much younger than himself.

Sounds like a plan to me! :D

[David Bailey]

The best way for an older guy to have kids is to marry a girl much, much younger than himself.
Given the longer life expectancy of women, that's actually the best way of ensuring a long widowhood for your wife. :whistle:


Well, I answered the questionnaire and stated my true age, 31. I'm going to live until I'm 102. What utter rubbish! It was a very generalised and incomplete questionnaire, and left out a heck of a lot of important health questions.
Yeah - do you get your money back if you die early then?

Sorry, I never intended that to be a good calculator, I just used it as an example. But 102? Blimey, you must be seriously fit :jealous icon:

[CJ]

The best way for an older guy to have kids is to marry a girl much, much younger than himself.

Sounds like a plan to me! :D

To be fair, tho Duke, at your age u don't have much of a choice!!!! :rofl:

[El Salsero Gringo]

However i do think it's a little selfish & unfair on the child as other parents will be younger & the chances are they won't be around to see that child grow up become a teenager, graduate, marry, have their own children. :Rubbish.

I was born when my father was 55. Since he retired early he had a lot more time to spend with me and the rest of our family than someone younger who's working 60 hours a week to pay the mortgage. Why is that selfish?

Don't ever, ever, confuse longevity with good parenting. There's no connection.

[ducasi]

Given the longer life expectancy of women, that's actually the best way of ensuring a long widowhood for your wife. :whistle: No longer my problem... :whistle:

Anyway, if I'm old enough and she's young enough, she could easily marry again... I'm sure there'll be plenty of suitors for my rich widow. (Not as a result of my wealth... I'm planning to marry into money. :devil: )

[azande]

Rubbish.

I was born when my father was 55. Since he retired early he had a lot more time to spend with me and the rest of our family than someone younger who's working 60 hours a week to pay the mortgage. Why is that selfish?

Don't ever, ever, confuse longevity with good parenting. There's no connection.
It's not selfish but seeing that the age of retirement keeps going up, it is not an argument, today!!

[stewart38]

Trust me you haven't, you'd make a great daddy!!! :clap:

My ex was 52 when our youngest was born, he was great with them, admittedly he had a very young wife (22 yrs younger) & admittedly we haven't seen him for 12 years, but when he was around he was a great dad & they didn't miss out on swimming & learning to ride bikes etc etc

However i do think it's a little selfish & unfair on the child as other parents will be younger & the chances are they won't be around to see that child grow up become a teenager, graduate, marry, have their own children.

I think there is an age when it's just not right.

I'd have another baby now but even i think 'i'll be drawing my pension & he/she could still be studying' :whistle:

:flower: :flower: :flower:

Im 40 now an think im getting too old to have children not on moral grounds but just the 'god id be in my 50s with screaming teenagers'. Im not against it but i dont go 'looking'.

Me thinks to meet women 22 yrs younger maybe an idea and possible if she is russian and needs a visa ? maybe 22yrs a bit steep say 10 ??

Any good looking russian women out there who want to a visa but 2 kids as well before they leave me :grin: