In the news today is Elizabeth Adeney, a 66-year-old woman who is pregnant. Let the shame-fest begin!
Professor Severino Antinori, who treated Rashbrook and has pioneered the IVF techniques involved in impregnating older women, said Munro, who will be 67 in July, was too old."I am shocked by the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth," he said. "I respect the choice medically but I think anything over 63 is risky because you cannot guarantee the child will have a loving mother or family.
"It is possible to give a child to the mother up to the age of 83 but it is medically criminal to do this because the likelihood is that after a year or two the child will lose his mum and suffer from psychological problems."
Quoth Becky Sharper:
O RLY? Because children born to young mothers are thus guaranteed "a loving mother or family"? And their mother's gestational age ensures that those kids never lose their moms and never suffer from psychological problems? Who are you fucking kidding, buddy? A 2-minute conversation with your local social worker or family court judge will blow away that excuse. I also love how he "respects the choice medically" but then rushes to personal judgement as fast as he possibly can.
I'd add that when a man who is eligible for Social Security benefits fathers a child, we rarely see quotes about how his choice was "medically criminal." I smell a double standard.
Each individual woman has the right to decide what's best for her when it comes to reproduction. Women have the right to choose abortion, the right to give up a child for adoption, the right to have children without getting married first, the right to sterilization, the right to NOT be sterilized, the right to IVF treatments (regardless of their partner's gender), and the list goes on. Debating a woman's fitness to be a mother or what course of action is "natural" for her is essentially buying in to an anti-choice worldview in which we can define who is and who isn't a fit mother.
Usually when the media and lawmakers weigh in on a woman's personal reproductive choices, they target low-income women, young women, women with disabilities. Adeney's situation is different because she is a woman in a position of relative privilege who has gotten pregnant via very expensive IVF treatments, but judgments about her decision are rooted in the same brand of sexism.
On a related note, check out the great work by National Advocates for Pregnant Women. And pick up Jeanne Flavin's Our Bodies, Our Crimes. (All proceeds benefit NAPW!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pregnant at 66 and putting choice in context.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13787
Older women's sexualities tend to be the topic/target of public opinion/judgment as well.
Good post!
I'm not sure why people are outraged by this. Yeah, look, I can see how it's worrying that maybe the child will be motherless if the woman passes away from old age later on in life, but surely the woman has it all worked out?
People need to get a life, mind their own damn business, and move on with shit.
I'm outraged by the idea that anyone thinks this is a sexuality or gender issue. The issue here is genetics. Genetically speaking, no woman over the age of 35 should be having children. Birth defects increase as the age of the woman increases. This is not discrimination, it is reality. The idea that this is a "choice" and therefore a good one is ridiculous. Just because it is "medically possible" does not mean it's a good idea.
You put the cutoff at 35, seriously? And you say that NO woman should be having children over 35, not that its statistically a bit more risky? My mom was 39 when she had me. She had two kids in her late 30s and is still perfectly healthy and so are we. Its really not even unusual these days. Having kids over, say, 45 might be more unusual still, but there isn't a cut off point that fits everyone.
Risks do go up as you get older, and its riskier in your 60s than you 30s, but first of all there really isn't a strict cut-off point that would make sense in all cases, and second of all if you ARE going to arbitrarily make up a cut-off date, you should take into account that way more women are having kids in their 30s these days just fine, and put your arbitrary cutoff quite a bit later.
What about guys? Is their a risk for older men if they decide to have children? It seems to me that there's always a media bias against older women having children, but not so much against older males. I really don't know anything about biology or human's bodies, though.
There IS a risk when the father is older-- the quality of the sperm matters-- but there's a greater risk when the mother is older because she actually carries the baby and so her general health has more impact on the pregnancy. The father just has to have healthy sperm and then he can drop dead-- the mother has to have healthy eggs AND stay generally healthy and have her reproductive system work properly for the whole pregnancy, so there's more room for stuff to go wrong.
But yeah if you look up studies, the father being older is also correlated with various problems in the baby.
Yes, there is an increased risk of autism in the offspring of older fathers. Probably other risks as well. We just don't hear much about it.
Dude, at 66 it's a near-certainty she was using donor eggs, therefore young genes.
35 is an absurd cut-off (my mom was 38 when I was born, incidentally), but what an obtuse suggestion in general.
Reproductive choice doesn't just mean giving 66-year-olds the option of becoming pregnant. It means giving them the option of screening for things like birth defects and then providing the option of informed choice about what to do if and when birth defects are detected. (Assuming one favours legalised abortion, the logical extension of the 35-year cut-off, quite clearly, is obligatory abortion just in case a fetus is determined to have a sufficiently severe birth defect; but obligatory abortion is no less abhorrent in principle than absolute prohibition of abortion.)
Which illustrates precisely why, contra Esai, this is a gender and sexuality issue -- because what's at stake is not free access to fertility technology construed as narrowly as possible, but rather the comprehensive range of reproductive freedoms that women (and men for that matter!) are entitled to.
Right? Yes?
My mom was 37 and I turned out fine.
35 is the age at which complications from amnio equal the possible genetic problems that amnio might find. There's nothing magic about it.It's not like your eggs instantly rot once you hit that birthday. I had my son at 35 and will be having another this year at 42. Had genetic tests both times - no complications and no genetic issues.
Obviously you have a point here - there are several reasons to question the wisdom of this woman's decision, and I certainly would not make the decision she has made.
But the question becomes who should make these decisions -- doctors? the government? individual women? Personally I would rather individual women be making these choices than the other two options, given the track records of the other two in making decisions about reproductive matters.
Some people might make choices we hate, but in the end I would rather have some isolated incidents of bad personal decisions than the medial establishment or gov't imposing its view of the right way to do things on everyone.
My sister-in-law is from Ethiopia, where it's common for women to have children well into their 40s. Her mother had 4 children in her 40s, with no birth defects and no hysteria over her "high risk" pregnancies. My sister-in-law had one when she was 37 and one when she was 39, both beautiful, healthy kids. My daughter was born when I was 36, and she's perfect. It's too bad people like you are so eager to drink the coolaid that the western medical establishment is slingin'. Some of us end up going to grad school and establishing careers before having children. Our culture has huge issues with that and tries to scare us into conforming with cultural norms using unreliable data. Fuck that.
"Birth Defects" are not a tragedy, thank you very much. Are we really going to have another round of "omg disability is the Worst! Thing! Evar!"
No birth defects are awesome, best thing ever. That's why they're called "birth defects" to trick suckers in to not trying to make sure they have them; sort of like the "Greenland/Iceland" naming fable.
I'm spearheading an effort to re-allow the use of thalidomide and also opening an exclusive cat-feces handling clinic for expectant mothers who know better than to think there is anything wrong with birth defects.
I'm so glad you agree with me. It's good to be supported by the feminist community when one is trying to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities and "birth defects", and their families. Knowing that you support my efforts makes up for the amount of abuse I receive whenever I do that.
This is one of the most insensitive comments I've ever seen here. Very disappointing.
So when my mom became pregnant at 40, it would have been in the best interest to abort the fetus rather than let it develop into my little sister, who is growing up to be an amazing young feminist, by the way.
If we as feminists can say that women are intelligent beings who understand the risks and consequences (good and bad) of continuing a pregnancy or aborting it, shouldn't we also be able to trust that older women can understand and handle the risks they take in becoming pregnant?
That's a generalization based on your own anecdotal experience.
I'm sure if someone were to ask if you agree that when it comes to sex or offspring that you could think of many people who do not behave in a rational manner.
I, for example, drive really well when I'm stoned (in my opinion). I've never had an accident or gotten a ticket. So I guess using my experience as a guideline nobody should ever be questioned on their good sense for getting high and driving.
No, it's a statement of principles, based on ... principle.
LOL. My mom had me at age 40, and my sister at age 43. She had genetic testing done during both pregnancies, and she's a great mom. Oh, and my sister and I are perfectly healthy, so shut your trap please. Kthx.
Sorry all. I had my kids at 33 and 37 and I think that women need to be able to have choices but this is an awful idea. Let's forget the idea that if they were her eggs she's in for a world of trouble. Let's instead say that she had donor eggs. Great they are healthier (theoretically) she still has the body of a 66 year old woman. In order to carry the pregnancy any where near term she is going to have to have hormonal supplementation. There are so many medical arguments I could make I'd be here all day. There is one statement I do have to make.
She has been quoted as saying that she is "healthy". I was "healthy" when I was pregnant with my now 4 year old. But I was less healthy when she was 18 months old and I was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. And believe it or not I had a clean, negative mammogram at age 35 and no family history. www.aftercancernowwhat.com
Healthy is a relative term and can change in an instant. Having a child at age 66 will with little doubt put strains on your body that you can not imagine, ask anyone who has had a kid. At 41 I've been told how well behaved my grandchildren are (GOD THAT SUCKS!!!)
So while I am in favor of all kinds of choices for women of all kinds I think some common sense should be brought into the picture.
What does your medical history prove about someone else's health status? I had cancer as a 23-year-old with no family history or apparent risk factors - and no-one would have stopped me having a baby at that age, as I was perfectly healthy until then. The effects of that cancer are still with me and will be for life, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some 66-year-olds healthier than me (now aged 34). Just like pointing at a fat person and saying "they're sick" or a thin person and saying "they're healthy", age is only one part of the picture of someone's health.
Terrible complications can arise during pregnancy at any age. This kind of thinking suggests that all women should be thoroughly screened before being allowed to get pregnant (sounds a tiny bit fascist to me) and that even if they were thoroughly screened the risks are unacceptable. What a strange view.
It all comes down to the idea of superiority and that "we" (more like "they", the ones who have privilege and want this superiority) should not encourage "inferior people" to reproduce because why would you want more of something you don't want in the first place? Because society doesn't value young people, old people, disabled people, low-income people, people who aren't white or many other people, there is a negative tone when the topic of reproduction in these groups arise.
This is almost too easy. It's her choice. Yeah, there are risks (yes, I'm assuming she used donor eggs) but those are her risks to take.
Yes, health CAN change in an instant--FOR ANYONE OF ANY AGE. Age does complicate things. But keep in mind, teen pregnancies in healthy girls are considered high risk because the girl is still growing. She essentially competes with her fetus for nutrients.
She's 66--if she's healthy, she will probably live into her mid-80s. Enough time to raise the child. I'm sure she has thought about who will raise her child if she dies. This is a issue ALL parents have to think about.
There are plenty of men out there starting "new" families with their second or even third "young wife." I live in a large city and see this all the time. In fact it's considered quite the status symbol, especially among the already wealthy, for a 66 year old dude to have a young family. I mean, if a guy already has a career, a car, and all the toys he wants, the only way he can "top" the other guys is with his young wife and baby (evidence that he's still "got it" even though that may entail medical insurance that covers trophy wife's in vitro... not his sexual potency).
If she is pregnant and gives bith--that attests to her health!!!
This is soooooo much about a double standard!!!!
Mothers can mother wrong in so many ways--if a dad does a half-a$$ job, he praised by society.
As the child of older parents, I've struggled with these questions. I don't want to have kids too early because I want a career, but I couldn't put my kids through what I've gone through. At a very young age I had to come to terms with my father's heart attack, my mother's Alzheimer's and more. Now, just going into the job market I'm wondering if I'll have to give it up to go home and care for them. Not to mention knowing my kids will never have grandparents. It's a tough thing to put a kid through. But its her choice. I wouldn't judge her choice even though I've made mine.
She had to fight for it, she's obviously thought it through, and there's something to be said for having a mom who REALLY wanted you. The clincher is that this would so not be an issue if it was a man. Argh.
i can totally understand the concerns over health risks and i know most people are just thinking of the kid's future.
but the bottom line is: it's her uterus. it's her body. it's her decision. it's her choice.
no discussion necessary. it's her choice.
Because of our family's health history (wife's mother dead when she was 39, my father and grandfather dead by 58), both my wife and I kind of assumed when we were considering marriage 15 years ago, that we would go the same way (and even contemplated that we would pass any risks on to our children). I still don't believe I'll be around till retirement age, so I'll have to do a good job with investments and insurance for my wife and children.
It sounds like this woman has done a much better job planning ahead.
I doubt there's anything magical about the age 35, but a lot of research splits mothers into categories around that number. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the research though. I've included some abstracts from about 10 minutes of searching Google Scholar for "advanced paternal age" "advanced maternal age" and "advanced parental age." I've deleted some of the text so that this post isn't gargantuan, but the citations are included.
Here's one abstract I found from 1985:
"A 3-year study of...1023 women who were 35 years and older...A control group consisting of 5343 women aged 20 to 25 years was used for comparison. Each group was analyzed for the following parameters: pregnancy complications, labor complications, delivery factors, and neonatal outcome. The results show very few statistical differences in the factors analyzed. On the basis of this 3-year study it appears that pregnancies in women of advanced maternal age in the 1980s who are delivered in a modern tertiary care center may be of no higher risk for adverse outcome than pregnancies in younger parturients."
Kirz DS, Dorchester W, Freeman RK. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May 1;152(1):7-12.
A more recent (1996) study said:
"In women > 45 years old at delivery maternal and fetal outcomes were generally good, but there was a high incidence of pregestational (chronic hypertension, hypothyroidism) and gestational (karyotype abnormalities, gestational diabetes, cesarean section, macrosomia) complications."
Dildy, Gary A.; Jackson, G. Marc, et al., Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:668-74.
There's also studies showing that both advanced maternal and paternal age pose risks for the offspring. The risks are not for the same mutations, but both can be serious.
Fathers:
"Previous studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with an increase in new dominant mutations that may result in some rare congenital anomalies or syndromes in the offspring...We examined...9,660 cases of birth defects (22 specific defect groups). We chose matched controls...With the exception of an unusual change in direction in the 45-49 years age category, we found a general pattern of increasing relative risk estimates (adjusted for maternal age and other factors) with increasing paternal age for neural tube defects, congenital cataracts, reduction defects of the upper limb, and Down syndrome. Men under 20 years of age were also at increased risk for fathering children with birth defects such as neural tube defects, hypospadias, cystic kidney, and Down syndrome."
McIntosh, Given C.; Olshan, Andrew F.; Baird, Patricia A., Epidemiology. 1995 May; 6(3).
Mothers:
"The distribution of trisomy 21 by origin was 86% maternal (75% MI and 25% MII), 9% paternal (50% MI and 50% MII), and 5% mitotic. Compared with women =}40 years old had an odds ratio of 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-27.4) for maternal MI (MMI) errors and 51.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-999.0) for maternal MII (MMII) errors. Birth-prevalence rates for women {>=}40 years old were 4.2/1,000 births for MMI errors and 1.9/1,000 births for MMII errors. These results support an association between advanced maternal age and both MMI and MMII errors. The association with MI does not pinpoint the timing of the error; however, the association with MII implies that there is at least one maternal age-related mechanism acting around the time of conception."
Yoon, P.W. ; Khoury, M.J. ; Freeman, S.B., American Journal of Human Genetics. 1996 Mar. 58(3).
Sorry this is post is so bulky. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the results. They seem to indicate that advanced parental age does show an increase in genetic abnormalities, but that maternal and fetal outcomes are generally good despite an increase in complications.
I forgot to emphasize how small a snapshot of current research my post is. The point I was trying to make is that there is evidence out there regarding outcomes for both mother and child, so we don't have to rely only on anecdotal evidence.
I was taught that the reason for the magic "35" number is that at 35 the risk of having a child with down syndrome is greater than the risks associated with the amniocentesis needed to test for it. I'm not sure if that shaped how researchers framed their studies on other age-associated genetic risks, but it may have.
So that means that at 35 is when you should start doing amnios? That seems fair enough.
But I wonder when they decided that the risks were equal at that point, because I've read that amnios now are way safer than they used to be.
No, age 35 is usually the age around about which women are offered amniocentesis, if that is their choice.
And "offered" here is code for "pressured and badgered and shamed for refusing it."
Well, the risk of Down syndrome does go up as age goes up, but that's a case of interpreting statistics for a preconceived result. The most recent number I have read is that at 35 the risk of Down goes up to one in ten, from one in 100 for under 30. Horrors!
That actually means you have a 90% chance of having a NON Downs child. How many things would you skip because there's a ten percent chance it will not go your way, and a 90 percent chance things will be fine?
I would never want a baby at 66, heck I don't want one now and I'm in my 40s. But it's up to HER. I think extravagant weddings are an abomination, but that's up to the participants. I think pedigreed animals are unethical, but it isn't up to me whether a person should fork over 800 dollars for a designer dog when people are starving.
It doesn't mean I agree with her or think she's doing the "right" thing to say it's up to her.
A child with Down's Syndrome is not a tragedy.
Trouble, I agree completely, a child with Down is not a tragedy.
I was only trying to answer the most commonly used tool to hurt "older" mothers: You'll have a Downs child! Ninety percent of the time, they won't.
Sorry that my remark came off as insensitive.
No, not in and of itself. But it isn't always the mild disability it's often portrayed as, either. Something like 40% of live-born Down's children die before age 10, from high incidences of major cardiac complications and strong predisposition to a number of cancers. And most who survive to adulthood develop Alzheimers or other forms of senile dementia in their forties - see here. And parents watching their child get sick and die is a tragedy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of prescriptive abortion for trisomy 21 - I'm just not in favor of saying concerns about it are merely a reflection of ablism, either.
The chance of having a child with Down Syndrome at 35 isn't anywhere near 10% -- it's well under 1%.
According to a study I just found online, it's only 5% when you're 45.
Also, it's only in America that we make the 35 y/o distinction. In other countries they find it odd that Americans think your uterus expires at 35.
There are other aspects to it than her uterus though. What about her physcial ability to deal with a baby and toddler (even mothers in their 20s stuggle, how would someone in their 60s manage), the fact that the liklihood of her dying soon is higher than that of younger mothers etc. Choice looks nice in theory, but honestly having a baby at such an age is just a stupid decision.
stupid decision it may be to you, but it is still her decision.
I love how we assume in our culture that the mother has sole responsibility for a child - that's she'll be doing it all on her own. I realize that the way the nuclear family works within our capitalist structure, as well as the influence of cultural norms, often produces this arrangement, but there's no reason to assume that this is how this particular woman intends to do it, or that it has to be that way, or that it's somehow natural for a woman to carry the whole burden of parenting.
My parents babysit regularly for my two children, including frequent overnight visits, and sometimes longer. My kids are 6 and 2, and my parents are 67 and 66.
Being in your mid-sixties doesn't mean you're decrepit. There are a LOT of people that age raising children, and doing a great job of it.
Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.
I hope you see the error of your ways.
~Another Woman
best comment ever.
Agreed.
Reminds me of the interview Obama had where he talked about his dying grandmother getting an expensive hip replacement even though she only had 3 to 6 months to live. The President talked about how this would be a tough choice for the society.
Well here I think is a similar case: an old woman, who obviously is very rich, decides to have one last hurrah and spends gobs of money on it. If we are really going to have universal health care, should we have to put up with this? Isn't the money much better spent on helping young women, single mothers, and poor children?
Universal healthcare (in Britain, anyway) wouldn't have funded her IVF. And if she does have "gobs of money" she will be paying taxes to provide for her post-natal care anyway. And elderly or ill people are assessed before major surgery to see if the benefits are greater than the risks - someone known to be at the end of their life is highly unlikely to have this kind of surgery. But hip replacement is not a risk free surgery (nor is life risk free) and some people do have expensive surgery then die. It happens no matter who pays for it.
"Well here I think is a similar case: an old woman, who obviously is very rich, decides to have one last hurrah and spends gobs of money on it. If we are really going to have universal health care, should we have to put up with this? Isn't the money much better spent on helping young women, single mothers, and poor children?"
Though they would be misguided, people could question spending on those people as well, while millions of others lose their homes and jobs, which itself drags down the economy through reduced consumption.
Who is to say that this woman's child, whom I assume would inherit her business, if nothing else, will not become a net producer to society, or have any less potential than a young underprivileged person our society assists? (Just last month, I read President Obama described as the son of a goat herder. He was raised by his maternal grandmother in Hawaii, went to an exclusive private school on financial assistance, and look at him today.)
Many criticisms of frivolous or wasteful uses of money can be made against the health care system in general, even in the US. Last month's Reader's Digest had a very interesting article which claimed that "only one cancer screening test, the venerable Pap smear, has truly slashed the risk of death." The others they mention, including routine mammograms, are of questionable value, and can result in unnecessary stress, cost, or even harm from unnecessary treatment, as many cancers are asymptomatic or simply go away on their own.
http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/cancer-screening-and-prevention-news-in-health/article122134.html
Based on this, could we say that routine cancer screening is a waste of money better spent on comprehensive sex education, a local women's shelter, or processing rape kits?
Maybe Im not feminist enough but I do think there needs to be a limit on how old one can be in order to have children. Science is great and is helping lots of people have kids who perhaps might not have been able to in the past but cant we begin to set limits? Just because we can, does that mean we should? I think 35 is a bit too limiting but I think by 40/45 can we maybe say that you missed the boat?
I believe medical professionals have the right to make recommendations for or against certain treatments or procedures, based on the client's health, expected outcome, cost vs. benefit and other factors. Not to force them.
As this woman sounds fit, more fit than some people who are not working five days a week and running their own business while eight months pregnant, I don't see a problem in the health department. (I had back pains requiring medical attention myself last week, and they wanted me to stay home from work. My boss discouraged me, against union rules and hospital policy, because our department was having its annual Medicare certification inspection.)
Though infrequent, there are women who conceive naturally at 40 and 45. If we are supposed to tell women they "missed the boat" for their age or infertility, why not tell people who have trouble conceiving naturally (male or female), they are "not meant" to have children to begin with?
Many women get pregnant naturally in their 40s. Should they be prohibited? Seems a bit fascist to me. And who would we hire as the uterus police, and how would they perform their function?
So what's the point of reproductive justice when women are interrogated for their reproductive choices for disability, age, economic class, and so on? Why are there so many lines where it's suddenly okay to float the notion that maybe some women don't deserve the same reproductive justice that supposedly all women deserve?
We don't need to set limits.
Question: If this woman really wanted a child, why didn't she do something about it years ago? She had a 25 year window for having children naturally, and an additional 10 years using the help of a typical doctor. Had she wanted them even 12 years ago there were doctors willing to help. Someone stating they've wanted children for years (not decades) makes me wonder if she's like many immature people who want a child just because everyone else has one.
"Question: If this woman really wanted a child, why didn't she do something about it years ago?"
From what little I can hear of the story, perhaps she never found a clinic willing or able to do it before last year when she got pregnant. She had been "desperate" for years to have a baby, but
"Most British clinics will not treat women over 50 and most NHS primary care trusts do not consider anyone over 40."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/16/66-year-old-mother
so she went abroad where doctors are more "adventurous" in Prof. Antinori's words.
Speaking as someone who was a perfectly healthy 23-year-old who suddenly got a rare cancer (with no family history or apparent risk factors), you can't predict that a healthy 66-year-old is not going to last another 18 years. That's barely over average life-expectancy for a woman. She *is* at higher risk of complications (even using donor eggs) but if she was a young woman undertaking the same risks in order to have a baby she'd be hailed as heroic - as long as she wasn't poor! See any number of "heroic" documentaries about young women with medical conditions (cancer, quadriplegia, achondoplasia, brittle bones...) who "struggle" to "make a family".
Physical conditions, possibly. As soon as there's a cognitive disability, it's a different story. Oh, and for it to be heroism the girl has to be white, too! And so on and so forth.
Just saying - there are other groups of women who get shamed for wanting to have kids.
Yes, white and not mentally disabled are right up there, too! Sorry, I didn't mean to exclude other groups in giving examples.
Okay younger woman can get seriously ill and/or die young. But this woman is having a baby knowing that the odds are against her being alive and relatively healthy when the child is a teenager.
I have lots of friends in their 60's who are healthy and active. Although even the fittest amongst them (including a woman who does challenging hikes sucha s the Inca trail) all say that they do get more tired more quickly as they age. And, for all but the lucky few this can change dramatically when people reach their 70's.
I think it is unfair to have a child when their is a very strong chance that child will have a mother who either dies when she is young or is has serious age related illnesses such as alzheimers.
Does being a feminist mean we have to support all choices a woman makes with her body even when these are foolish choices? And yes older dads don't get the same negative press, which is unfair. However, this doesn't make what this woman is doing right.
Ah, but the catch is "odds". You don't know this particular woman's health, genetic history or indeed much about her at all - and thus you don't get to judge her. I know people in their 80s who have walked the Kokoda Trail, and people in their 30s who dropped dead walking it.
Do you think it's "unfair" for a poor woman to have a child, knowing that it's extremely likely that the child will grow up to be a poor adult? How about disabled women? Why should you be the arbiter of her choices?
Does being a feminist mean we have to support all choices a woman makes with her body even when these are foolish choices?
I've always come down to a "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it," kind of deal in areas I may find personally questionable (ethically, morally or whatever).
I see people everyday make, what I feel [and this harkens back to the whole privilege concept; my perceptions are colored by my advantages, by my personal experiences, education, etc.], are not wise choices.
If it's a person I'm close to, (and the relationship allows for it) I might feel comfortable hedging in to ask questions and maybe offer insight.
But at the end of the day, particularly for such issues as bodily autonomy: It's their choice. Whether I personally find it right or wrong, wise or unwise. I'll work to make that choice available/accessible.
Exactly! It is one thing to have a discussion about restricting or legislating choice, which I think is wrong even if the choice seems reprehensible.
It is another thing to acknowledge the ways in which a choice can and perhaps SHOULD be criticized without saying that it should be restricted.
For me, this issue isn't about whether mother's love is the ultimate in parenting (it isn't), bodily health during pregnancy/childhood (you never know, presumably she has been checked out) or even older moms v. older dads as parents (when you aren't being sexist the risks are basically the same).
This issue is about whether it is moral/ethical to have a child deal with losing a parent at a younger age due to your personal choice.
Yes the catch is the odds. And the odds are against her being alive and healthy when this child is a teenager. Of course there are the odd exceptions of woman who are physically fit and active in their 80's, but they are very very rare exceptions.
Many many woman are healthy and fit in their mid 60's - that isn't very unusual. So I don't think her health at this age tells us that she is going to be alive and able to look after her child in 10 or 12 years time. As I said before, many people's health deteriorates quite dramatically in their 70's.
Women who are poor or disabled are a red herring. Poor or disabled women can be alive and healthy enough to look after their children when they are teenagers. However the odds are that this child will be orphaned at a very young age and/or have to take care of a mother who has age related illnesses such as alzheimers.
Poor or disabled women not a red herring - they're an example of people whose life positions are not optimum, according to general societal opinions - and in both cases, a likelihood of shortened lifespans. You say that "generally" women do this and "generally" women do that, but the point is that you are using generalities (and your own opinions) to judge one particular woman's choices - and that's not feminist. I ask again, why should you get to make this woman's decision for her?
I think the most interesting thing about this story is all the assumptions about women and mothering it highlights.
1) It assumes that there's something intrinsically unique and irreplaceable about mother-love, and that a child who doesn't have mother-love until s/he's well into adulthood will be damaged. For all we know, this woman has a network of caring people in place who will care for the child and each make a contribution to his/her upbringing. Assuming that mother-love is some kind of magical thing that solves all problems, addresses every need, etc is one more way our culture asymmetrically burdens women, undervalues the contributions of fathers, privileges the traditional hetero family, and disourages people from creating the kinds of social networks that are often an optimal context for child-rearing.
2) It assumes that having a child with Downs is a catastrophic event, that Downs kids are disposable, or at least less valuable than non-Downs kids, etc. What a bizarre and heart-breaking assumption. People with Downs can and do live fulfilling, happy lives. I was 35 when I got pregnant (by accident) and it wasn't really great timing for us. We took a couple of weeks to consider the options before deciding to go through with the pregnancy. Once I had decided to have the baby, I didn't really care if s/he had Downs or not. But my care provider saw my "high risk" pregnancy as an opportunity to milk my insurance company for every $ they could by performing one test after another. I had to really work hard to convince them that I did not want many of them. The initial screening for Downs, for instance, has a very high false-positive rate, which then results in an amnio, which is still rather risky. I declined the Downs screening because we intended to keep the baby either way. It took me about 25 minutes to convince the doctors that I didn't want the test and would not agree to it. Seriously. They were surprised at how knowledgeable I was about the procedure and the false-positive rates and the risks of amnio, etc. But even so they couldn't stop trying to pressure me into it. I can only conclude that they really, really wanted the money.
3) It assumes that this is something society ought to be deciding for women. As other commenters have noted, nobody's trying to decide whether older men ought to be "allowed" to have children, and in fact we unquestioningly fund Viagra and the like through public health and private insurance. This assumption also shows how we construct parenting so differently for men and women. Nobody suggests that a child will be damaged because his/her father died when s/he was very young, but the loss of his/her mother will be a blow from which s/he has no hope of recovery...
I don't know how I feel about this, to be honest. On the one hand, I agree that it's her body and that she has a right to do whatever she wants with it. But then, I think of the so-called "Octo-mom" (who, I'll admit is an outlier) and the effect that her choice to have 14 children will have on her, her children, and the California economy (since she's on welfare... correct me if I'm wrong).
So, I guess, I feel like there has to be a line somewhere when it comes to IVF, but I don't know where.
Referring to Suleman as "the octomom" is othering and dehumanizing.
Meh. It's her right to make unusual choices (just like it's your/my right to be weirded out by those choices).
The kid is probably going to be a little more weird and fucked up in some ways; just like every person is weird and fucked up in some unique way because of some peculiarity in who raised them or the circumstances of their upbringing.
How about Tony Randall, wasn't he like 74 when he fathered his last kid? At least this woman has a good chance of seeing her kid become an adult.
Hm. I think my views on overpopulation and health win out over feminism this round.
Wow I can't believe all the criticism this woman is getting. Check out my thoughts and what the real issue should be at http://pregnantat66whocares.blogspot.com/
Dear Feministing Commenters: I have both a disability and a young child. I'm also over the age of forty. I realise now that I'm doing it wrong. Do you suggest that I give him to family, or to strangers? Please answer as soon as possible; I'm eagerly awaiting your input into my reproductive choices, as obviously I am unable to run my own life. Kthxbai.
Exactly.
A few things strike me. First, while men can father children all their lives (albeit with less likelihood as they age), the announcement of an elderly man impregnating a much younger woman is generally met with disapproval, not celebration, in my experience. "Evening the playing field" is not necessarily desirable.
Second, it's true that parents may sicken and die at any age, that tragedy leaves some children in their grandparents' care, etc. What it comes down to is, I think, a matter of reasonable probability rather than just possibility. The odds that this mother won't get a serious disease before her child turns eighteen are very small, and she has no partner or living parents to provide support if that's the case. To put it in perspective, albeit using a crude analogy: Anyone who drives a car could get into a crash and die, it's true. The risk doesn't mean no one should drive. But that doesn't mean we should allow Corvairs or Pintos on the market. Anything could happen to anyone at any time; individuals and societies, however, base most of their decisions on what is reasonably likely to happen in most cases.
Third, practicing medicine is not like ordering off a restaurant menu. It speaks volumes that this woman went out of her country and found a clinic that does no health screenings or follow-up and is willing to impregnate even an 80-year-old woman. Just because technology makes it possible to do something doesn't mean that it is safe, ethical, or desirable to allow it to happen.
I agree with you Growing Violet. And I think there is a massive difference between a woman in her 40's having children and a woman in her 60's. I never mentioned anything about Down's Syndrome. However I worked with disabled children and adults for many many years. Mnay people with Down's Syndrome live happy lives with very few problems. Although some have serious heart problems. Having a Down's Syndrome child wouldn't personally scare me.
What would would worry me is having a child whose developmental age never progresses beyond a baby or a toddler. I have seen parents struggling to cope as their tall 20 year old son has a toddlers temper tantrum, or struggling to physically care for an adult who still needs the physical and emotional care given to a baby. The strain on the whole family of coping with adults with these types of disabilities is enormous.
I don't understand when people think it IS ok to disapprove of something or make ethical judgments. Ever? I don't think this woman should be punished or her child taken away (as some of the above posters are implying that others are suggesting). But I'm the mother of a toddler and my professional work is with older adults, and I think this is a terrible idea.
The true problem I see is that society makes a smaller fuss (though I think there is still some fuss) when an older man becomes a parent. This is not fair.
Though one difference people may be assuming is that when an old man impregnates a young woman, the child will have ONE young parent, at least. In the case of the 66-year-old mother, unless she is partnered with a much younger person, BOTH parents will be very old relative to the child. I'm sorry, but this matters. Older people contribute in a fabulous and unique way to my child's life, but my child exhausts ME, at 30. My mother tells me she wishes she'd had her children earlier because being 55 with two young teenagers was incredibly hard. Assuming the mother in question lives to 80, she will be 80 when her child becomes a teenager. I will feel free to have an opinion on this: I think it's a terrible idea.
Yeah, I agree. I think it's unfair older men don't get the same "shame fest."
I think it's also problematic that while she could live until her 80s, she might need her hips replaced at 75 etc etc when her kid is....10.
Let's just hope this woman has lots of money and has good family support, she will probably need it more than your average younger woman.
Oh my God I'm taking Jeanne Flavin's class on gender and justice next semester. So psyched!
Back on topic: Yes, having kids at 66 is generally a bad idea. I don't think there's much of an argument over that. But it's NOT our place to stop this woman, or 'Octomom,' or anyone else from reproducing how she chooses. Reproductive freedom does not-- and should not-- only apply to abortion.
It's not what I would do, but I haven't been in this woman's shoes. And I certainly don't have her kind of money. My only question would be why she didn't do this at least 10 or 15 years ago. If she's badly wanted to be a mother for a long time, as I've read, how come she waited 'til she was in her 60s? Would she not have been permitted to adopt because of her age? If not, it seems like that might have been easier on her than what she's gone through. It's not as though this child is biologically related to her any more than an adopted child would be. Perhaps she wanted the experience of carrying a baby, who knows?
And who's to say she has no right? There was an old TV-movie from the '80s where a woman became pregnant in her late 40s and most of her family wanted her to have an abortion. It actually carried a feminist message, in its own way. The line I remember quite clearly is when she tells her older daughter, "I have the right to abort this baby and I also have the right to keep it if I want to. That's called having the right to your own body." Even though this isn't quite the same situation, I think it applies anyway.
Sure, you can have a healthy pregnancy at 40, that's not unheard of...BUT 66 is 26 yrs older than 40.
That's 2 yrs shorter than my entire current lifespan. After 50, your health can change dramatically in a very short span of time, and I think Adeney is extremely irresponsible.
My mother is 62 and in great health, but would I think it wise for her to have a baby knowing that when that kid is 10 she'll be 72? Uh, no. One thing is to shame, another thing is to ignore common sense, and this just don't make no damn sense.
I think if this woman couldn't get pregnant naturally at her age, she has no business having a baby because her time to have one has passed. Are her supporters arguing that elective boutique medical science knows better than nature???? It sounds to me like she got lonely and had some money to throw at it--for that, she should have adopted a dog.
If she's such a good candidate to be a mother, why didn't she adopt a child and invest the money she spent on IVF into a care and college fund for a child instead? B/C MOST ADOPTION AGENCIES WOULD AGREE that the idea of having an infant in your mid 60s is madness, and she likely looked into adopting and was denied.
I could, ostensibly, have elective medical procedures to make myself look like an elf, but just because I CAN, should I? Maybe, not so much.