Discussions
How old is too old to be having a baby?
Posted by Myraaso • 8/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: age, baby, Celine Dion, pregnant
Celine Dion is pregnant again with her second child. She is 41, her hubby is 67 years old.
Is the age a personal matter or should we get a say. Maybe a cutoff age?? What about kids who (at a young age) are orphaned? Is it fair to them?
User Comments
-
Congratulations to them!-
agreed!!! i loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Celine!!!
-
-
Ageism at its best folks!
Congrats to the happy couple! They will be able to provide a child with so much! What a lucky little baby!-
Yay! for Celine, her husband and their beloved child. Congratulations are in order. There are so many babies born to parents who don't want them every year. There are so many that end up being abused and neglected. I am overjoyed when I hear that a couple who truly wanted a child has been blessed with one. -
Exactly, TT!
-
-
Don't men stop producing semen at a certain age?
-
I think they can keep on going well into their 80s maybe 90s. It depends on the man I guess...
-
Yea didn't that Tony Randall have babies with his wife until he was in his late 70's? -
eeeek had a mental image of Tony Randall nekkid -
Yikes! Why did you share that?
-
-
I don't know but I am sure that it is too young before 25.-
How about if you are a 23 year old millionaire and can afford to give the child everything (monetarily)and at 23, if you live to be 80, you also have time on your side..
-
Then why does menstruation start at 12?
-
-
Wow...congrats to her!
I think people having babies at an old age is kind of like having them at a young age..if they can honestly give that child the kind of care it deserves and they think about what they are getting themselves into then go for it.
I DO however think those women who try to have babies into their late 60's is totally selfish...that baby deserves to grow up with a mother, not the memory of one up until they were in jr. high.-
I agree!
-
-
Children of young people can be orphaned as well. I am not convinced that having children later in life is such a problem...at least for other people. Being 62 and having had 3 kids, I simply cannot imagine doing the diapers and 2 am feeding route again...but if my neighbour wants to do it, what business is it of mine...or anyone else's?-
I imagine most parents probably agree because they been there. I think anybody over 45 is crazy because your child will turn 16 (driving age here) when you're 61. Of course we had 5 kids so I'm tired anyway.
Also, rich people don't need to be worried about retirement and college at the same time.
-
-
There's just been a baby born of a 60-something year old mother - so physically it's fine. But then, What would it be like have an 80-something year old mother when you're 20?-
It would be normal for that child.......it is the rest of us that would have to adapt!
-
Why would it matter?
-
I think it would matter. My mother just turned 50 and has quite a bit of energy. We can go out together, talk on the phone for hours, we understand each other...so on. I can't imagine not having that kind of bond with her...and if she were 80 Id stand to loose her a lot sooner as well...scary.
-
My Grandma Violet died at 89. Right up until the day she had her stroke she chopped wood for her furnace, split logs, baked bread, kept a vegetable garden, and went to have her hair done every week.
When I came up to visit and we went into town to go shopping, that old woman ran my legs off!! Age does not necessarily equal infirmity. -
Violet...there are exceptions to any and every rule. My g-grandma was the same way...strong country woman.
To me...having a child is a blessing and a gift and a huge new learning experiance and a challenge. Generally child baring age is between 23 and 40 or something like that (I'm speaking generally). In my opinion, why would anyone want to have a child when they KNOW for certain they won't be able to be there for that child as long as that child may need them? Age has nothing to do with strength, true...but no one lives forever. I think once you start having children to fulfil your own aspirations instead of thinking of that child..then your entering some selfish territory. I think there is a natural balence to things, and women stop menstration around their 50's for a reason...because that part of their lives are over. Why not adopt an older child who needs someone to take care of them until they reach 18? Why not give your time to the children already born in your community by volunteering? Why have a child yourself that is going to have to grow up with out parental support because their old ass mother bit the dust on their 8th grade graduation?
IMO. -
Lotus, I have numerous friends who either postponed childbearing until later years or who thought they didn't want children until they unexpectedly found themselves pregnant. They have made wonderful parents. The age of the parent is immaterial, it is the quality of parenting that counts.
Young parents die from war, accident, disease, murder...there is no guarantee that if you have your children at the "right" age, you will live to raise them. Or if you have them at the "wrong" age, there is no guarantee that you will not.
Michael Jackson's mother is almost 80 and she is a serious contender for the custody of his kids. My other grandmother went deer hunting with my grandfather, toting her own rifle and killing and packing out her own deer, in her 70s. There are many criteria by which to measure a person's fitness to be a parent, but simply being past a certain age just is not one of them. -
@Violet
Catherine Jackson may be 80 but she has a staff of people and a clan of children who are all going to help raise the three children, as well as millions and millions of dollars. On the other hand, your grandmother being able to tote a gun and hunt deer into her 70's has nothing to do with her ability to be an attentive parent. I had students with older parents, and the tendency I saw was that those kids had a harder time with behaivior than the other kids because they didn't get as much attention at home. I know this isn't EVERY family, but I noticed it. My ex-boyfriend's parents adopted late in life and are in their late 50's with a 14 year old. They hardly know what to do with her, and turn to their sons for help often. These are random examples of what I've see, as are yours. The point is, it's a personal choice. And personally, I think when your above the age of say 45 you should leave child breaing to younger women. If I find myself barren at 45, I'll choose to adopt an older child who needs a good home.
-
-
We are having to adjust our expectations as time goes on, because people are living longer and medical technology is improving all the time. The biggest change is that biology is more responsive to personal choice: as such, we should treat decisions to procreate in that light.
-
your too old when you can't anymore....-
interesting logic but not practical.
-
-
I think we ought to listen to our bodies. Women have a natural cut-off point and I think it's selfish when people start having children in their late 50s or early 60s via IVF.
The world's oldest mother died last month at the age of 69 leaving her children orphaned under the age of 3. While young parents die too, you are more susceptible to terminal illnesses the older you get.
I don't think having children is a right, I think it's a privilege. Just because you want kids doesn't mean you should have them. Apart from the increased possibility that you will die when the child is still young, there are other concerns that might make you less capable of caring for a child, such as non-terminal age-related illnesses/conditions, increased generation gap etc.
It might sound cruel or ageist but it's just a fact of life. Yes, some people live to 100 and go clubbing and play football and are as fit as people in their 20s, but most people aren't like that and I think the impact on the child when things go wrong is unfair. If you fall pregnant at 48 that's one thing and it's natural, but getting fertility treatments when you are above the age when your body would naturally be able to produce a child is immoral, in my opinion.-
@Epocharis
If you fall pregnant at 48 that's one thing and it's natural, but getting fertility treatments when you are above the age when your body would naturally be able to produce a child is immoral, in my opinion.
I share the same opinion. -
@If you fall pregnant at 48 that's one thing and it's natural, but getting fertility treatments when you are above the age when your body would naturally be able to produce a child is immoral, in my opinion.
So, if you naturally fall pregnant at 53 (reported on the news) it is ok? But, if you enter menopause at age 36, as an on-line friend of mine did, it is immoral to seek fertility treatment? How does that work?
America went through some awful times a few decades back when the country tried to determine who had the "right" to have children. Thousands of people were forcibly sterilized because other people thought they should not reproduce. If you don't ever want to have children, I suppose that could be difficult to relate to in a visceral way, but as someone who has three kids (and who was voluntarily sterilized after #3), I find the whole concept that not everyone has the right to have children, absent clear, adjudicated evidence of unfitness, to be absolutely horrifying.
Sadly, it is not a slippery slope, it is actual history. Once the idea that "some people" should not have the right to have children takes hold, the only thing that keeps you and your loved ones safe is the current...and changeable...definition of who should be prevented from reproducing.
In America they started with the retarded and mentally ill, and then the social engineers expanded their definition to include poor women, sexually liberated women, and women of colour. In one case, the 13 year old pregnant victim of a rape was sterilized while undergoing a Caesarian birth and did not know of it until, years later, she and her husband sought medical assistance because they could not get pregnant. The girl was black and the reason given on her medical records for the sterilization was that she was promiscuous. www.stopvaw.org/History_of_Involuntary_Sterilization_in_the_United_States.h...
Sadly, there are plenty of people among us who would seize on the idea that women over the age of X should not be allowed to reproduce and, unfortunately, the world is rife with people who would use that as a jumping off place to prevent the reproduction of whatever group of people they, personally, would like to see fewer of in the world. Whoever is in power at any point in time gets to name the undesirables who will be denied reproductive choice during their reign. So, depending on the country and administration, say goodbye to non-Christians, non-whites, your political adversaries, women who have sex outside marriage, people with an IQ below a certain figure, people with genetic anomalies or genetically-linked conditions like diabetes, etc., etc., etc.
America has already been there but fortunately saw the light before they actually did all of that. But it might be interesting to realize that the State of Oregon, one of the more progressive states, had such an involuntary sterilization law on the books until the 1980s. You simply cannot name one group of people as being unfit to bear children without risking that future thought will expand the groups. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Bottom line on this issue is this: other people's reproductive choices are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! -
Yeah, that's what I was saying. Compulsory sterilisation for undesirables. Exactly what I said.
-
That is where it goes when we decide that one group or another doesn't have a "right" to reproduce. Either we all have that right (with specific exceptions for those who have actually committed acts that warrant revocation of the right) or none of us do. It takes only a change in political climate and government to put you or me or your neighbour at risk of being identified as part of a group that doesn't have the right to reproduce.
As I said before...this is NOT a slippery slope...it has actually happened and it has escalated to frightening levels, including involuntary sterilization. It starts by identifying a group everybody thinks should not reproduce...mentally retarded, mentally ill, women over 40...whatever. Then comes the question of how to prevent them from reproducing if they won't do it voluntarily. Once it is socially acceptable to exclude certain people from the reproductive pool and it is also acceptable to force them to abstain, there is nothing to stop additional groups from being added and, if they don't cooperative, escalating the methods to coerce cooperation.
I don't think the fact that nature has put a woman's ovaries into cold storage should be the sole reason for denying a woman fertility treatment. As noted before, I know a 36 year old woman who is in menopause...should she be denied fertility treatment because she can no longer conceive naturally? And I have an aunt who became pregnant naturally at 48...should she have been forced to have an abortion? Grandmothers and even great grandmothers take custody of children every day...and my great grandmother died at 33, leaving six young children behind.
Age, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason to deny a woman the right to bear a child. Thinking that it is OK to exclude one group, based on a stereotype, sets the stage for excluding others and compelling them to comply. It has happened before and it can happen again,
Bottom line, however, is the simple fact that none of us have the right to interfere with the reproductive choices of others. It's just NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! -
If you read what I actually said you will find that I didn't say older women shouldn't have a right to have children, I said no one has a right to have children. I have not suggested state-intervention in people's choices to have kids, I was saying that having kids just because you want them is often a selfish decision. Having children should be entirely about the children, and any pleasure you get from being a parent should be secondary to the care of the children.
There are exceptions to everything, some women fall pregnant in their late 50s, other women hit menopause in their early 30s. I'm not making laws, I'm saying that having a child when you have passed the natural age where you can have them, and when there is a greater risk that your child will lose a parent too early is a selfish decision. I said it was 'immoral' not that it 'should be illegal'.
-
-
It is just like someday, her so many friends will say...
Alex:"Nice to meet your grandma yesterday, she is just so nice."
Brat:"Yeah! She is so cool instead of her 80's"
King:"I like your grandma"
Unfortunately, Annie will then cry because...
Annie:"She is my mother peeps" -
I think these are the last people we should be worrying about. People have babies every day who are addicted to drugs, people have children and dump them on doorsteps or in dumpsters so that they don't have to miss a party, people have children with no means of feeding them and don't get them the medical care they need...I'm pretty sure that we'd be in good shape as a society if most of our children had the resources available to them that Celine Dion's child will.-
I believe when you decide to have a baby, you then have to be responsible for them in everything for the very least untill they can graduate from the college/university.
-
By that standard, no one can ever have a child--we all MIGHT die, become disabled, etc.
-
-
Often, older couples having babies might be more financially secure to afford proper schooling, college funds, nanny and tutors, etc and give a good life - even if their health is a risk as the child grows up.
I definitely do not think that 41 is too old to have children although 67 might be a little too old. But, in this case, it's not like they are both 67, so even if the father passes on while the child is growing up, s/he will still have one parent.
So I offer my congratulations to them (although I'm not sending them any baby shower gift unless I get invited over for dinner first!) -
Having a baby at 67 is OK, but the child needs to have parents(IF POSSIBLE) at least until they make it to college. Sometimes even more after that!!
Not sure if Celine's hubby is making it to 85. And how much running around with his kids is he really going to be doing? Although, that certainly isn't everything.
I don't think it's ideal, but what really is anyway?? -
But what about syndrom of DOWN? That chance increases the older you get a baby. Not to mention all the pains you get when you grow old. Like bad bones, bad walking, alzheimer. Or maybe embarassment for your old folks in front of other kids. And what about the parent being up to date.
Old people can be very oldfashioned or don't know about modern things. There could be a generation bridge.
NOTE: I'm talking about old people getting a baby in general.
Celine Dion is rich and a singer, so she will always have money and be up to date and able to pay for operations and stuff.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
