Mother at 63

Her decision to have a child is her business, nobody elses.

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Fri, 2006-05-05 13:03

#4

glastobasto

I agree with that sentiment... Personally I do find it to be a pretty selfish act but who am I to try and stop her.

Fri, 2006-05-05 13:17

#5

I just think she's bonkers. At 63 I plan to be well shot of raising kids, travelling the world, sitting in cafes drinking strong coffee, enjoying my well-earned retirement or near-retirement. Why on earth someone would want to have a baby at that late stage of life is beyond me, but if she thinks she's gonna live to 100 and have the energy of a much younger woman, good on her. But I feel sorry for the kid, she's likely to wind up orphaned anyhow...

Fri, 2006-05-05 14:14

#6

How is it selfish?

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Fri, 2006-05-05 14:35

#7

yan

lol..how anyone can accuse someone of being 'selfish' for wanting a child is beyond me. What else drives us to rear children? yet, amidst this, we are witnessing the repugnant rearing of cihldren by "career" women who are happy to give birth and then hand their trophies over to indifference nurseries, and poor old parents who are trying to enjoy their own retirement. Now that's selfish!! At least the old dear can raise her child that she can call her own, rather than her heartless daughter's. Hear my music: http://music.download.com/3600-5-100795586.html

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Fri, 2006-05-05 14:56

#8

There's a reasonably logical argument that every decision we make is selfish, so I don't really feel this case is any more worthy of that accolade than what you decide to have for dinner. However at her age she CAN'T be the kind of mother every child has the right to expect. Yeah, she has money, property, social status blah blah blah, but she doesn't have youth on her side, and it's my opinion that her and her husband have put what THEY want before the needs, expectations etc of the child. I was 45 when I lost my mother, and 47 when I lost my father. Although I was traumatised to some extent by both deaths, my age and life experience, coupled with the fact that they had supplied me with a support system until such time that I no longer needed it, I was mentally able to deal with the concept of death, something that young kids shouldn't have to contemplate. They also don't need to deal with sick and aging, sometimes incontinent, parents until later in life. If raising a baby at their ages is acceptable ask yourselves whether they would be considered for adoption, and if not, why not. I don't know the facts but I'm willing to bet that ALL adoption agencies have age limits on prospective parents, and rightly so.

Fri, 2006-05-05 15:02

#9

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

I can rationally imagine only one reasonable expectation for anybody. That you will eventually die. What happens between birth and death is just gravy.

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Fri, 2006-05-05 16:18

#10

2Lou

I couldn't put it better than, Missi, but anyway... Weâ€™re programmed genetically to procreate, if fulfilling that â€˜urgeâ€™ counts as selfish â€“ then I suppose we all are. But there are degrees, surely. I realise plenty of grandparents, due to circumstances, end up raising young children. But thereâ€™s a difference. This woman has taken the decision to have a fourth child *deliberately* when she is way beyond the natural childbearing age. In my opinion, this makes her â€˜moreâ€™ selfish because she instantly puts her child at a potential and very likely disadvantage. I have a lot of older relatives, and have found the difference between 63 and 73 is immense. Both my parents were fine and dandy at 63 â€“ they ainâ€™t now. My mother is at high risk of strokes and my father is chronically ill. They both adore their grandchildren but they only have the energy to deal with them in very small doses. They are both over-anxious (a trait which increases with age, the reasons for which are chemical but Iâ€™ve forgotten what they are). Their eyesight is failing, they donâ€™t like driving, my father has the memory of a goldfish. So when this child is ten â€“ having parents in a similar condition is not at all unlikely. And when theyâ€™re a teenager?? If the response to this is that the child would primarily be looked after by another, then by Yanâ€™s argument, that also makes them selfish. I appreciate there will be exceptions to this scenario, but the parents concerned should not assume that they are going to be one of them. That is whatâ€™s selfish - the disregard for the probable consequences of having a child at such an age when theyâ€™ve got three healthy children already. Btw â€“ on a slightly different point, I know a fair few house husbands and house husbands in gen. seem to be becoming quite common. So I think the vilification that surrounds the notion of a â€˜career womanâ€™ should carry a caveat. (For the record, I have two children and Iâ€™m, for want of a better word, a housewife.)

Fri, 2006-05-05 16:34

#11

I have to disagree with you on this one George. That youth is more important than 'financial, social and medical security' (that this baby will have - direct quote from parents)? Christmas money spent on booze, cramped in a bedroom shared with three brothers on a run-down council estate, no financial support through college... ... ... or the fact that there's a good chance I'll loose both parents when I'm in my twenties rather than my forties... I know what I say is the lesser of the evils. And you don't have to wait ages to inherit. Joking aside, I think quality rather than quantity of parental years are the real gift...and it isn't just about money. This woman is a child psychiatrist so she should get it right....alternatively that could indicate she may well indeed cock it up drastically! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Fri, 2006-05-05 16:40

#12

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Explain how a mother loosing her hearing, or her memory, or ability to drive an automobile equates to her being selfish? What sounds selfish is the argument..."You've already got three healthy kids, you don't need any more". In my mind, this equates to saying "If something doesn't turn out how I think it should be, I don't want to have to deal with it, so stick to what I think is right for you and your child and I'll feel better about it in the long run."

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Fri, 2006-05-05 16:46

#13

2Lou

'Explain how a mother loosing her hearing, or her memory, or ability to drive an automobile equates to her being selfish?' ? It doesn't equate to her being selfish.

Fri, 2006-05-05 17:06

#14

Jude, the fact that she is a psychiatrist almost guarantees she'll fuck the kids head up. I agree with you about quality over quantity but you seem to think that age = quality! Quality of what exactly? Playing football in the park? Climbing Ben Nevis? Being in tune with youngsters? Not everyone grows up in comparative poverty these days, and in fact the poverty you describe would have been luxury to me 60yrs ago. Not everyone has alcoholic parents. Youth doesn't automatically mean a lack of 'financial, social and medical security' . Your view of the penury imposed by 'young' parents is just that, 'your' view based on your personal experience. I'm sorry you had to endure that, but don't project your experiences on to all young familys because that is so jaundiced as to be pointless. Perhaps you or anyone else might explain to me why older people are excluded from consideration as adoptive parents.

Fri, 2006-05-05 17:20

#15

Not saying age= quality Just that age is just one factor in quality and not one I'd put high up on the list. Actually a young couple who'd have more years with the child, who are emotionally stable, loving, financially secure, tolerant, have good values etc etc have a plus on this couple in question. (I add such a saccharinely perfect family surely can't exist!) If I implied or if it was inferred that older=quality - sorry - that aint what I meant! In summary - There are many factors which contribute to good parenting. - The more of these factors present the better - These factors include, providing emotionally, financially, morally, socially for your children and being there to support them in these ways for as long as possible - I think the factors being present is MORE important than having many years to supply them (although such years and therefore youth is Desirable but non-essential) - So why all the damned outcry against this woman when others are doing far worse??!!! I agree on the fact that as a psych she is quite likely to fuck the kid up with her gestalt integrative theories jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Fri, 2006-05-05 18:29

#16

bobblehat2023

There an outcry because it's a good fun news story and everyone's enjoying it. I, for one, have been delighted to enjoy two or three minutes of News at Ten every night for about week where no one gets murdered, raped or massacred and pretentious experts pontificate wildly on why this family's breeding exploits either are or aren't another symptom of society going to the dogs. For me this whole thing is a symptom of local councils not providing enough stimulating activities for the elderly. We need more transparency, whatever that is. Perhaps this woman could be persuaded to give up her baby for adoption by a younger couple and instead amuse herself with the role of England football manager. She's just as qualified for the job as Steve McClaren - what with all that psychology - and she'll probably live long enough to see out a four-year contract.

Fri, 2006-05-05 19:44

#17

The outcry is partially based on the FACT that this woman has ignored nature's laws of reproduction, in as much as she has used artificial means to defy the decision of nature that women past a certain (slightly variable) age are not regarded as prime reproductive specimens, and have had their mandate withdrawn. It's a little bit like Frankenstein producing humans in his castle. Many people are repulsed by doctors and scientists messing with nature. I realise that most medicines do just that, but the reproduction of humans is seen as 'monster-making' and reviled widely. I notice no one wants to venture an opinion on why 'old' people are not eligible to adopt kidsI

Fri, 2006-05-05 20:31

#18

Perhaps it's self-evident...?

Fri, 2006-05-05 21:10

#19

glastobasto

It IS selfish purely for the fact that she is thinking about her need for a child over her childs need for a mother.

Fri, 2006-05-05 22:08

#20

yan

Childs need for a mother? Has anyone considered how a child feels about its mother? If your mother was leper would that change your love for her? Missi - you speak of nature asif it is conscious, has specific reproductive "laws" and somehow (amazingly) dictates an age (age?) when mothers are no longer fit for child rearing!? She looks like a perfectly healthy, responsible and emotionally sound woman, which is a lot more than I can say for the 100% fertile Vicky Pollards of this world ;) Hear my music: http://music.download.com/3600-5-100795586.html

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Fri, 2006-05-05 22:42

#21

rokkitnite

Hooray! I was waiting for this thread to become a class war. I take it that this woman is middle-class, right? If she is, fair play to her. We need to do everything we can to swell our ranks. If the working class didn't love cigarettes and war so much, we'd be up to our eyeballs in boss-eyed ASBO babies. Class war, ho! Alan Ayckborne! [sic]

Fri, 2006-05-05 22:55

#22

Tim, wherever did you get the idea that the working class love war? It's the MIDDLE class along with the upperscum that START wars, the working class just do the killing and dying on their behalf.

Sat, 2006-05-06 10:50

#23

yes people are repulsed by scientists "meddling " with nature despite the fact we have been doing so since we stopped being hunters and gatherers. It is a spontaneously emotive response rather than a thought -through one based on fact & logic. I would be a selfish cow to have a child today as I have neither emotional or material means to provide & reluctantly I suppose I'd call myself middle class. So class isn't the point but I can see why it could be seen this way as traditionally; middle classes are more likely to have housing , financial security & the other things that ki need. I add though contrary to popular belief alcoholism is irrespective of class. And I did mention the selfishness of dumping kids on a nanny - a middle class trait surely jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Sat, 2006-05-06 11:11

#24

I guess we have to be careful how we label -anyone-:I would consider the husband and I as solidly middle-class and I'm one of those 'selfish' working mothers who dumps one kid at preschool/nursery and the both of them at an afterschool club. The problem is, like many people, we've done the math, and we actually can't *afford* for me to stay at home as we both have heavy student debts. I -would- have stayed home if we could have afforded it. Many people -have- to have the income just to pay the bills, and I can avow that we hardly live a profligate, materially-rich lifestyle; our 'newest' car is an R-reg! Dumping the kids at nursery -may- sometimes be due to a 'career choice' but I tend to think that for many people it's simple economics. But this is all beside the point as the woman in question isn't materially hurting; just barking.

Sat, 2006-05-06 11:53

#25

AG - without sounding like an attack - and I'm sure yiu are an ace mum, but this is a genuine question and the thing I just don't get... Why didn't you do the math(s) before the kids came along?Not much point doi the sums after there's much you can do... jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Sat, 2006-05-06 12:23

#26

Jude, When some people are in the mood to swap body fluids, doing math is seldom the first thing that comes to mind. As a matter of fact, I can't recall a single discussion of birth control during my days in college studying calculus. The ability to procreate should not be dictated by ones ability to add or subtract, though it may come in handy if one wants to actually plan the number of offspring they produce. What any of this has to do with social class is beyond me. Last time I looked, everyone was built pretty much with the same hardware. If somebody can afford to have a test-tube of sperm shoved in them, go for it. That doesnâ€™t mean everybody gets a test-tube, any more than they are entitled to anything else they donâ€™t haveâ€¦short of fundamental rights to control what they do with their own body.

Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org

Sat, 2006-05-06 14:41

#27

** It is a spontaneously emotive response rather than a thought -through one based on fact & logic. ** Well I can speak only for myself, and whilst I agree that a certain amount of 'meddling' is desirable in a civilised society, there are areas which I believe should be 'out of bounds'. 'Manufacturing' people by artificial means I believe to be wrong from any point of view. To interfere with natures balance in this way benefits society in no way at all. It may satisfy the needs of a childless woman but there's nothing that says every woman, (or man), is entitled to a child. I for one HAVE thought this through, thoroughly, and I don't believe my logic is at fault here either. Neither do I believe I am overly emotional. 'Facts' seem to be whatever the proponent says they are these days, and are invariably disputable. This woman is the same age as me, and I don't believe that I, or others my age, are the best people to be raising kids. I did that bit 30yrs ago, and am now very happy to spend time with my beautiful grandchildren, but the thought of going through all 'that' again horrifies me.

Sat, 2006-05-06 15:15

#28

Jack Cade

Wise chap where I work says you can never afford to have kids, so there's no point in waiting. I dunno. Analysing it on the basis of what might or might not happen the the child's state of mind seems fruitless to me. Kids are f.ucked up by their mums and dads all the time, be it because they're rich, poor, bigoted or weird. You can be ruined by being fed junk food, being denied any of the things you want, being given *everything* you want, being not allowed to stay out past 11 til you're 18 etc. etc. Part of growing up is learning to accept how abnormal aspects of your childhood were. Anyone who hasn't had anything to deal with is either extremely lucky, or still burying it deep inside their psyche. In which case, it'll get you! Oh yes! You just wait.

Sat, 2006-05-06 18:11

#29

Hmm... your 'wise chap' ain't so wise, Jon. Having kids was not a financial problem to me, and I don't personally know anyone to whom it was. His little aphorism is one of those old chestnuts that get bandied about everytime some witless wannabe feels the need to bless the world with his 'wisdom'. Part of growing up is the slow accumulation of wisdom ( a 'wise chap' I worked with 20yrs ago used to say, 'bought experience is the best', a far wiser saying than the one you quote). In the absence of wisdom when young, parents have to safeguard the welfare of their offspring by imposing their own hard-earned wisdom. Those parents that don't offer this protection run the risk of seeing their kids go off the rails, or worse. The 'abnormality' to which you refer is a necessary part of child protection in this somewhat hostile and violent world. Animals do exactly the same kind of things to protect their young in the wild. I don't expect you to see this 'wisdom', not because you're young, but because you've never felt the weight of responsibility settle on your shoulders with the birth of your first child. That's how it should be however, there's plenty of time for you to be afflicted with youngsters that will inevitably think you're a know-nothing old tosser whose mission in life is to spoil their childhood. My kids thought exactly the same as you, but since the birth of grandchildren their father has confided in me that he now realises he was wrong about a lot of the things he 'hated' me for as a kid. He now has something to lose that he loves dearly, and he feels vulnerable and responsible, just like I did 30yrs ago.

Sat, 2006-05-06 18:14

#30

Missi, I have to say that probably for the first time *ever* I agree with you 100%. Couldn't have said it better. Jude, having children wasn't a question of doing the maths. It was a question of the children coming first, *then* we went to university - we both started uni at the age of 29-30. And for me personally the thought of 'planning to have children', as in, "Steady job - check. Pension plan - check. House - check. Two cars in the garage - check. We have exactly 572.46 left at the end of the month after bills. Okay, Matilda, time to go off the pill so we can add 'kids' to the list!!", as some people choose to do, always seemed to me to be a bit, well, repugnant, if perhaps more pragmatic. But Jack is right; we're all fucked up by our parents in some shape or form, no matter what they do!

Sat, 2006-05-06 18:15

#31

I meant, I agree with Missi's -previous- post, to avoid any misunderstandings... er...

Sat, 2006-05-06 18:17

#32

but actually I agree with the last one, too...

Sat, 2006-05-06 19:13

#33

neilmc

Well, the technology's there and I must admit she does look rather fit and well for her age. But bringing up teenagers is bloody hard on every count when in you're in yourforties, I'd hate to have to do it in my seventies. Not that it wasn't fun on the way, and I don't regret it for a minute, but the perks of my current grandad-dom is that you hand them back when they get too much!

Sun, 2006-05-07 16:25

#34

Jack Cade

Missi, all the bloke at work was saying (and he's talking from experience too,) is that there's no sense in waiting til you feel 100% financially secure to have kids if you want them now. I'm sure he can *literally* afford his two, but I'm equally sure they're a bit of a strain on his wallet, as children tend to be. What he's saying - and what I deem as wise - is that you're unlikely to ever be in an ideal situation to cope with kids, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have them. I think you've skipped my point on 'abnormalities' as well. One such case *might* be the perception that the parents are too strict, but I was referring equally to, say, parents who spoil their kids rotten, or unwittingly pass on bigoted views, or have affairs, or die. None of this is "a necessary part of child protection." I'm talking about the fact that everyone has a different upbringing, and everyone *could* blame their parents for how they turn out, based on how their parents were different to everyone else's, but instead, what we have to do is learn to accept things that might have gone wrong, or seemed unfair at the time. Maybe even, as you suggest, realise that some of them were for the greater good. With this in mind, analysing a parental situation on the basis of 'Will the child be messed up?' is pointless. We're all messed up by something. We deal with it.

Sun, 2006-05-07 18:49

#35