How old is too old?

Not so long ago the world saw it's oldest mother in India, with a first child at the age of 70, and just yesterday a woman in the UK became it's oldest at 66, having sought IVF treatment in Ukraine.

Now, I understand that people can be desperate for children and go years without success with fertility treatments, and OAP's may well long for the kind of compassion from and caring for a child, when they have that newfound free time. That said, what happened to pensioners buying pets for that reason? I think there must be a point when you accept that it is no longer viable or sensible to pursue motherhood, both in consideration of the welfare of the child (not being able to run around after them and play with them in the same way, as well as more obviously if the mother dies) and their own health (there are loads of serious medical complications that can arise). That's not to mention, of course, the religious and moral issues with IVF, especially at a time when you should not naturally be able to concieve (although that isn't where the problem lies for me personally). That said, women supposedly have a right and a duty to concieve, so does it matter how it happens so long as it does?

Human rights issues are a toughie, though. What do you guys think?

Let's set the risk of birth-defects aside for a moment (the risk for a child to be born with genetic defect rises exponentially with a woman's age, the sweet spot seems to be around 35). Let's look only at the ethic issues, because I think they are vast enough to answer the question once and for all.

I think the first issue is, that the child of a 66 year old mother has a pretty good chance of ending up an orphan. Not much fun.
The second and much more grave issue is, the older a child's parents are, the harder it is for them to relate to the child's perspective. Or indeed to relate to the world the child lives in, and its issues. I think it's outrageously irresponsible to have kids at that age (for both men and women). Sure, to them it's no problem - they're bored now that they're getting old, and want a pet, a human plaything. But to the child it'll be tough, if not traumatizing.

I don't think human rights are a valid argument here. Human rights sensibly only exist within the limitation that your rights do no harm to the rights of another person. The wish to have kids must not trump the kid's right to an humane upbringing.

So, as you said: what happened to them buying pets? I think these people would be more well-served with getting a talking parrot or a dog or whatever.
Personally, I don't think IVF to be amoral, nor do I think humans should bow to "nature" always. But I do think nature gave us a pretty good hint with the 35 years-of-age (after that a male's sperm quality as well as complications in the female begin to take off pretty wildly), and to me, 20-35 is the morally responsible age to have a kid. There definitely is a too young, and there definitely is a too old.

I don't think people should be barred by law, because I abhor nothing more than totalitarianism. I do however think people should take the time to make a responsible choice.

if your gonna die of old age before they're out of grade school = too old

It's hard to draw a line. Different people age differently and even young people can be incredibly unhealthy. I mean, the fatter a woman gets, the more risk her baby is. Shall we stop fatties getting pregnant (although you'd think their immense girth would sort of put people off...)

In the first of my series of depressing examples, each one getting more depressing than the last, I have one friend whose mother was only 19 when she gave birth to him. The problem is, the father was her cousin. So my friend's deaf in one ear and, er, let's just say he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. The engine's running but no one's behind the wheel, etc. Before you get any ideas that I live in some stereotypical version of the deep south, I should say that his family is from Pakistan and arranged marriages within the family are very common there.

I have another friend whose mother was also at prime birthing age, whatever that is, but she took copious amounts of drugs, as did the father, and he was born almost totally blind, with a hole in his heart and several other physical defects.

Now, on the other hand, if in each case their mothers had been about 60, but totally clean and not related to the father, they would have both been born in far better condition.

There are also outside factors, like crime. I mean, should we stop people that live in crime ridden areas from breeding? Someone born in Brooklyn is hundreds, if not thousands, of times more likely to lose their mother (or father) to violent crime that someone born in Cambridge, England.

tldr; taking drugs while pregnant, being stupendously fat and a whole bunch of other factors are as bad, or worse, than the age of the mother. Besides people can die at any age. Just to add to my list of conveniently useful-for-examples friends, the father of another of my friends killed himself when my friend was 13. That's not as rare as it should be. He was also an alcoholic and perhaps wasn't the best father to my friend. He'd probably have preferred an ancient old dad than a pissed up one that topped himself after 13 years of having a son.

Whilst I agree that there are a lot of less desirable scenarios, I don't think that because other people are endangering their own and/or their children's lives, that it makes this ok. You're looking at the best case scenarios for this and the worst for other situations; just because older people can be healthy and capable enough doesn't mean the majority are, just as not all obese people and people in impoverished areas will disadvantage their children (I grant you that very young mothers would rarely be better parents, though that is a different issue altogether). I think if it is going to be accepted and 'allowed' it has to be on a case by case basis, at least, so as to give any children born into an ageing family the best possible chance of a (relatively) normal life.

Thanks for the interesting input, Teclo. Allow me a few comments:



Yeah, of course, and no-one contests that point. But for the sake of abstraction, we must compare average cases, not individual cases. And there are widespread, age-based reductions in bodily and mental (alzheimers!) competence that make child-rearing in the average 60+ less responsible than in the average 20+ group. Also, there is an overwhelming tendency in the elderly to adopt an end-fixated perspective (Fiehler 1997 and 2003; Nikander 2002) and that is absolutely devastating to a child.


Absolutely. However, a child of totally clean and non-incestuous parents aged 20+ would likewise be likely to be born and raised in far better conditions than one of totally clean and non-incestuous parents aged 60+.


Of course outside factors come into play, but the original question was about the impact of age ^.~
Also, I didn't make a case for stopping anyone from breeding, I just advocate making a responsible choice.


Of course. But mortality skyrockets with age.


Probably. Who knows? I'd have preferred no father to the one I had. But all that is idle speculation based on single cases.

Yeah, I picked best case scenarios for the old parents and worse case for the younger ones, but that's really my point: It's different for different people - there are best case and worse case scenarios for any age, so it seems illogical and, frankly, inhumane to put restrictions on this sort of fundamental thing based on age.

Part of my point was that just because there are people like the very young, drug addicts etc who we can't control in the same way, doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop older women. It isn't ageism, it's just one of few feasible limits that could be put in place.

im just going to answer the base question.forgive me my insolence to debate the tpic further.to old is over 45 i say this because 45 you are mid aged you still have average 20-25 years left of life plenty for a child to live threw be out of the house and be on thier way.All good yes? Well as for birth defects i cant say to that chances on those are low and increase with age majic number of starts bieng 35 so 45's not bad on those.Thank you.

I would say about 50 or so. I mean, yes the probability that you are still spry and able to be out and about at that age is 50/50, if you're still trying to have a child by then, you'd have to have some form of physical ability left in you. And by this I mean actually being able to be active for extended periods of time, not just being able bend down and shit. Y'know, like playing with your kids for goodness's sake or going on rollercoasters with them without stroking. Outside factors aside, I'd say more or less 50 years of age should be the limit.

I'm not really sure. I never really thought about the fate and feelings of the child(s) involved if something were happen to you because of your age. My mother had me when she was thirty-nine, which may not be such a huge deal now, but twenty-two years ago it was quite a big deal.

I'd like to say that the age has no bearing, but now that I try to think about all sides and cases I'm not entirely sure what to think.

not really sure it all depends on the person is that person going to be alive long enough to take care of the child? they need to do that so people in thier 90's no now I say the limt is early 70's that why they have at lest some time to rase a kid
I don't care if they have sex but please think of the children

I would defenitely say around 40-45, just because after 35, the chance of trisome 21 increases with each passing year.

My girlfriend just turned 20, her mom is 72... The thing is she looks like she is in her fifties right now. So I think you have to take into account the specifics of each instance.

One of the very rare subject for which I am annoyingly conservative but I don't like the idea of the medically assisted procreation.
The fertility is the "smoother" natural selection process and in our world of oppulence it's one of the last which still effectively apply. If the human instinct of reproduction hand in hand with the modern science is favorized over rational thinking we're on the way of serious surpopulation and health problems (in fact it's already the case but I'm sure it can go worse).
So I think if somebody can't get children he / she should live with it. If other animals can live without bredding and don't become totally obsessive in the process I don't see why humans can't do so. Life is not only about breeding, watching how certain species devour their own heir give serious clues about it.
To say short: "breeding to sustain life, not life to sustain breeding".

By the way lol at the woman duty to conceive XD
It's not a duty it's an instinct, hopefully for the women rights :D