A 66-year-old UK woman has undergone IVF treatment in the Ukraine and is 8 months pregnant with what is thought to be her first child.
Elizabeth Adeney had gone through a difficult divorce but always wanted to be a mother. Her friends say the the wealthy future single mom is still working and is perfectly healthy.
A friend told the Daily Mail:
She was desperate for a child. She was over the moon when she learned last year that she was pregnant and has been quite open about it – it’s not the sort of thing she can hide. Elizabeth has had a pretty good pregnancy. She has been very well, considering her age – I’m amazed how she keeps going.
On the heels of Nadia Suleman, this older mama is already reigniting the fertility debate. When she gives birth, she’ll be the oldest woman in Britain to do so.
Sure, she may not be octomom, but she’ll be 80 by the time her child hits those teenage years. (And as the 31-year-old stepmom of an early teen, I know how wonderfully exhausting they can be!)
Adeney, for her part, has been reserved with the press:
I am a private person and while I appreciate there may be some publicity I will just ignore it.
Now the question for the masses: Just because she can…should she? Certainly, this mother will have the life experience and resources to raise her child. But what of her own life expectancy? For her sake and that of her child, I wish her a long, healthy life.
Adeney is expected to give birth by elective C-section, due to her age.
Story and Photo Source: Daily Mail
Just. Wow. I personally think that it is unfair to a child to have them this late in life. Think how quickly they’ll be dealing with your death? This child may not even make it to adulthood before this woman dies of old age, and then who will raise the child? Chances are this woman’s siblings are her age or older, and may not be around to help.
I hate to get into a debate over who should be allowed to have children, but seriously – I think this defies nature in so many potentially unhealthy ways.
If she really wanted a child, why would she have waited this long? And why couldn’t she have adopted an older child who she might actually have the chance to be around for.
I don’t WANT to be judgy over this, it just doesn’t sit right with me. I feel sorry for the baby.
Crimson Wife says
I would want to know her family history. Today it’s not all that unusual for people to live to 100. If her relatives tend to be long-lived it’s less of a concern than if they only live into their seventies or eighties.
EcoLabel Fundraising says
Hmm..not sure what to say. I can see both sides of this issue.
please see the (UNICEF approved) link >
Stella, than you for publishing that link; it sums up so well much of what has been bothering me about these issues for quite a while.
Hi, nice posts there 🙂 thank’s for the interesting information
1001 petals says
You know what, I think if this woman has the means and ability to care for a baby, which I think she does, than good for her! A lot of people have kids when they’re young and then just die young, for various reasons. People are living very long lives now so that just isn’t a fair argument anymore. Plus people even in their 20s are so out of shape that they may not be able to keep up with a child as much as this woman can’t (or could!) I guess ultimately it’s not really anyone’s business.
Noble Savage says
It is absolutely her right to have a baby and I am in no position to judge her, nor would I want to. No one stops women with terminal illnesses from having children, even if they know they won’t be around for much of their lives, but that is considered ‘brave’ and ‘touching’. Youth is not a guarantee of longevity. Anyone could die at any time. This woman could live to 95 and her child will know her well into adulthood.
I find it frightening that we want to put limits on who can reproduce, and under what conditions. I am pro-choice and that extends to ALL women, not just the ones I agree with.
Who says anything to the Tony Randalls or Larry Kings of the world (or other old, old men) who father children?
At first blush, I’m not excited for her because I’m just over 50 and have absolutely NO desire to have any more children, and haven’t since my mid-20s. But that’s me. I have a 3 year-old granddaughter which is just fine.
Unlike the ‘octomom’ this woman had the financial means to undertake her pregnancy and continues to have the financial means as well to care for her children – as I understand she is to have twins. If “she’s over the moon” with joy – then, I’m thinking these kids will be fine.
Cate Nelson says
I really like your positive outlooks.
I suppose what’s troubling to me is that this woman, who seems to have the resources, could adopt a child–especially an “older” child (even a toddler!). It’s not as if *this* (or these I guess? I hadn’t yet heard that) child is biologically hers.
As a woman who loved being pregnant, it’s hard to want to deny that to someone else. It probably makes her feel closer to the child(ren).
I’m not criticizing her as a person: she seems to be the best possible example of this practice.
I suppose the question should be: Where should science stop? Where do morals play with these fertility clinics…when the money runs out? If I were a very happy, healthy, well-adjusted woman in my 60s who would also be “over the moon” about this, but didn’t have the money for this procedure, would these clinics take me on pro bono? I doubt it. So should finances be benchmark of who should be a mother? I don’t think so.
The fertility issue slightly outweighs the question of her longevity.