I am not for limiting the rights of a woman in any way. If someone is 70 and wants to have a child, it is their right to have a child. Yes, I understand that the child might not have their parent when they are growing up but you can also make the same argument for any woman who has health issues. Would you limit a person who had the gene for breast cancer from having children because she might not be around in the next 20 years? Where do you draw the line of limitations based on future life span of the parent? The laws of nature nor the law of man should not limit every woman’s right to have a child at any time.

While I don’t subscribe to limiting rights, I don’t believe that society should subsidize or encourage, through insurance and social security-type payments, any child born through artificial methods. That includes children born to women at 20, 26 or 36, as well as 55 or 66.

I think it’s highly unethical of both the SINGLE woman and the doctor. How dare she/they. I know full well what it’s like to have a much older parent and even with one younger one it is very difficult. She is being entirely unfair to that child. She enrages me, and I feel very sad for the baby. It scares me, too, that this sort of thing is allowed.

Oh, and Irena, two things: it would be one thing to adopt a needy child and give her an opportunity she may not otherwise have had, but to have a baby???? How selfish! And while maybe you are right that the laws of man should not govern a woman’s reproductive rights, certainly the laws of NATURE should.

I totally agree with Saddened. Nature intervenes for a reason. There shouldn’t be a law, but the Fertility clinics should NOT allow anyone that age to even make an attempt at a pregnancy. I am annoyed that a fertility clinic would even allow this to happen. No child should be born to a woman that old. She is selfish and no amount of money will stop that child from their mother at a young age.
Shame on her and shame on the fertility clinic. My heart is with the child.

It is a strange concept to have a 60+ old mother, and maybe unsettling, but I can’t agree with ‘nature intervenes for a reason.’ There is no other species on earth that has so dramatically increased its lifespan as homo sapiens. We have doubled ours expected years to live. Even a few hundred years ago the idea of a 30+ year old mother would have been inconceivable. In another hundred years, the 60+ year old new mother will be a reality. Two hundred year ago, I most likely would have succumbed to multiple childhood infections, and be quite dead. (Thank you science!) If the woman wants a kid that badly, then that baby has a good chance of being loved.

If God wanted women to have babies in middle age then he wouldn’t have created menopause.

I think it is the idea of her intentionally getting pregnant for her own child that has people upset… but if her “daughter/niece/friend” had cancer but had saved some eggs and she did a suroget pregnancy, people would laud her for her act of selflessness. If someone in her family went through a bad phase i.e. drugs, death, abuse, and left a baby parentless and she adopted the child, people once again would praise her for doing that act. There are thousands, if not millions, of seinors rasing grandchildren, greatgandchildren, and foster kids, and no one raises an eyebrow or shouts outrage that we would impose a child on them. Instead, we are thankful that they are still there, willing, and able to do the task at hand.

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!