Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

Worlds Oldest Baby

Recommended Posts

So does this mean there's a future for women getting a load of eggs frozen when they're 21 and then they can choose to actually have the baby 25 or 30 years later, using a nice frozen-fresh 21 year old egg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's real equality for you.

I actually think that it's good to give women the option of having babies in their 50s, all of our lives take unexpected paths and to have the "now or never" feeling in your late thirties / early forties must be a huge weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's real equality for you.

I actually think that it's good to give women the option of having babies in their 50s, all of our lives take unexpected paths and to have the "now or never" feeling in your late thirties / early forties must be a huge weight.

It's an interesting thing I'm seeing among couples in their early 30's that I know; where the woman claims she never wants kids, and the man agrees. And I say nothing, but what I'm thinking is "the difference is; in 20 years time he can change his mind if he can find a woman, whereas she doesn't really get that choice".

Saying that; I don't think this would be a good thing to make available to people, because I don't think people should be having babies in their 50's. I know blokes can do it, but that doesn't mean they should. And when they do it, at least one of the parents is fairly young i.e. the wife and is likely to be around, and healthy, for the first 20 or 30 years of their son's or daughters lives.

I can see this being a fashionable thing pretty soon "oh I'm concentrating on my career at the moment but I froze a load of eggs in university so I can have my baby whenever I like".

Or maybe in reality it will be less extreme than this, i.e. freeze your eggs at 21 and make it easier to have a baby at 40?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when they do it, at least one of the parents is fairly young i.e. the wife and is likely to be around, and healthy, for the first 20 or 30 years of their son's or daughters lives.

I think this has to be key.

Having a baby at 52 would mean they go to uni when you are 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has to be key.

Having a baby at 52 would mean they go to uni when you are 70.

Exactly. And without wishing to be too negative, I've seen people's health decline sharply in their 50's and 60's with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancers and their aftermaths.

Biology does not care about your career (I'm addressing men and women here), or feminism. And whilst one is never ready to lose their parents; to do so in your late teens/early 20's seems particularly cruel, which is what a 50-something having a baby is setting that child up for.

I've thought about this a lot myself, as I would quite like kids but need to get my head sorted a bit and also of course need to find someone who I'd actually like to be the mother of my kids...but I think having kids over the age of 45 is pushing it a bit. At the moment I see 45 as being the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wanted children after the cat died. I could make them bring back dead animals and piss behind the fridge. My GF of those years didn't want children and I just accepted that. Do children when you can. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has to be key.

Having a baby at 52 would mean they go to uni when you are 70.

Several of the very upper class people that I went to college with had fathers the age of my grandfathers.

It wasn't a problem but of course it only has been an option for men until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of one of the first Sunday Sport headlines "woman pregnant for 65 years gives birth to pensioner"



Of course, she would have to be pregant for 67 years these days


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's real equality for you.

I actually think that it's good to give women the option of having babies in their 50s, all of our lives take unexpected paths and to have the "now or never" feeling in your late thirties / early forties must be a huge weight.

I heard the other day, via an ex colleague of Mr B's whose wife is a social worker, of a woman of 53 who recently found herself pregnant for the first time ever - naturally, no IVF -

with TRIPLETS!!

Heaven help her.

May well be a blessing for her, but God knows one baby can be knackering enough, even when you're young and have planned it, which she presumably had not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the other day, via an ex colleague of Mr B's whose wife is a social worker, of a woman of 53 who recently found herself pregnant for the first time ever - naturally, no IVF -

with TRIPLETS!!

3 different fathers though, which should help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And without wishing to be too negative, I've seen people's health decline sharply in their 50's and 60's with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancers and their aftermaths.

Biology does not care about your career (I'm addressing men and women here), or feminism. And whilst one is never ready to lose their parents; to do so in your late teens/early 20's seems particularly cruel, which is what a 50-something having a baby is setting that child up for.

I've thought about this a lot myself, as I would quite like kids but need to get my head sorted a bit and also of course need to find someone who I'd actually like to be the mother of my kids...but I think having kids over the age of 45 is pushing it a bit. At the moment I see 45 a

I became a Father a week after my 43rd Birthday and this worries me especially as I got a tentative diagnosis of MS 5 years earlier which so far hasn't got any worse. I wouldn't swap my boy for anything but I wouldn't mind turning the clock back 10-15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...my opinion is we get what we are given....nobody is entitled to anything.....there are thousands of frozen bodies and heads awaiting for a miracle to one day to bring them alive again........ ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...my opinion is we get what we are given....nobody is entitled to anything.....there are thousands of frozen bodies and heads awaiting for a miracle to one day to bring them alive again........ ;)

It's a miracle!

3170D6B700000578-0-image-a-1_14561423307

Romanian police have seized frozen meat which were over 30 years old from a store during raids related to a tax evasion probe.

Authorities were shocked to find five tons of deep frozen meat about to go on sale in the Romanian holiday resort city of Costanta.

Lab analysis showed the meat had been frozen in the early eighties and stored until now. It was supposed to go on sale this month.

What the omn earth is that meat?

I've been to Constanta. I'm not going again. It's like Bangor after it's been deserted for twenty years and occupied by squatters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458281/Meat-frozen-35-YEARS-AGO-seized-Romanian-police-shortly-sale.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   54 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.