http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4133693.stm

The 67 year old Romanian women is 7 months pregnant with twins. She will become the worlds oldest mum when she has given birth.

Is this an example of where the benefits of science against nature are questionable?

When Des O'conner what ever is name is becomes a father at 105 no one says anything..so why should a 67 woman not have twins?

Originally posted by Jon
When Des O'conner what ever is name is becomes a father at 105 no one says anything..so why should a 67 woman not have twins?

I think the point is that this 67 year-old woman has had twins via IVF treatment, whereas O'Connor and McCartney etc fathered children at a great age via "natural" methods. Although some people have questioned the wisdom of old men fathering children by natural methods too.

I'm sorry, but I find this insane.

It's one thing to use IVF to help same sex or infertile couples conceive, but a 67 year old woman?! How old will she be when her twins graduate school, get married, become parents themselves? And will she be able to be there for them?

As a parent myself, I don't believe that this formerly childless 67 year old fully appreciates what she's getting herself into. I really don't.

Frankly, the very LAST thing I want to be doing when I'm 69 is chasing after not one, but TWO two year olds! :gag:

I wish someone would do a follow up with these older parents after, oh, say 15-20 years. I'll bet the results would be revealing.

:) Sierra

if she loves kiddies, why didnt she think of fostering or volunteering with children?

Originally posted by Sierra

Frankly, the very LAST thing I want to be doing when I'm 69 is chasing after not one, but TWO two year olds! :gag:



She thought of this. That's why she made sure Wayne Rooney is the father.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
She thought of this. That's why she made sure Wayne Rooney is the father.
OUCH!

that's funny!


I have to agree with the comments on here that, at the age of 67, to *willingly* have newborn twins to look after, this woman must seriously be in need of having her "bumps felt".

I am fortunate to have my (step) son. I have been his "mother" since he was three years old. I love him like my own, and we do not make any differentiation that there is any "step" relationship:- he considers me his mother, I consider him my son. End of story.

I have fertility issues. I cannot have children naturally.

However, even at the relatively young (these days) age of forty, I now, giving consideration to all the aspects of undergoing IVF, really do not think that I would want to be "dashing about" after a toddler, and enduring broken nights. (my grandchildren excepting, of course! but that'd not be 24/7) had I been younger, and "healthier"(see below), then It might have come into the equation.

I also do not think that my 24 year old son would appreciate having a sibling that would be even younger than his own, (12 week old) youngest child. (And, good grief!... can you imagine the teasing that my grandchildren would get, having an uncle, or aunt, that much younger than them?)

There are also other issues, surrounding my health. Looking into the risks and dangers of undergoing IVF, the health problems that I have, would , it seems, considerably compound the risks to me. And, no matter how much I have longed for a birth-child, my common sense tells *me*, that the risks for *me*, aren't worth taking. (Other people's mileage may vary, of course. The choice /the decision is theirs, and not for me to make)

PT

Originally posted by Jon
When Des O'conner what ever is name is becomes a father at 105 no one says anything..so why should a 67 woman not have twins?

Because it's not what nature intended. Women were designed to have a certain number of reproductive years for the health and safety of both mother and child.

I think that it's totally selfish and irresponsible.

Originally posted by Jon
why should a 67 woman not have twins?
Because it's designing orphans by choice :(