Boards Index › General discussion › Getting serious › 63 yr ol lady with a baby
-
AuthorPosts
-
4 May, 2006 at 1:23 pm #37884 May, 2006 at 1:26 pm #213122
How unnatural! Each to their own I suppose, but personally I want to be retired and enjoying life at that age, changing nappies yes, but those of my grandchildren! :shock:
4 May, 2006 at 1:28 pm #213123I think like that too, I mean who wants to be changing nappys and getting up at 3 for a feed at that age ffs, I wouldnt
4 May, 2006 at 2:00 pm #213124I agree with both of you two.
I was an ‘older’ mum, not out of choice, it just didn’t happen. Iv’e said this all before on here. My son will be 18 this August, he put in an appearance to same year I turned 41. I’d spent years going through the system, infertility clinics, one test after another, and nothing happened. I was 40 in the July and found out I was pregnant with him a week before christmas the same year. No one knows why (we know how :wink: )
I feel for couples who desperately want a child and have to run the guantlet of these infertility clinics, anyone who’s ever attended one will know what i’m talking about. There is of course the choice of going privately but no everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
However………….during Mike’s early years at school, I was asked, oh, you collecting him for your son/daughter thinking he was my grandson (and I dont look that old :lol: ask Diane :lol: ) I was pretty much ostricised tho, by the ‘younger’ element of mums, as was Mike from their children, I dunno, maybe they thought it was contagious :lol: :lol:
I suppose i’d find it easier to understand if this woman didn’t already have children, but she does, so it purely selfish reasons that she’s done this. She’s already 23 years older than I was and I have to say that I do feel for the child that she’s bringing into the world. :?
4 May, 2006 at 2:07 pm #213125Well said Cas xxxx
4 May, 2006 at 2:35 pm #213126Well, I do know a few women who have had their first baby at 40, some not through choice, but these things happen.
While on one hand, the couple look as if the baby will be well cared for (well, she is a child psychiatrist) and I assume will want for nothing, I can’t help thinking that is it fair on the child in the long run?
It’s a pity they wouldn’t have been eligible for adopting a slightly older child – there are so many out there needing good homes. :(
4 May, 2006 at 2:58 pm #213127Couldn’t agree with you more Squeezy. My mom is 56 and when she watches my little 2 year – It takes a lot out of her. I don’t think having a child in your 40’s is terrible, I think that’s still pretty young. But 63 – just seems a bit selfish to. Espcially since, as Squeezy mentioned, lots of children out there need good homes and maybe they need a child psychiatrist as well.
4 May, 2006 at 5:12 pm #213128I feel sorry for the child. Even “if” its parents remain fit and healthy it will most likely be an orphan before its 20.
4 May, 2006 at 6:01 pm #213129Oh I just saw her on the news, she looks like she is in her 40’s not 63
4 May, 2006 at 6:06 pm #213130@fastcars wrote:
I feel sorry for the child. Even “if” its parents remain fit and healthy it will most likely be an orphan before its 20.
Yes but a few years in a loving family environment with people that can help a child to grow to be a level headed individual, is surely more important than a child that is abused or unwanted with young parents. I feel that it depends on the parents and how they can help the child, rather than their ages.
-
AuthorPosts
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!