Prev
Next

Scrambled science or an ovulation revolution?

Lucy Kippist

by Lucy Kippist

28 Feb 05:55am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Babies, Family, Fertility, Society, Women

78 comments

Fertility is a precious commodity for the modern woman. Greater opportunities, education and choice, along with the difficulties of finding the right partner can make it easy to delay falling pregnant. Being able to stow eggs away for the “right time” is an alluring prospect.

Is that mum or grandma?

In this context, a recent discovery by Dr Jonathan Tilly of Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital offers massive temptation. The American scientist has found that ovaries of young women harbour very rare stem cells capable of producing new eggs.

He made the discovery after an initial study found that stem cells in the ovaries of adult mice could give rise to viable eggs. This means that although women are born with a finite number of eggs, they now have more chances to fall pregnant later in life. But it’s also a risk of epic proportions.

Just because we can give women the opportunity to bear children at such a late stage in their lives, doesn’t mean that we should.

Here’s the explanation Dr Tilly gave Nature Medicine magazine:

A woman could come in and have a small biopsy taken from her ovary for us to retrieve these cells…Once we get these cells out, we could take 100 of them and make a million of them. If we could get to the stage of generating functional human eggs outside the body it would rewrite, essentially, human assisted reproduction.

Fellow scientists have called it a “game changer” because fertility may no longer have a use-by date.

Unlike the process of IVF where women are given the opportunity to create more than one egg every cycle, Tilly’s discovery would encourage ovulation and rebuilding of new eggs, enabling women to conceive well into their late 50s and 60s.

But that’s a good 15 to 20 years later than is normally advised. From age 35 female fertility decreases rapidly with each advancing year, and we’re at greater risk of major genetic abnormality and birth complications. Older parents also risk lacking the physical energy and earning capacity needed to raise a family. 

Tilly’s discovery also presents significant social costs. “It’s an ethical minefield,” Dr Chris O’Neill, a professor of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine at Sydney Medical School, told The Punch.  Not only would it encourage women to delay their childrearing years past 40, it may also encourage surrogacy.

Giving older women access to healthy eggs is only half the story, because you also need a healthy uterus to carry pregnancy to full term. In these cases O’Neill says the option of “hiring” a young uterus could become viable, opening up a whole host of ethical dilemmas.

The most confronting thing about this kind of science is the “wish” factor. No matter how busy or pre-occupied women become with careers, education or adventure, very few choose to completely miss out on the chance to try for a family.

Tilly’s research taps right into the very heart of this fear in its appeal of “compromise”. It says: Do whatever you want now and you can have those kids you want later. 

There is no doubt that a 60 year old year old first time mother could offer her child a wealth of life experience. But do we really want a generation of 60 year old mothers? At the end of the day, it’s the child who misses out.

Most commented

78 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:13am | 28/02/12

      It’s not just the prospect of older women bearing children, or widespread surrogacy that’s looming.

      The next step is using the wombs of animals to gestate children. After that, we might see men modified to carry offspring, or entirely artificial wombs.

      There’s every likelihood that sooner or later the ancient female monopoly on child-bearing will be broken. This will be a great liberation for some, and a disaster for others.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:02am | 28/02/12

      Perhaps we should ask George Pell about this stuff ?

    • Kerryn says:

      07:13am | 28/02/12

      Although if they start using artifical wombs, there goes the problem of men’s say in abortion.  Simply take the foetus out of the affected woman, put in in an artificial womb and Daddy can have his baby, and Mum can do whatever the hell she wants.

      As a woman, I think it’s a great idea!

    • Rebecca says:

      07:57am | 28/02/12

      “Ancient female monopoly on child-bearing”. That’s an interesting one. You say it like it’s a bad thing?

    • Erick says:

      09:11am | 28/02/12

      @Rebecca - ‘“Ancient female monopoly on child-bearing”. That’s an interesting one. You say it like it’s a bad thing?’

      In today’s Western society, it is a bad thing, for men. Women have all the reproductive choices and all the reproductive rights, while men have none.

      Any man who wants a child must be prepared to undertake enormous risks due to the sexist family courts and laws affecting fatherhood. The ability to make children without women would eliminate these risks, as well as depriving feminists of much of the power they wield over society.

      I look forward to the end of the ancient female monopoly on child-bearing. This is one more step on the way.

    • Kika says:

      09:59am | 28/02/12

      Are you saying Erick that you would want to bear a child? 9 months of vomiting, nausea, water retention, headaches, backaches, watching everything you eat religiously, doctors appointments, random people wanting to touch your belly, clothes not fitting… then BIRTH?

      Or even in an artificial womb -  how’s the bonding going to go? Very strange isn’t it. If we started doing that then there would be no point to sx therefore no point of marriage and we would all live happily ever after. The population may bottle neck. May not be such a bad thing.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:18am | 28/02/12

      @Kika:  As opposed to not seeing your children - ever - because you were deceived into a pregnancy you weren’t prepared for, yet still you must pay for not only the children but the mother as well?  (This isn’t me, but a guy very close to me)

      You bet I’d have the child.

    • amy says:

      10:33am | 28/02/12

      monopoly on child bearing? because…you know that toally made us the top dogs back in the day? (no..it didnt)

      men=stronger, more dominant, we do as they say

    • Wauker says:

      10:49am | 28/02/12

      @acotrel, how could George Pell have sensible debate on this, he’s against putting a bit of rubber on your dick!

    • Erick says:

      10:58am | 28/02/12

      @Kika - There you go again, making wild assumptions based on nothing. When did I ever say I even wanted children?

      @amy - “men=stronger, more dominant, we do as they say”

      Rubbish. In our society, women have all the reproductive choices and all the reproductive rights. And more, on top of that.

    • Jane2 says:

      11:33am | 28/02/12

      @Mahhrat, sorry you had sex therefore on one level you were prepared to have children. Every time you have sex you risk children…unless you are willing to sterilise yourself in a manner where it cant grow back (as even the snip doesnt guarantee it)

      Dont want kids, simple, dont have sex with a member of the opposite sex..

    • Kika says:

      02:30pm | 28/02/12

      @Erick - No I’m not making a wild assumption. You said yourself
      “After that, we might see men modified to carry offspring, or entirely artificial wombs”

      So I just wanted to know whether you wanted to carry a baby. You said it. Not me.

    • Adrian says:

      03:12pm | 28/02/12

      @Erick
      In today’s Western society, it is a bad thing, for men. Women have all the reproductive choices and all the reproductive rights, while men have none.

      Nonsense. Haven’t you ever heard of condoms?

      Or are you suggesting that a man should have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will?

      Any man who wants a child must be prepared to undertake enormous risks due to the sexist family courts and laws affecting fatherhood.

      Prove it - without linking to any of your bullshit MRA websites.

      The ability to make children without women would eliminate these risks as well as depriving feminists of much of the power they wield over society.

      Ha ha! That’s really funny. Although I probably should try harder not to laugh at the paranoid delusions of the mentally ill.

    • raida says:

      03:59pm | 28/02/12

      I for one would like to see the end to the ancient child-bearing monopoly on females. and as a woman, the artificial womb sounds like a great idea. designer fishtank in the loungeroom! watch your foetus gestate! much more fun than sea monkeys.

    • raida says:

      03:59pm | 28/02/12

      I for one would like to see the end to the ancient child-bearing monopoly on females. and as a woman, the artificial womb sounds like a great idea. designer fishtank in the loungeroom! watch your foetus gestate! much more fun than sea monkeys.

    • Bev says:

      06:01pm | 28/02/12

      Adrian says:04:12pm | 28/02/12

      @Erick
      In today’s Western society, it is a bad thing, for men. Women have all the reproductive choices and all the reproductive rights, while men have none.

      Nonsense. Haven’t you ever heard of condoms?

      Non hormonal birth control for men is very much on the near horizon. Indonesia is set to market a product based on a plant extract in the next 12 months.  Israel has a similar product in final trial due on the market in three years.  It will bring about the same sort of revolution that the female birth control pill did. Men will be able to control their fertility in the same effective way women can. The effects on society will be enormous.

    • ronny jonny says:

      06:10am | 28/02/12

      The thought of grey haired, frail parents with newborn babies revolts me. Grumpy, wrinkly old mums and dads touring around with their caravans, poor baby trying to get a feed from mums disgusting, slack old dugs. Dad yelling “fer Gawds sake Martha, shut that kid up, I’m trying to listen to Alan Jones!” Why would anyone in their right mind want kids at that age?

      Reply

    • JM says:

      12:09am | 29/02/12

      Guess you are not aware then of the large number of grandparents who are raising their own grandchildren because their children cannot and usually doing a good job of it too.

    • Steve M says:

      09:12am | 29/02/12

      Lol, well isnt that a bigoted view. Especially when considered against your posts on the gay parents blog on this same website. Surely a grey haired parent is better than an abusive gay parent? How intolerant lol.

    • Emma says:

      06:12am | 28/02/12

      As a 21 year old who has been advised she will have fertility problems this news is hopeful. I may have more chances then I was originally told

      Reply

    • gobsmackski says:

      06:30am | 28/02/12

      Just what the world needs - an increase in human reproductive capacity.

      Reply

    • Joan Bennett says:

      06:39am | 28/02/12

      A 60 year old woman could certainly offer a child a wealth of life experience.  That’s what grandparents have always done.  But to leave a 25 year old without parents (average life expectancy being around 85) is not cool.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:05am | 28/02/12

      Did you watch the documentary on the ABC yesterday, about the single mothers whose kids were put up for adoption against their wishes ?  Bring back the good old days when baby-making was fun !

    • Kika says:

      10:09am | 28/02/12

      Acotrel - I watched it. What the? Absolutely tragic. I wonder whether in another 30 years the same story will be told about girls who are co-erced into abortions against their will. It happens too. Just it’s far more subtle because it’s easier and faster to deal with than a 9 month pregnancy and a live born baby.

    • Matt from Darwin says:

      10:39am | 28/02/12

      Good point Joan, I had a Father that was 15 years older than Mum and he was 48 when I was born. He died when I was 22 and this had a significant affect on me for many years. The not being to know your parent when you are an adult means that often many feelings are left unfinished.

    • I, Claudia says:

      10:49am | 28/02/12

      I don’t know, Joan - I think that our society’s fear of death is the real problem here. I’m twenty-four years old, and both of my parents died within six months of each other last year. Granted, I’m an independent person who never really relied on them for much - I immigrated to Australia when I was eighteen-years-old with their blessing but without the support to which some people seem to feel children are entitled - and I’m sure I’ll miss the input my parents would’ve had in my life later, but I accept death as a natural part of life. It’s the quality - not the quantity - of the years spent in parenthood that counts.

    • Erick says:

      11:04am | 28/02/12

      Was there also a documentary about fathers whose kids were taken away from them against their wishes?

    • Jane2 says:

      11:46am | 28/02/12

      Disease, car accidents, surgery, child birth etc etc results in children without parents all the time.

      I know of no rule that states “if you have a child you are guranteed to live long enough to see your grandkids become teenagers”

    • Kika says:

      02:26pm | 28/02/12

      @Erick - I saw a show on that once. Men who marry Japanese wives who decide to leave and go back to Japan. The laws in Japan protect the kids and the mothers and the fathers have no legal right to even see their children. It was really sad.

    • Nyx says:

      03:32pm | 28/02/12

      @ Matt from Darwin I agree too. My parents had me when my mother was 47 and my father was 49. By eighteen I had buried both my parents and spent 6 years watching my mother’s slow demise from illness. I would not wish that on any child.

      I understand the desire to have children, I really do. But I decided a long time ago that if I hadn’t had children by 35 I wouldn’t. My selfish desire to have a child should not trump the child’s right to grow up with parents who love them (and can remember their name)

      Whilst I see the benefits of this medical procedure, especially for younger women experiencing fertility issues…but for older women, I’m sorry but I will always think that it selfish and wrong to bring children into that world.

      @Jane2 - yes, accidents happen every day, and no child is guaranteed to have both parents with them until adulthood. But surely you have to see that the older a parent is, the more likely it is their child will lose one or both of them. 1 in 3 elderly Australians will suffer with dementia. Losing a parent rapidly to an accident is tragic, but so is slowly watching the person you love lose themselves piece by piece. And nothing can describe the pain you carry with you when the person who is supposed to love you above all others (your parents) forgets who you are. Its tragic when it happens to adults, but it is so much worse when it happens to children.

      Just because medical science is making it so you can have children into your 50’s and 60’s doesn’t mean you should. It WILL without a doubt cause untold suffering to the children who will inevitably bury their parents. Your selfish need to reproduce should never come at the expense of a child who has no say in the matter.

    • Jane2 says:

      06:49pm | 28/02/12

      I love how one of those who is saying absolutely no way is a change of life baby born without IVF to a mother who was 47, proof that older mothers have always existed and has nothing to do with science.

    • Nyx says:

      01:30pm | 29/02/12

      @ Jane2 ...I wasn’t a change of life baby (and I’m actually quite offended by that). I was an accident. My mother and father had already had 8 children (and 8 miscarriages). Both my sisters were carrying children at the same time my mother was pregnant with me. In no way were they planning for more children.

      And the only reason I’m here to write this at all is my mother’s religious beliefs prevented termination. And once again, just because technology, or even biology allows some women to carry a child at that stage of life doesn’t mean she should. Children aren’t fashion accessories, and they’re not props to help you fill out a life thats suddenly empty. For god’s sake, adopt a dog, or some cats or something.

      I (and any child born to older parents) have no say in matter. But in the end we are the ones left to deal with the consequences. So yes, I absolutely say no way. You have years and years to have children, at an age where you can safely carry them, and offer a relatively safe bet of seeing them grow to adulthood. And there is nothing preventing someone from having both a career and children. My mother had both, she ran a labour ward at a hospital, went to university for her teaching degree and raised children.
      I’m 5 months pregnant and I run a business full time. I’m also intending to go to university to study, once funds permit. It absolutely can be done.

      If you choose to put off having kids until its too late to do so properly, then too bad. To choose at 50 and 60 to start having children is utterly selfish and its your children who suffer.

    • cheap white trash says:

      07:16am | 28/02/12

      Yep here we go, more scientists fiddling with human nature,whats next,trying to fix the worlds climate…and look where thats got us.

      Its not meant to be,end of story.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:35am | 28/02/12

      People tend to make love more often in warmer climates.

    • Jane2 says:

      11:55am | 28/02/12

      200 years ago the average life expectancy ws mid 30’s. Science has helped us to increase our life expectancy till our 80’s.

      Do you want to reject the benefits that science have given us or just pick and chose the ones that personally benefit yourself?

    • Bill says:

      07:25am | 28/02/12

      Interesting that this article ends with the sentence “At the end of the day, it’s the child who misses out.”, yet there is another article here which pushes for the exclusion of men in the raising of children while suggesting that men aren’t needed to raise chldren.

      Hypocritical world we live in.

      Reply

    • amy says:

      10:40am | 28/02/12

      it doesnt “push” the exclusion of men

      it just said “hey, we did it this way and the kids are fine! dtop deamonising us”

    • Catch them if you can says:

      07:36am | 28/02/12

      My baby boomer parents have enough trouble keeping up with their grandchildren for an hour. Imagine them having to keep up with a toddler full time!

      Reply

    • Al says:

      07:38am | 28/02/12

      The realy funny thing is this, proponents of evolution seem to also be the group who seek to increase the interference (or even oppose) the very things that evolution works on.
      - Curing illness and disease rather than letting ‘the weak’ to perish.
      - Seeking to provide routes for alowing the passing of genetics to a new generation that can’t occur naturaly (infertility).
      - etc.
      Not that I support not curing illness and disease, it just seems odd that it is the supporters of evolution that are doing so.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:51am | 28/02/12

      Eugenics is the way to go - pity about Nuremberg !

    • marley says:

      07:54am | 28/02/12

      @Al - that’s because you don’t understand “evolution.”  Evolution is about the survival of the species, not the survival or non-survival of individuals.  Humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder not because we’re the strongest in the physical sense, but because we’re the smartest, and our brains, not our physiques,  have made us the “strongest” in terms of our chances of survival as a species (so far, anyway).  Curing disease ensures that more of us survive.  That’s what evolution is about.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      08:06am | 28/02/12

      Society is promoting health advances - not ‘proponents of evolution’ as you put it.

      That simple assertion - and it is simple - shows where your ‘view’ is coming from.  It also shows how unfortunate you ‘schooling’ was.  Condolences.

    • Al says:

      08:23am | 28/02/12

      So somehow alowing genetic based diseases and illness to be passed on via breeding is progressing towards a stronger species and survival of a species?
      Wasn’t it Darwin who stated that if a trait of an individual was less beneficial than another then that trait would be breed out via natural selection?
      A Dose of Reality - The vast amount of researchers dealing with illness and disease are supporters of evolution, so how can you say that they are not ‘proponents of evolution’ in the majority?

    • Al says:

      08:26am | 28/02/12

      A Dose of Reality - I also want to know what you mean by ‘shows where your ‘view’ is coming from.’
      I just want to know so that I can state in no uncertain terms that your assumption is incorrect (or agree if you are actualy right).

    • gobsmack says:

      09:18am | 28/02/12

      @Al
      You seem to have completely misconstrued what is meant by “proponent of evolution”.
      It means a belief that present day species evolved by the process of natural selection (take note of the word “natural”).
      It doesn’t entail any value-laden belief that evolution is a good thing.
      It is merely an explanation of how things happened, not how things should happen.

    • CBR says:

      09:25am | 28/02/12

      Al, evolution isn’t something one supports. It just is. It’s a scientific concept, not a political position.

      Unless you’re against ‘supporting’ gravity because, you know, it’s inconvenient.

    • Davy says:

      09:47am | 28/02/12

      Who says humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder? A generation is so long for a human, so short for a bacteria, hence enabling the passing on of more viable genes so much faster. Faster adaptation means greater chance of survival in a changing environment. Unless one assumes steady state, but then of course evolution is untenable on the basis of probability.

    • Al says:

      09:51am | 28/02/12

      gobsmack - you seem to be suggesting evolution is no longer occuring and (by extrapolation) that humans are the end result. I do not follow this belief and wait for the next step forward (which will come around a time a massive hardship and challenges to the survival of the human species).
      CBR - I never stated I don’t believe evolution is the most likely explanation for the origin of species, and tend to think the other concepts put forward are ridiculous (creationisim, alien experimentation etc.). I am simply querying why we as a species tend to take the position that humans are the end result rather than that evolution is still occuring and one day we will likely be replaced with a new species that is better adapted to survival (either by greater intelligence or some other area). And by including genes in the pool by ‘saving’ people via intervention when they have genetic based illness or disease we are simply extending the period of status quo, rather than seeking development to the next step.
      BTW - which theory of gravity are you refering too as they are not all congruent (but gravity does exist), there are Newtons laws, which are fine except for the very small (atomic/molecular level) or very large (galaxies) or the theory of variable gravity which provides different gravity in different areas of the universe (and as such not requiring ‘dark matter’ to make the universe ‘work’).....

    • MarkS says:

      10:51am | 28/02/12

      @Al
      Belief if Darwin does not mean belief in Social Darwinism.

    • gobsmack says:

      11:16am | 28/02/12

      Al, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
      Read “Origin of the Species” or even a basic biology text book.

    • Al says:

      11:48am | 28/02/12

      gobsmack - funny, as I have read the Origin of Species, as well as many other books on the subject as well as having undertaken HSC Biology, University level Physiology as well as Symptomology and Diagnosis.
      What point have I missed - good (or benefical) genetic traits that benefit a species survival are passed on as they are better able to survive and breed.
      Poor (or non-beneficial) genetic traits that are a detriment to a species survival are passed on less as they are less able to survive and breed.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:12am | 28/02/12

      7 Billion people and we waste money trying to cure infertility…...

      Reply

    • Wauker says:

      10:54am | 28/02/12

      Well we don’t want to become endangered do we wink

    • onlooker says:

      08:13am | 28/02/12

      My mother had me when she was 38 years old, by the time I was 35 years old she had died, you need to think if your older about your longevity and how old your child will be when you die. At 35 I was most certainly able to take care of myself and my family but I desperately missed my mum. I have friends in their 50’s who still have their parents and I envy them, they had their children when they were young. Being nearly 60 now, I would no more contemplate having a baby than I would trying to fly with arm power only to The North Pole

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      10:00am | 28/02/12

      Yeah my husband was only 10 when his mother passed away in her early 50’s. She had him older and he was the youngest of 3 much older brothers. He missed out on a lot and can’t remember much of her before that. It’s very sad.

    • Chris says:

      08:45am | 28/02/12

      This seems like yet another opportunity for us to stuff around with something we don’t really understand - but it’s OK because “trust me, I’m a scientist”.  Awesome! (that’s sarcasm, for any that missed it).

      My recollection is that Tilly made it clear this process was for women “of child-bearing age”.  But I might be wrong.  I also don’t recall any suggestions about what that phrase meant.  Can anyone clarify?

      Reply

    • amy says:

      10:44am | 28/02/12

      dont understand?

      stuff around with things we “dont understand” is how we have gotten this far

    • acotrel says:

      04:38pm | 28/02/12

      Interesting.  I once had a boss who believed the wild strains of living things were the strongest.  He was religous and found it difficulk t o understand when I pointed out why roses are not grown from seed, Because the seeds in a rose hip have all sorts of different genes from all over the place,  propogation is usually from grafted cuttings, to endure genetic consistency. So if you want to build the super race, first you need to find someone who is the ultimate, check all his geses for the recessive ones, and clone him.  Then you would potentially build a human race with no way of recovering if you hadn’t covered all the bases. The way it works without genetic manipulation, is if there is a pandemic, the probability is that somewhere there will be a resistant strain which would carry on the human race. Playing God and planning for every eventuality would not be as an effective way of ensuring survival.

    • acotrel says:

      06:09pm | 28/02/12

      Religious like Tony Abbott,pfft

    • lousie says:

      12:32am | 29/02/12

      isn’t the whole discussion about extending child bearing age beyond child bearing age. Who is tilly that he can control the implementation of scientific, arguably, advancement.

    • Liz says:

      09:11am | 28/02/12

      As an over 60’s mother I say…no way!!

      Reply

    • lousie says:

      12:01am | 29/02/12

      Gold if you meant a new 60 year old mother. Otherwise possibly meaningless.

    • Jimbo75 says:

      09:43am | 28/02/12

      Interesting that this story is just below the one by Tory that puts forward a case that it is okay for some women to choose not to be a mother yet science considers it appropriate to fight nature’s decision thatr some men and women will not have an opportunity to father/give birth to a child.

      The Federal Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on Medicare funding for artiicial reproductive technologies services with over half of this being for patients aged 35 years or older. Both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard have been criticised in the past for seeking to reform this area.

      The rate of success from IVF drops significantly once a patient gets past 30 with a less than 10% success rate after a patient turns 40, yet the Government considers it okay to let patients try over and over again at a significant expense to the taxpayer.

      The government has three recent reports that ask for investments of tens of billions of dollars in Education, Dental Health and a National Disability Insurance scheme. Funding for ART/IVF services is an area where the Government should consider reforms that deliver significant savings to help fund these priorities.

      Please note that I am not advocating that patients should not have access to these services, but that the level of Government funding should be reduced. I know this means it puts these services out of financial reach for some people but if the choice is between subsidising disability and dental health services and subsidising ART/IVF servies I know which gets my vote.

      Reply

    • lousie says:

      12:07am | 29/02/12

      Couldn’t agree more. Fair chunk goes of the health budget goes on gestating premmie babies. Research I guess….

    • lousie says:

      12:16am | 29/02/12

      same. Lot of the health budget goes on really really Prem babes as well. There is another medical term for the Prem babes I am talking about. Starts with m. If I had one fine but objectively…greater good, including scientific research. Who knows. Parents of premmies don’t harrangue me please.

    • MumToOne says:

      09:51am | 28/02/12

      let’s not forget that becoming a mother is a life changing event. You and maybe your partner stop working for a period of time (or all together) to care for the baby, often the family income is reduced and your life revolves around tending to a new baby. This is 24/7. No lunch breaks.No annual leave. No thanks for a hard days work. No 8 hours restful sleep. A daily shower can become an optional extra.

      I won’t open the can of worms that a 50 or 60 year old could/could not do it. Maybe they can, if so, good on them.

      But after 30 odd years in the workforce, suddenly stopping going to work to do nothing all day but feed, change nappies and educate/entertain a baby?

      The transition from an independent, career minded and successful person to someone whose daily timetable is dictated by a little cherub is quite an eye opener. I know, I have a 3 month old baby.
      Having a baby is not at all like a Huggies ad.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      10:07am | 28/02/12

      Wow my friend’s baby has mouth thrush… I agree. They don’t show THAT on the huggies ad! hahaha.

    • Another mum says:

      12:01pm | 28/02/12

      Early days for you kiddo but you are right. Wait until they’re toddlers and you’ve got another one coming. Still, you describe what I have felt.

    • Louise says:

      12:22am | 29/02/12

      And then they become teenagers. Thank god. Like a star in a reality TV show then.

    • Kika says:

      10:05am | 28/02/12

      Why would anyone want to be in their 60’s having a child? That time is the time for grown grandchildren… not running after little ones.  How is it fair to have a child at 60 and then maybe only seeing your child grow to 15-20 before you cark it.

      Maybe the technology would be used best for younger women to use as back up stock. I know I was seriously considering having some eggs frozen when my husband decided that he’s too scared to be a father thanks to his poor upbringing and fears that he will make the same mistakes his father did and thus ruin that childs life too. I am here waiting for him to confirm whether it’s going to be next month or another year before we are able to think of trying for a child so I may as well go freeze some in case he keeps delaying it.

      Reply

    • lousie says:

      12:28am | 29/02/12

      Or swap him.

    • Vicki PS says:

      11:39am | 28/02/12

      In 2003, there were 22,500 Australian families in which grandparents were raising their grandchildren.  People in their 50s and 60s caring for young children is already a reality, regardless of assisted fertility.  Just ask me!

      Reply

    • Jane2 says:

      12:06pm | 28/02/12

      Well said Vicki.

      I think people always forget that families come in many forms and that age or giving birth to the kid does not automatically make someone the perfect parent for the child.

    • Lucy says:

      12:11pm | 28/02/12

      I have 3 younger brothers who have reproduced from younger females, who do you think is the one that plays with the kids, rolls on the ground, rough houses etc…its their 40 year old aunty not their late 20 early 30 fathers or their early 20 mothers. Why? Im the only one that hasnt wrecked my back or my news and has teh physical energy to do it for hours.

      Generalisations about energy levels etc and age are just generalisations. Just because you are a worn out 20 something doesnt mean a 40 or a 60 something couldnt do it with more energy than yourself.

      Reply

    • Catie says:

      12:53pm | 28/02/12

      We need a moral compass that stands firm in the face of science.  Science will offer us more and more options, but do we take them all?  Time to stop bowing down at the the altar of science… and become ethically literate human beings.  Moral relativism is getting to the end of its usefulness.

      Human babies gestated inside of an animal such as a pig may one day be possible, but is it ‘right’?  Will desperate parents drive the push for ‘breakthroughs’ like this.  At what price must a baby be acquired?

      Reply

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      02:26pm | 28/02/12

      The problem I have with people starting families at a relatively advance age is ” What about the children?”
      A couple decide to put off having a family & then around 45-50 they decide “It would be nice to have a child or two”
      Fine, IVF, Surrogacy are all available. As one IVF doctor in SA told a relatives of mine when they were going through the IVF programme & had the very good sense to ask about the “Age factor” - now this may not affect men but it certainly does women. The doctor’s response was ” Oh! Edwina (not her name) don’t concern yourself with that for today we could get an (ancient) Egyptian Mummy pregnant. They walked out.
      Ok, so it is possible for people to make babies, with some help, after menopause. What about the children?
      Mum has the baby at 45/6 Dad is already 48 or 50. Doubtless both loving people. BUT… what happens in 15 or 16 years time? The Terrible Teens arrive. The children are almost adults, they want their freedoms, to try new substances, sex in it’s many forms. Will Mum now 60 or 61 or Dad now retired at 64 or 66 have the energy to cope with the frequent rebellions, the resentment of parental authority?
      Before that the children very possibly have to put up with their schoolmates asking ” Was that your Nanna or Grampa who picks you up from school”?
      Think on it!

      Reply

    • lousie says:

      01:18am | 29/02/12

      Why is dad always older than mum in your scenario (and all others). why is all the talk only about old mother’s and not about even older fathers regardless of whether the child will be born or terminated. Presumptions, sterotypes, religion, science. Backbones of society of society as we know it and all fall by the way side in the course of decent cross examination. Gotta love life.

    • Mark/Fox says:

      07:41pm | 28/02/12

      And there is such a shortage of people (sorry about the sarcasm).

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter