Ninety-four year old actress Zsa Zsa Gabor’s ninth husband, Prince Frederik von Anhalt, reportedly wants her to have a baby using his sperm, a donor egg and a surrogate mother. Yes, he does. He visited a Beverley Hills fertility clinic for sperm analysis and blood work. 

Actually, Gabor looks pretty good for 94. Pic: AP

There have been no reports of him also having his head read; however, Gabor’s daughter, 64-year-old Francesca Hilton (a product of Gabor’s second marriage to hotel magnate, Conrad Hilton) has denounced the story as the latest in a string of wild publicity stunts by her seventh step-father.

And while the Gabor-Anhalts gallivant around celebrity baby clinics (if gallivanting is possible when you are just shy of a century, with a partially-amputated leg), my friend – a single mum of two young children – has announced that she has successfully battled cancer at the age of 38.  Facing her own mortality, she had to put in place a plan for the care of her children, which involved her parents and her sisters. 

Another school acquaintance was not so fortunate.  She left behind two young daughters late last year when she lost her battle with the illness at 39.

When I was in Year 12, one of my best friends lost her father to cancer.  He was in his 50s.  Another lost her dad in a light plane crash. 

Jane McGrath, mum of two and former wife of cricketer Glenn McGrath, died of cancer at 42. Princess Diana, mum of two, died in a car accident at 36.

Fifty-year-old Sydney woman, Meagan Callaghan, recently turned to the media in her urgent attempt to find a donor for IVF treatment.  She was labelled ‘selfish’ for wanting to bring a child into the world, who she might not see grow into adulthood. 

Don’t all parents take that risk?

Monash IVF Professor Gab Kovacs, when interviewed about the Callaghan case by the Herald Sun, questioned the mid-life pregnancy on ethical and moral grounds, rather than medical ones:

“The problem is ... looking after the child - when the mother is 70, will she feel like driving around picking them up from their high school formal?” he said.

I don’t know. Can we make a call about another person’s enthusiasm for raising children? 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that there are 14,000 grandparent families caring full-time for children in this country.  I met one in a ‘sleep clinic’ for babies.  Her daughter was a drug addict.  The baby had health problems associated with her mother’s drug use. The grandparents had full-time custody of both kids, as well as full-time jobs.

Another woman and her husband work and care for their two grandchildren - one of whom has special needs - after the death of their daughter in a car accident.  I see grandparents taking care of children at the school gates, at ballet, on the sidelines of netball and virtually anywhere where children congregate. 

What happens when we stretch the generation gap?  I’m 25 years older than my 12-year-old and might as well be twice my age in her eyes.  I’ve narrowed the gap slightly with a wild promise to escort her to Bieber’s concert (argh!) but ‘anyone over thirty is ancient’. 

Yes, some people ‘forget’ to have children.  Others long for a baby, every day, as one infertile year ticks over into another.  Some are able to line up the ducks and adopt.  Some foster.  Some throw their maternal or paternal drive into their nieces and nephews.

A few have eleventh-hour natural pregnancies, the way people used to a few generations ago, before we started controlling childbirth with the contraceptive pill.  Others turn to IVF, including the use of donors, which is often required for older mothers. 

The average age for menopause is fifty-one, and many Australian clinics won’t treat women older than that (some have age-limits in the lower 40s).  Should IVF (with its Medicare rebate) be used if you can’t have the baby ‘naturally’ at that age?  It’s used if you can’t have a baby naturally at twenty-eight.  It’s used if you haven’t got a partner.  It’s used if you’re a same-sex couple.   

Zsa Zsa aside, how old is too old for a baby?  Forty-five?  Fifty? 

When I was in my early 30s, I used to go running at lunch times with a 55-year-old.  I’d stagger.  She ran.  She did triathlons.  She went in the City to Surf.  I was passably fit.  She was an amateur athlete.

Some parents in their 20s and 30s make lifestyle choices leading to a ‘body age’ far in excess of their actual years.  Becoming a parent slows some people down in this regard and not others.  Some parents takes risks.  Some have risky jobs. 

How important is it that parents can chase their kids around the backyard?  I shared a cable car in New Zealand recently with a family of four, plus the mother’s guide dog.  The woman was adept at negotiating her family life in the darkness and so were her two young daughters, who had a strong example set for them in how to conquer adversity.

Parenting is about mental fitness just as much as our physical state - and both factors vary widely at any age.  It’s about our capacity to communicate, educate and protect.  It’s about building confidence and resilience and teaching kids how to interact with other people.  It’s about the ‘village’ around a child.

There are energetic parents and lazy parents, patient parents, angry parents, loving parents and abusive parents.  There are involved parents and disengaged parents.  There are parents who die young and parents who don’t. 

You could do worse than have an older parent pick you up from the high-school formal.  I know this, because an older parent picked me up from mine.

(Please forgive any grammatical errors – my nearly 80-year-old father usually proof-reads my articles, but he’s currently traipsing around Gallipoli with Mum.)

Most commented

75 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      06:06am | 16/04/11

      45 should be the cutoff point for assisted reproduction.  Beyond that it should be up to nature.

    • Seano says:

      11:36am | 16/04/11

      45 seems an arbitary number why not 42 or 48?

    • Ben81 says:

      12:24pm | 16/04/11

      Still too arbitrary.  If supermarkets have taught us anything it’s that all numbers must end in .95 or .99 to be taken seriously.  46.95 it is.

    • Seano says:

      04:18pm | 16/04/11

      46.95 sound far more reasonable.

    • Gladys says:

      09:10am | 16/04/11

      There’s over 30 years difference between me and my daughter. A gap starts at about 7 years and anything over that is just history.

      That said, I think if nature had intended us to be able to have babies into our 90s we would have that ability.

      Dr Karl answered a good question once: why don’t human beings walk when they’re born. We are born when we’re partially developed. If we were born to walk it would kill the mother. (And I’m not keen on the idea of a 20month gestation.) The size of the child and the head would not be possible to pass through the birth canal.

      So… if this is a fact of life, surely using the natural cut off age for procreation is about right for IVF.

      Gabor looks terrible without makeup.

    • Rob says:

      11:53am | 16/04/11

      She’s 94 with only half a leg. And she’s lived Zsa Zsa’s life. Of course she looks terrible. Jeez!

    • suzy green says:

      02:23pm | 16/04/11

      What’s the ‘natural cut off age’  I went into menopause at 42… and missed the boat as they say for children. I know a friend who naturally had her first child at 46, and then some naturally have children over 50. I wouldn’t like to call the age, and think it’s up to each individual case.

    • Slick says:

      02:34pm | 18/04/11

      Suzy, I think that is what Gladys’ is saying, that if you walking into a fertility clinic after going through menopause wanting help to have a baby, that you should be refused. Where I start debating that is when someone goes through premature menopause at 23 or something randomly young like that, and yes it does happen.
      Where do you draw the line?
      Personally I think it really is a case by case thing. There are some 50 yr olds who would be better parents that some 30 yr olds…?

    • Gerard says:

      09:17am | 16/04/11

      It’s pretty sickening that while millions of kids starve to death around the world, people in rich countries are spending thousands of dollars on all kinds of artificial interventions to exacerbate the world’s overpopulation problem.

      Sure, adoption means that it’s not actually ‘your’ kid, but if ownership is the key element of a prospective parent’s plans, you’d have to question their suitability to parenthood anyway.

    • Mayday says:

      12:09pm | 16/04/11

      Excellent point!

    • KittyK says:

      02:17pm | 16/04/11

      Gerard, have you tried adopting a baby recently? It’s virtually impossible to adopt in Australia and if you can get approved to adopt a child from overseas it’s usually at least a 5 year wait with no guarantee of being able to bring a child into your family. Take up your issue with the federal government and its intercountry adoption programs, not with ‘people in rich countries’, who would do anything to have a child, whether through egg/sperm/embryo donation/surrogacy/adoption, and would never, ever, ever refer to that child as ‘not actually my kid’.

    • Em says:

      02:28pm | 16/04/11

      many people would LOVE to adopt, Gerard.  I don’t think it’s just the issue of “ownership” or “genes” that is the real problem.  I think that if we poured the money we spend on assisted reproduction into education and work toward lessening the ridiculous hurdles Australian couples face in adoptive processes, I think many, many more decent people would adopt. 

      My husband and I felt we were getting too old to have another child naturally (I’m nearing 40, he is over 45) and we have a five year old girl.  We are quite financially secure, we pour love and attention on our daughter - have a large house that we own, are both professionally educated, we have no criminal pasts, we are normal decent law abiding people.  We would love to share our home and our family with a child.  We feel there are many unloved little people in the world who need a home, why have more ? we are not concerned about their gender or their nationality, or if there are additional special needs - but the adoptive process is completely prohibitive. 

      If we think we’re old now - it’s a minimum of two years until we can adopt and because my husband is over 45 - we may not even be able to adopt at all.  Many countries have “quotas” and the cost is amazing - though none of it seems to make it to the kids or the orphanages.  It’s honestly just too hard.  IVF with all it’s costs and physical pain and other challenges is the easier of the two difficult processes.

    • Erick says:

      02:45pm | 16/04/11

      It’s not about “ownership”, it’s about passing on one’s genetic heritage.

    • Spence says:

      03:09pm | 16/04/11

      Adoption in theory is a brilliant idea. Not only is it very expensive, but many countries have rules about who they do and do not let adopt their children. There are rules about mental illness, BMI’s, fertility, finances, religion, marital status etc etc.

      So adoption is easier said than done.

    • Gerard says:

      04:34pm | 16/04/11

      The point of my original post was to point out the absurdity of the status quo. If there are millions of kids without parents, and thousands of couples unable to have kids of their own, and the use of complex, expensive medical techniques and elaborate legal contracts to bring more children into an already overpopulated world is considered to be the best solution, then something is seriously wrong. There is no apparent reason why the considerations mentioned by Spence should apply only to adoption and not to IVF, surrogacy etc. Irrespective of who is at fault (and both unnecessary bureaucracy and the selfishness of some individuals come into play here), the current system is unquestionably broken.

    • Faybian says:

      09:29am | 16/04/11

      Well lets hope that this is just a publicity stunt, or that if it isn’t, the fertility clinics have the ethics to turn these great grand parent aged people away.

    • Silverdragon says:

      09:31am | 16/04/11

      Good article, Emma.  I think you are right about the young vs the young-at-heart and fit.  I do think there is probably a limit though and it probably comes around the point where you could reasonably be expected to be there for your child until they are independent (accidents and unexpected illness aside).  I suspect that rules out Zsa Zsa at ninety-five and already very infirm.  Sure, von Anhalt could remarry, but why would you intentionally plan an uncertain future for a child?

    • Craig Mc says:

      09:55am | 16/04/11

      I won’t tell other people what they should do, but if I hadn’t had kids by 40, I wasn’t going to.  It’s a young person’s game.

      I don’t see much point of having a kid at an age where you’ll never see them grow up, or they won’t have you around when they need you.  It’s a two-way street.

      Hang on. “a donor egg, and a surrogate mother”?  How is this having a baby with Zsa Zsa?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:37am | 16/04/11

      I agree.  There are some people who yearn to have children more than anything.  I’m not one of those.  Sure, I might give it a crack if I meet the right guy, but I wouldn’t be one of those women who seeks to get pregnant and raise a child on their own at 45.  If I don’t do it, I’ll get dogs instead.

    • Jane says:

      08:44pm | 16/04/11

      Remember it is only in the last 80 years that a woman has had a better than 50% chance of surviving childbirth in Australia.

      Even today woman die of child birth here in Australia.

      You can be a fit and healthy 20 year old and not see out your childs first day on this planet. I think this was partially Emma’s point, none of us know when our useby is up. The eldest recorded woman in history was 125, Zsa Zsa could be a copy of that in which case she would see her child reach its majority.

    • be real says:

      06:45am | 18/04/11

      Zsa Zsa is dying and has been for a while.Her body is being kept alive.Her husband is a lunatic and attention grasper.Thre is a cut off date and it boild down to common sense.

    • Sonya says:

      10:24am | 16/04/11

      Sorry but this is wrong on all levels. Firstly she is 95 and in frail health. Secondly, the options for that child is not knowing its actual parents when it needs them most. I have a 20 year age gap with my youngest child and even that sometimes is difficult as you try to remember how to handle the hardest years of their lives - teenager time - with the grace, dignity, firmness, love and guidance that is required. You certainly can’t do that at 95. Also, the body was not actually designed to carry children at such a late stage as the joints and muscles have changed dramatically, even if you are physically fit. 45 is definitely a good benchmark for those wishing to have children but I don’t know if I would want to go through my 50s knowing I was going through the primary years whilst most of my friends had their children in their 20s and were enjoying the good life later.

    • Helena says:

      10:48am | 16/04/11

      if a man and woman cannot procreate naturally than it should not be done at all - particularly considering how many people are in desperate need all over the world, more should be done to open up international adoption, especially cross culturally I’d rather be non-PC and have a safe healthy home than a starving orphan in a third world country

    • Super D says:

      11:21am | 16/04/11

      This argument could be applied to any medical condition.  If you can’t get over your cancer by yourself then tough there are too many people in the world…

      My view is that if there is a reasonable expectation that a couple should be able to conceive naturally then assistance should be available.  This means no assistance for single women or lesbians - well at least not at taxpayers expense.

    • bleD says:

      08:46am | 17/04/11

      Good point Helena. The planet is already overburdened with people. Why add to the problem?

    • EH says:

      10:54am | 16/04/11

      My husband has older parents- he was a ‘change-of-life’ baby coming much after his siblings and although he was much loved and well cared for he has misgivings about the things his parents could and did do for his siblings which they could not do with him. It contributed strongly to our decision to have and complete our family in our 20’s.

      No matter how you argue it there is an increased risk of death, injury, or illness the older the parent- of course younger parents bear some risk but it is significantly reduced. And of course we should focus on the ‘village’ approach the raising a child- but if your in the older age group and having children the traditional ‘back-ups’ for worst case scenario may no longer be available to you. Their parents may be already gone or to elderly to help out, sibling are also older and may not be able or willing to take child-care over, friends are also ageing. What a tragedy if a much loved and wanted child were to land in foster care simply because his/her parents were to old. I’m not arguing that people who ‘forgot’ to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to parent in the slightest. There are so many foster kids out there that need their love and care- with all the added risks if the drive to parent is so strong then perhaps this is where people ought to be turning. Of course having your own biological child is a precious thing and a truly amazing experience- but it doesn’t mean it’s always the right choice. For the parent or the child.

    • Steve says:

      12:15pm | 16/04/11

      Your husband’s misgivings will fade away if he ponders the alternative to being a “change of life” baby and that is to not having been born at all. There are advantages and disadvantages to having your children at different ages but on the balance I agree that you are doing the best thing having them in your 20’s. I had my last when, as the father, I was 41. I could be his young grandfather. However I had no real choice because I met and married my wife late. I have no regrets though and believe that it was better late than never. Others marry earlier than me but the cost of housing often precludes having kids in their 20’s as 2 incomes are required to pay the rent or mortgage.

    • suzy green says:

      02:31pm | 16/04/11

      Do you know anyone that fosters? I do and it’s not quite how it seems, kids are moved from loving foster homes on a whim and often having got settled and getting a new life, are ripped out and tossed back to druggie Mum’s and Dad’s to end up in foster care over and over again. Truthfully there are too many people and mainly the young, stupid and drug addicted seem to be procreating at a rate of knots.

    • stephen says:

      11:22am | 16/04/11

      Zsa Zsa from that old Austria-Hungarian Empire which couldn’t sustain itself against the thrush of democratic warfares.
      She, I’m sure, is just hoping to redress the balance.
      (‘I want ter put oooone more in the bbasket Ddddear’)

    • stephen says:

      06:23pm | 17/04/11

      “PLOP”
                There goes another one.

    • Nan says:

      11:31am | 16/04/11

      Another very thought provoking article, Emma. Loved it. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, but I do think that as humans we are trying to fight how nature would have us be.
      I do agree with Craig. It isn’t having a baby with Zsa Zsa at all!!!! She would be the parent, but technically not the mother, which raises all sorts of legal implications in the future when you think about it!

    • suzy green says:

      02:34pm | 16/04/11

      Yes, spot on… could this be some ruse by the husband for more money from her will when she pops out??

    • Emma says:

      11:35am | 16/04/11

      I will be 48 this year (shudder) as will my husband.  We had our kids young, in our early 20’s and had a ball bringing them up and are now grandparents to an absolutely lovely little girl. Would I want the responsibility for a baby at my age…not a chance.  I have considered being a foster parent but am honest enough to admit that I don’t want the stress of dealing with a difficult child at my age…selfish…absolutely, but at least I am honest about it.
        If I hadn’t been able to have my kids by my mid 30’s I wouldn’t have done it. I don’t want to be facing retirement and still picking my kids up from parties and paying uni fees.
      I think nature gives most women a cut of date when they are getting too old to have a healthy baby and it should also be the guide used by Dr’s. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it has to be done or is a good idea.  The sucess rate for IVF etc once you are in your 40’s is only about 10% so if you are waiting for the right time don’t assume that IVF will be the answer for you.

    • Bev says:

      01:07pm | 16/04/11

      Nice comment.  It is wonderful if children can know their grandparents they bring a different perspective to childs life.  Hey and you get to give them back (I have 7 grandchildren).  Dont worry about your age as some doors close others open and new horizons appear.

    • Victoria says:

      04:01pm | 16/04/11

      I can understand your reluctance to foster at the age of 48, it certainly isn’t a role for the faint hearted at time! But your post suggets that you assume all foster children will be difficult and they are not. My parents are both 65 and still foster in the UK. They have cared for over 40 children, some lovely and some not so lovely. Those that are not so lovely still deserve love and they need it by the bucket loads. Please don’t add to their problems by labelling them.

    • Jane says:

      08:54pm | 16/04/11

      Considering currently the minimum age of retirement is 67 and will probably be 70 for all those who are currently under 40 my maths says you can have a kid at 45 and they should be out of your house and uni educated by the time you can legally retire.

      Today is not like in the days of old where people retired at 55 and where lucky to see 65.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:37am | 16/04/11

      Don’t care what age people procreate- as long as it is not on the taxpayer dollar before or after birth…..

    • Seano says:

      11:39am | 16/04/11

      To my way of thinking people who have the capacity to love, take care of, raise and financially support children should have them if that is their desire.

      People who are lacking in any of those things should not. And if they’re never likely to have those capabilities then they should possibly think about getting sterlised.

    • DH says:

      11:56am | 16/04/11

      Well said. However I think the line should be drawn when the (great-grand) ‘mother’ might not even live long enough to find out she’s ‘pregnant’!

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      12:00pm | 16/04/11

      Happy weekend, all -

      Was just thinking the headline’s probably not accurate, should have been ‘parent’ but I got carried away while wanting to rhyme!

      So yeah, it’s not like it’s going to be her biological child at all.

      Sorry (but not so sorry I’m going to change it) wink

    • Gladys says:

      12:14pm | 16/04/11

      It might be a little inaccurate, but it’s the ‘id’ of the article.

      Forgive yourself. At least all the verb tenses are correct.

    • Starfire says:

      12:03pm | 16/04/11

      perhaps if Zsa Zsa and hubby wants a baby so much they should get a puppy?

    • stephen says:

      07:12pm | 16/04/11

      Their puppy would have three legs and want to play the banjo.
      Their only solution is to take out the womb and give it to Steven Spielberg :
      Closed Embroyos for the So-Inclined.

    • Glen says:

      12:08pm | 16/04/11

      Oh this can’t be true. She looks like my gran in the old folks home full care ward. Errggghhh. Shudder.

    • Mayday says:

      12:18pm | 16/04/11

      Great article Emma - thank you.

      I am in my mid fifties and a mother of two adult males who has recently returned to work in early childhood after a two year break.

      After work last week I mentioned to my son I hadn’t felt this tired since they were little and I thought to myself thank goodness I don’t have to take one of the little darlings home!!

      I love my job and I love my little charges but its both physically and mentally exhausting looking after young children which is why I figure Mother Nature gives us a limited reproductive period.

      Zsa Zsa and her beau need to give that idea the flick right now!!

    • Dave C says:

      12:49pm | 16/04/11

      I was 36 when my IVF conceived daughter was born almost a year ago and my wife was 31. We did IVF because due to medical issues we could not after 2 years of trying conceive naturally.  Friends of ours are about to have their IVF baby (for different reasons POS for one) and they are both 37.

      Anyways I think the age limit should be what the IVF specialists say it should be, 45 or even 50 at the absolute minimum. You have to think how old you will be when the child becomes an adult and in what sort of health you will be in.

      As for the Zsa Zsa case, that if F*#(ing ridiculous. She will be dead in the next 5 to 10 years maximum and she has the selfishness to bring a child into the world who will lose their mother by the time they are 5, great way to give the kid emotional dependency issues isnt it.

      Besides by seriously allowing this to happen it devalues the IVF currency, and it allows people who are against IVF to have the ammunition of the Zsa Zsa case to preach that IVF is for spolit old rich people when in reality it is designed for couples who cant conceive naturally of usual child baring age.

      Its hard enough to say your kid is IVF when all the wonderful born winner healthy people who only have to share a bath together to get pregnant say “well if you cant conceive naturally you shouldnt have kids”  and then when IFV is misused in the stupid selfish case of Zsa Zsa it only makes it worse for poor child baring age couples to have the procedure without having the extra burden of guilt put upon them by others.

    • suzy green says:

      02:40pm | 16/04/11

      I don’t think she’ll be raising a child, probably a Nanny… the selfishness has to be the husband, this poor frail old lady looks so taken advantage of by this user. Great news for you and your wife on winning the ticket in the baby lottery. grin

    • Jane says:

      01:12pm | 16/04/11

      My sister-in-law has just become a grandmother at 34. My mother-in-law (she not my sister-in-law’s mother) has five grandchildren at the age of 51. So, to me, anyone who has their first child after forty is too old to be a parent.

    • Sunny says:

      01:34pm | 16/04/11

      Actually, Jane, to me anyone who procreates as a young teenager and is seen as a role model for their child to reproduce at a very young age is reprehensible and reeks of boganism. If having babies is an age-specific issue, then you and your family falls into the same category yet for different reasons.

    • suzy green says:

      02:46pm | 16/04/11

      Have to agree with you Sunny, in this day and age having a teenage pregnancy isn’t something to be proud of… in a day and age when there was no birth control and little sex education and people were far more mature than the teen of today. I’ve seen too many pop out the kids and palm them off continually while they party.

    • Jane says:

      08:10pm | 18/04/11

      In reply to Sunny, well, my husband’s mother must have been a terrible, terrible role model for him. His mother had him at 18. My bogan husband and I were 31 and 29 respectively when we had our first child.

    • Wally says:

      01:23pm | 16/04/11

      The Zsa Zsa story is surely a beat-up!  His DNA with an egg and womb of a surrogate mother?  What has that to do with her?  No connection whatsoever!  It is surely time for all to be a little more morally and ethically responsible - in fact, a lot more!.  Think of any poor child from such selfish exploitation - not to mention the embarrassment of an older sibling!  In addition, I doubt his 65 year old swimmers will make the grade - or, at least, let’s hope not!

    • Wally says:

      01:42pm | 16/04/11

      OK - my bad!  Make that “67 year old swimmers” - which is even worse!

    • michael j says:

      01:35pm | 16/04/11

      I have worked out on my fingers ,n,toes’‘’ solar calculator is down agiin,,
      that with about 100/200 million dying of starvation sometime this year and increasing to the big event in 2048 when 4 billion die of a lack of food ,,thats about in rough figures 32 years,,so 10 billion dead,, Jesus Christ,,,Climate Change better be quick,these figures carn’t be right,,surly,,,,
      we wouldn’t lose that many people with a ‘’‘M.A.D.’‘'Thermo Nuclear WAR
      but seeing as the best SCIENTIST in the world are looking after these things i think 48 would be a good time to stop having babies thats 1948,,
      Anyone who does not believe that geneneticly engineered already walk among us has their head in the sand,,when is the best time to stop having babies,,3 days after the cryogenic freezer breaks,,welcome to Orson’ Well’s
      bad dream day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:22pm | 16/04/11

      Depends upon whether the nuclear winter hypothesis is valid or not. If it is true then a global thermonuclear war would produce the casualties directly related to the strikes, plus the mass starvation to follow. Peak Oil will happen long before 2048 anyway…..

    • michael j says:

      06:18pm | 16/04/11

      @Shane-yes i have often wondered about the effects of a Nuclear Winter
      it’a probably another of these wonderfull things i’ll miss out on ,,probably wouldn’t need abig coat what with the radiation burns and such,,
      The way things are going i’ll only have enough baked beans till next week any-way,,

    • Lily says:

      01:56pm | 16/04/11

      My parents were 33 when they had me, and I have never though they were too old. The only element of bad planning came when their 50ths, my 18th and my sister’s 21st all fell in the same year. But to a friend of mine, whose parents had her at 19, my folks are ancient.
      While I disagree having children through IVF and other means beyond the age when the average person can procreate naturally, I think the right age to be a parent is when you are mentally and financially prepared for the challenge.

    • Anne_N says:

      02:13pm | 16/04/11

      I think its sad that we see these kinds of stories coming out of America, where in a free market capitalist economy, babies are seen as just another consumer commodity - eggs, sperm and wombs for sale.  I hope we don’t follow in those footsteps.

      I would hope that every prospective parent, male or female, would set their own limits on how hard to pursue their dream…no matter how fraught, there has to come a time when you say enough hoping against hope.  And that we accept the wise guidance of our medical profession, as they don’t appear so motivated by monetary gain.

    • Karen says:

      02:21pm | 16/04/11

      It’s all very well to say it’s best to have children in your 20s, but some people don’t meet the right person to take on this responsibility with until beyond those years, so I find these sentiments a bit annoying.  The guys I knew in my 20s and early 30s were great guys, but were they right for me?  No.  I didn’t meet my husband until I was 34.  We got married 3 years later and now have a beautiful 18-month-old baby girl.  I am now 40 and pondering whether or not to try for another baby, and it’s difficult because I AM 40.  But do I regret having a baby relatively late in life?  Absolutely not.  I was single for lengthy periods and travelled in my 20s and enjoyed my own company, my friends and my social life.  I am grateful to have met the right person and to have had a baby, and I think you just have to go with the way your life pans out - and the timing has been perfect for me.

    • Silverdragon says:

      02:34pm | 16/04/11

      If, as von Anhalt has claimed, he wants Zsa Zsa to be able to “smell the baby’s head and hear it scream” before she dies (questionable objectives for bringing a child into the world, much??) I’d suggest that they put a chunk of their considerable wealth towards sponsoring a mothers’ group in a really poor neighbourhood, where it could make a difference.  Then Zsa Zsa can be wheeled on down and cluck over the little babies and smell their heads and hear them scream and no additional child need be brought into a super weird existence.

    • Jane says:

      03:13pm | 16/04/11

      Brilliant article - I say, leave nature alone and if you are meant to be a parent, you will be one. It’s so sad for women who can’t conceive, I know some whose husbands moved onto other women to have the families and that must leave a woman feeling like she has failed somehow. Why is it that some can and some can’t conceive? I think it has a lot to do with compatability and the gene mix to create strong, healthy offspring. Who knows? However, I know I wouldn’t want a 70 year old mother taking me to my school ball.

    • Steve says:

      04:00pm | 16/04/11

      When confronted with the choice of having a 70 year old Mum taking me to the ball or being an unfertilised egg I will take the former. It might break her heart but you could make her wait inside when the limo comes to pick you up. They are easy to boss around at 70.

    • Meow says:

      07:33pm | 16/04/11

      I’m a single woman who will be turning 34 in June and realise I’ll never have children as I’ve left it too late.  Fortunately I’m also a woman who prefers animals over children.  As to the question when is it too late - IMO around 36 - 38 is too late.

    • Meow says:

      07:36pm | 16/04/11

      I should also add to my previous comment regarding when it’s too late, I was also referring to IVF as well.

    • Shari says:

      08:37pm | 16/04/11

      Well I’m going to be unpopular and say I don’t think IVF should exist at all.  Why is it that people don’t stop to think why they might not be able to have children naturally?  Why is it that there is such an increase in cancer and other illnesses?  Are we weakening the gene pool by forcing children to be born that shouldn’t naturally?

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      12:33am | 17/04/11

      I agree, if you can’t have a baby naturally, maybe that is nature
      s way of saying you shouldn’t. Emma’s point about grandparents picking up kids is quite purile as that is definitely not the same as parenting. I became a father for the last time at 44, his mother was 46, it wasn’t planned but sometimes protection doesn’t work. I think that we were too old & when his mother left us when he was 2 to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle. At 15 my son is not like his siblings & I find that as an on line gamer, he & I have very little in comon

    • RK says:

      09:12am | 17/04/11

      Robert - I there’s a huge difference between grandparents just picking up the kids after school and having them for a few hours til their parents get home from work, and the grandparents talked about in the article, who are raising children full-time (with full-time custody).  There are thousands of people in that boat in this country, taking on the full parenting role and getting nowhere near enough recognition or support for it (but that’s another article!)

    • bikikis on top says:

      09:18pm | 16/04/11

      sex has no bias ,no balls and no bounds

    • david says:

      10:43pm | 16/04/11

      of course she should be able to - it’s every woman’s right. To bring age into it merely discriminates against her.

    • AG says:

      10:56pm | 16/04/11

      You shouldn’t procreate after 40 or if you have red hair.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      12:35am | 17/04/11

      Reality says your eggs are a lot fresher in your late teens & early 20s & even in your 30s they are getting stale

    • Island Girl says:

      07:54am | 17/04/11

      I have just given birth to my first child at age 40 (natural conception); I met and married my husband at age 39 (he was 45). Until then I hadn’t met the right man and so hadn’t tried to have children. I didn’t want a child without being in love with their father and being able to create a family. At my age I feel ready to devote my time to our baby; I’ve travelled, lived overseas and had a career. Sometimes it’s about when the parents are ready rather than their age. I feel so lucky that I finally met Mr Right and we were able to have a child so easily. It is unlikely that we would have tried IVF if we had been unable to conceive; I think we would have accepted that it wasn’t meant to happen. Our baby will be an only child as I believe we were very lucky and don’t want to take the risk of problems associated with our age with a subsequent baby. As an aside I was adopted as a small baby and I would definitely consider adoption but as other posters have noted, it is virtually impossible for Australians to provide a family for babies and children in desperate need.

    • Jane2 says:

      04:04pm | 17/04/11

      One thing I have noticed, everyone is commenting on a woman’s fertility useby and IVF but no-one has raised the question of when should males stop procreating? Or is it ok for a male in his 90’s to father a kid because he has a much younger female who will still be alive? Is there a double standard simply because biology has permitted a man to potentially father a child when he is over 100? Maybe we should have compulsory sterilization of males once they reach 50 since they “probably wont see their child graduate from university”...

    • Katharine says:

      03:07pm | 19/04/11

      Well said. What about cases where the woman in her 40s or 50s is married to a much younger man, eg in his 30s? You don’t see people mentioning that, either. If people react to older mums with disgust, why not the same disgust when older dads procreate? It’s hypocrisy.

    • Audra Blue says:

      10:33am | 18/04/11

      I don’t get how the child will be Zsa Zsa’s if the sperm is from her husband and the egg is from a donor?  Genetically, no part of that child will be from the old girl herself.  If that photo of her is anything to go by, she doesn’t know what day it is, let alone be able to love, care for, or appreciate a screaming baby coming into her life.  And the Prince looks like the worst kind of tosser anyway.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

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?

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”

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]

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