Tuesday 22 June 2010


In May, a 66-year-old woman in India gave birth to triplets after having IVF treatment. She and her 70-year-old husband were quoted as saying they always wanted a family, it just took awhile…apparently, something like three decades; and in the end it wasn’t even her eggs that resulted in the triplets. Cause as you can guess, at 66 she was post menopausal. 

Um, I don’t know, but maybe it’s time to hang up the ol’ womb boots, if you’re at the age where you are getting a discount on the bus and at the movie theater. I get it, some people try and try and it never works out for them, but there is something altogether unnatural about impregnating women after a certain age. I figure when the reproductive system waves the checkered flag furiously that the race is over, it’s time to get out of the car.

To make matters worse, there is no upper age limit in India, Britain and the United States for those that want to have a child using fertility treatments. Seriously?? No cut off at all? You can’t drink till you’re 18, drive until your 16, or ride on an amusement park ride if you’re too short, and you’re telling me you can clock in at 75 and still be considered a candidate for IVF?? And no offense, India, but have you guys looked at your population table lately? You don’t need any more children.

Fine, I’ll go ahead and say it, I think women having children past the age of menopause is just downright selfish, and well, wrong. Sorry, to burst any of you geriatrics bubbles out there. Firstly, childbirth is hard on the woman’s body (let me tell you!) and puts her at increased risks for complications and various conditions when she's past a certain age. Not to mention the babies are often born premature and can develop developmental problems later on in life. But let’s be frank here, if you’re having a kid in your mid-sixties, and your ticker gives out in your seventies, who the hell is going to watch your child for you? Certainly not your parents! You’ve finally fulfilled your wish to have a child and you make him/her an orphan by the time they’re ten. Gee. Real nice. Fine, one can attempt the argument that anyone can go at any time, which is true, but let’s face it, the odds are stacked against the older generation.

So how does it play out actually for someone giving birth (to triplets no less) that late in age? By the time the child is four, you’re so tired and slow you need more naps than the kid does? By the time it’s ten you’ve bought your first walker and are getting replacement teeth, and if you’re lucky by its 16th birthday you’re still able to bathe yourself on your own. And what about him or her and their quality of life? Your eyesight is shot so reading is out of the question, if you attempt to throw a ball around you might dislocate your shoulder, and he certainly can’t come sit on Mamma’s knee cause that is the one you had replaced just last year. Sounds like a real picnic.

I guess the question I also am compelled to ask is why? Is it so important one gives birth to a child despite all the signs it is against the natural order of things – I’m talking simple biology here – not what is deemed normal. What about being a foster parent, hell, get a few dogs, but to bring a child into the world just because you want one and not be able to fulfill your full obligation just doesn’t make sense to me. The woman in India says that their reason was practical. They needed heirs to be the owners of their property. How pragmatic and altruistic of them.

Well gosh you should’ve said that in the beginning, it makes perfect sense now.

Copyright © 2014 Anthea Anka - Delighted And Disturbed