67 Year Old Woman Gives Birth
AFP is reporting that a 67-year-old Romanian woman has become the world's oldest mother:
Adriana Iliescu, a retired university professor, had undergone fertility treatment for nine years before succeeding in becoming pregnant.
Realitatea TV said she had given birth to twin girls, one of whom had died almost immediately. The surviving infant, which weighed 1.4 kilogram (three pounds), was in good health, the TV channel said.
"I always dreamt of being a mother, and now I'm experiencing the happiest time of my life, waiting to bring my twin daughters into the world," the graying academic said with visible emotion.
Iliescu said she did not feel the effect of her relatively advanced years.
Whole thing here.
A decade ago, Wendy McElroy, now of ifeminists.com fame, wrote a story on feminst opposition to new reproductive technologies. It opened with the shocking news that "59-Year-Old Woman Gives Birth to Twins on Christmas Day!" It's online here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's not my kid!! I was in Chicago that weekend!!
Who says Slavic women don't age well?
Not that I oppose anyone wishing to reproduce (it's her body, her choice), but I just wonder if it's a good idea for someone to bear or sire a child when they're is a good chance that the parent/parents will be dead from age-related illness before the child reachs addulthood.
She says she comes from a long lived family, as do I. I estimate that without new life extension technologies I'll live till 93-103 since that's how long my family lives. Going by my family I'd be fit enought to raise children till about 84-89, then I'd get crippled by age. 67 is not really old in the context of that sort of expected lifespan.
There are long lived familes and there are short lived families, and some families seem pretty much guaranteed to die in their 40s of cancer, heart problems, genetic desease etc, but people never seem to complain about them having children in their 20s.
I just wonder if it's a good idea for someone to bear or sire a child when they're is a good chance that the parent/parents will be dead from age-related illness before the child reachs addulthood.
Don't worry...the state will take care of them!
I was amused by an NPR piece the other day about a woman who had recently died at the tender age of 117. Her daughter was in her late 80's. They didn't follow the lineage further than that, but it would be possible for the old lady to have met her great-great-granddaughter (or -son). This is assuming everyone has a kid around age 20, but still, that's impressive.
This makes me a bit queasy, I have to say -- but the "you might die before the kid grows up" argument has some problems, since anyone might die before the kid grows up, so, well.
It's the fertility treatment part that bothers me more. Those things aren't cheap. I know a lot of people sinking a lot of money into a lot of fertility treatments. I'm wondering if that's the best use of our health care money.
Speaking, btw, as someone whose child was born with a bit of help from a fertility doctor, so I've got a lot of room talking, I know.
See, I think they ought to differentiate in the record books.
Category 1: Oldest woman to give birth the old fashioned way. Strict rules prohibiting the use of enhancements.
Category 2: Oldest woman to give birth period. This would be like Top Fuel Drag Racing. You could use/do anything you want to bring about a child.
As to "our" health care dollars, also note the woman actually lives in Romania, so it probably doesn't affect your HMO.
On the other hand, back on domestic policies, if we think people her age are young enough to have kids, why aren't they young enough to have jobs? Why are we subsidizing them?
"This makes me a bit queasy, I have to say -- but the "you might die before the kid grows up" argument has some problems, since anyone might die before the kid grows up, so, well."
True. Life is a crap shoot.
"On the other hand, back on domestic policies, if we think people her age are young enough to have kids, why aren't they young enough to have jobs? Why are we subsidizing them?"
If you had kids, you'd know that raising them is a full-time job in itself. : )
So maybe that's the answer: When the government raises the retirement age to 70, just have a kid at 65 and claim that you can't work anymore because you have to take care of your kid. Then collect welfare until SS kicks in....
WSDave
And it's not like there are any Romanian babies/kids that she could have adopted and given a home to...oh wait a minute.
Never mind.
Evan, the government here does pay for infertility treatment -- for now, that's on a state-by-state basis. The infertility advocacy group RESOLVE is working to force state health plans to cover infertility treatments, at taxpayer expense. They've had some success (MA, for example). My guess is that in Romania, infertility treatment is heavily if not fully subsidized. Not to mention the actual childbirth itself, which in this crone's case, was fraught with risk, and likely extremely expensive.
Too bad her fellow Romanians aren't allowed some sort of quid-pro-quo for their investment in her personal reproductive whim. Like if her kid grows up to be a no-account jailbird, they can force her to pay back whatever they've spent on her whopping doctor's bills.
Oh, and WSDave, having kids is a personal lifestyle choice. Hard work? Full-time job? And we should care...um...why? Tough, you chose it. News flash: self-imposed domestic drudgery is hard work. You and the little mini-Daves aren't doing us any favors, so what do you want, a medal?
"Oh, but my kee-yids are the future! They'll be contributing to your Social Security!" Yeah, out of the fat wages I'll be paying them, assuming they're gainfully employed.
"Oh, and WSDave, having kids is a personal lifestyle choice. Hard work? Full-time job? And we should care...um...why? Tough, you chose it. News flash: self-imposed domestic drudgery is hard work. You and the little mini-Daves aren't doing us any favors, so what do you want, a medal?
"Oh, but my kee-yids are the future! They'll be contributing to your Social Security!" Yeah, out of the fat wages I'll be paying them, assuming they're gainfully employed."
Zero,
You must have missed the smiley face at the end of my full-time job comment. It was meant as a joke.
That said, I did, in fact, choose to be a father, and I never asked you to care (or to take care of us). And, in fact, I am doing you a favor by conducting my affairs, and raising my child, in accordance with libertarian ideas. While it may not deserve a medal, you should at least thank me for not raising another communist.
As for the "fat wages", I honestly doubt that my children will ever even meet you, much less work for you (or for anyone but themselves, for that matter). But even so, if you have a problem with "fat wages", maybe you shouldn't pay your people so much....
WSDave
"...and I never asked you to care (or to take care of us)."
No, indeed, Dave, you didn't. So then, can I return this bill for greater improvements to roads, schools, emergency services and infrastructure, then, obviated by your need to breed?
"And, in fact, I am doing you a favor by conducting my affairs, and raising my child, in accordance with libertarian ideas. While it may not deserve a medal, you should at least thank me for not raising another communist."
I'll thank you -- for the hearty chuckle. Just love it when parents believe that whatever propaganda they're carefully sifting into their children's wee little ears is going to remain exactly as dispensed. Your child has every chance, if not more, of growing up to be either a criminal burden on taxpayers, or a sanctimonious bleeding heart who advocates slavery reparations, blowing up animal research labs, and Gawd knows what else. "Oh, not MYYYYY child! MYYYY child's going to grow up to cure cancer and save the world!" I'll check back with you in 13 years and see how that worked out for you.
Is it possible for today's self-conscious young breeding elites to post on any subject without bringing up what a colossal f*cking favor they're doing for us all by wallowing in "the haaaardest job in the wuuuuurld?"
She's not without her critics though:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4010853
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11966244%255E663,00.html
Via Marginal Revolution: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/01/opposition_to_p.html
Other than if it is done by taxpayer subsidy, why do any libertarians care about this? Sounds like a personal choice to me. Live and let live (but kill those who don't).
Shouldn't the word "yuck" figure in this somewhere?
It's funny that they said something in the article about a woman potentially giving birth to her own grandchildren since I just seen that exactly that has happened a little while back.
whole thing here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4440095
zeroentitlement....I think I love you. Keep talking like this and I will follow you anywhere. Finally, someone who understands. Keep the refreshing truth coming! Aaahhhh....