[aldo_14]

She looks pretty good for 63

Only from a distance in a small pic.  Close-up (on the news), she's every inch of 63.

[Wild Fragaria]

She looks pretty good for 63

Is that why a lot of young men get hitched with older women these day?   

[karajorma]

Well he's 61 so she's hardly cradle snatching

[Ferret]

People can still have a lot of energy at an old age, my grandfather is nearing 72 and is the fittest person I know. Age doesn't mean crap, it's how you live.

[aldo_14]

1) The parents are likely to die before the kids have grown up
2) Older parents won't have the energy to deal with a toddler

The questions I'd like to ask anyone citing those two as an argument are. So health reasons like those should prevent you from having kids? What if she was in a wheelchair instead of being 63? What if she had cancer and would be dead in 5 years? Blind? Deaf-mute?

Not health reasons, mortality reasons, but you do have a point.

The cancer concept IMO is closest to that, but with the caveat that a) there would quite possibly be a young health parent and b) there would be other issues RE: sideeffects of cancer treatment to consider.  What my concern is, that having aging parents who are statistically likely to be dead before you finish university, is something that could be developmentally harmful to the child by transferring the burden of care to them far earlier than they're mentally capable.  If you're mum and dad were in nursing homes before you were, say, 14, then I think you'd have some big problems.  Also it's kind of inconsiderate to the other 3 kids, who must be wondering what's so wrong with them (and may need to take up care of a 10 year old if their parents die a few years younger than average).

[karajorma]

I'm not saying that the parents made the correct choice in the situation by a long shot. The fact that they had to go to that self-publicising bastard Severino Antinori in order to get this done pretty much shows why it wasn't a good idea. That man cares nothing about the welfare of either mother or child. The fact that he wanted to help a couple give birth to a cloned child even though the technology simply isn't there yet and the most likely result would be a stillbirth or heavily deformed baby pretty much proves that to me.

My point was simply that the reasons people are giving are very poor. Psychological issues are another thing but to claim that physical incapasity should prevent you from having children is something I find pretty repugnant.

[Grug]

Well adoption or having someone else being the birth mother may have been a better choice in this situation. But one has to assume someone considers all options before continuing forward with such a decision. Perhaps they were ill advised somewhere down the line or something.
Yet I'd still say best of luck to them.

[aldo_14]

My point was simply that the reasons people are giving are very poor. Psychological issues are another thing but to claim that physical incapasity should prevent you from having children is something I find pretty repugnant.

I'm not sure it's that repugnant, to be honest.  We're not talking about preventing natural procreation for one thing, but the question as to whether you should allow IVF treatment for someone - someones, given the age of the parents - who has a high chance of being unable to care for that child for various reasons.  It is an incredibly hard thing when you think about it, and get past the knee-jerk 'unnatural' aspect of it (which I'll admit to having), although on the other side you wouldn't give a 14-year old IVF, and it is different to suggestion restrictions on IVF treatment to suggesting a ban on natural procreation.  To me IVf has to have the same considerations as, say, adoption, and I'm not sure this couple would be selected for that because of their age.  Possibly in that context, I have an incling that doctor implements precisely ****-all controls in that manner, which makes any 'selection' by him highly disturbing by association.

[karajorma]

I think you've misunderstood me. I was saying that I find it repugnant to say that you can't have kids because you are physically unable to run around after a toddler. There are plenty of reasons why this particular case may be a bad idea but that particular one needs to be put to bed right now or else it would rule out people who are blind or suffer from other disabilites too.

[Wild Fragaria]

1) The parents are likely to die before the kids have grown up
2) Older parents won't have the energy to deal with a toddler

The questions I'd like to ask anyone citing those two as an argument are. So health reasons like those should prevent you from having kids? What if she was in a wheelchair instead of being 63? What if she had cancer and would be dead in 5 years? Blind? Deaf-mute?

Not health reasons, mortality reasons, but you do have a point.

The cancer concept IMO is closest to that, but with the caveat that a) there would quite possibly be a young health parent and b) there would be other issues RE: sideeffects of cancer treatment to consider.  What my concern is, that having aging parents who are statistically likely to be dead before you finish university, is something that could be developmentally harmful to the child by transferring the burden of care to them far earlier than they're mentally capable.  If you're mum and dad were in nursing homes before you were, say, 14, then I think you'd have some big problems.  Also it's kind of inconsiderate to the other 3 kids, who must be wondering what's so wrong with them (and may need to take up care of a 10 year old if their parents die a few years younger than average).

It is true that againg parent are more likely to die when the children are still very young.  As for the parents to see them graduate college is one thing but old enough to take care of themselves is another.  It's highly possible that an individual can finish college around the age of 19 in the States. On top of that, the avarage human life span has tremendously increased since 50 years ago.  So the mother is this case might actually stand a chance to live to see her youngest child graduated from college.  To be realistic, she really shouldn't want to have babies at her age, consider there are more risks and disadvantages than benefits.

[IceFire]

gaah they got it all wrong

we need LESS babies, not MORE babies

Making More babies is the exact opposite of making Less babies
dammit, the world is just going straight downhill

Thats a misnomer.  Plenty of people think that the world is overpopulated.  They are generally right but specifically wrong.  The birth to death rates in most European countries and in North America are falling drastically.  Most families here can afford and plan to have two kids but given that not all couples have kids and so forth...basically we're declining.  In China I think we will see the population drop drastically in the next 30 or 40 years as long as the 1 child policy continues.  Its Africa and India that we then have to worry about.  The population levels are soaring in those places...and what it does is strain natural resources beyond their limits.

My biggest conundrum in Africa is that so many people die, so many are destitute, so few are educated, and so forth that they have tons of children, not many survive but they end up with far more people than around here.  The land cannot support them and the cycle continues.  Maybe if we stopped selling them guns....I digress.

I don't see a huge problem with the 63 year old mother.  Its a little unusual but if the kid grows up in a strong family it doesn't matter too much.