So last week, all over every available media surface and screaming in every possible font, were words screaming more or less the same effect:

Uproar over IVF woman expecting a baby at 63

That's right. England-and the world-went nuts decrying the pure selfish behavior of said woman, how she was absolutely mad. IVF clinics probably had a number of phone calls from grannies dialing in to find out if their wombs still had trampoline qualities. Pensioners were likely checking their temperature in the bathroom, to check and see if their temperatures implied ovulation, even though menopause maybe had hit 15 years prior.

Or maybe not. Maybe instead too many fingers were pointing and tsking through their dentures. It seems younger mothers-particularly of the IVF crowd-really had a go at this woman's 'selfishness', and it was pointed out more times than I can count that 'she already has kids!', as though children are war coupons exchangeable for meat. Considering this woman's age, she maybe even remembers said coupons. This single item of a 63 year-old caused such incredible consternation, to which I had to say:

So?

Really, what's the issue here? Yes, she's 63 (although her doctors described her physical equivalent as being that to a 45 year-old). Yes, she used donated eggs. Yes, she has a higher risk of Down's. And yes, it's possible that she could pass away before her kid taps the high school board on his or her head. But if you're a mother, that's a risk no matter what your age is. Is that the issue? That she might die and leave her kid behind? Don't all mothers have a risk of dying, or am I unaware that there's a magic cape that they award you with those episiotomy stitches? This woman may be decried for being at higher risk of dying before her child, but why is no one having a go at a cancer survivor who gives birth? I don't see anyone smacking her proverbial wrist and saying: Shame on you! Remission isn't everything, you know!

I'm not saying that a cancer survivor and an older mother are the same thing. I recognize that those are different cases with unique capabilities, but the older mother argument seems to be along the lines of 'You may die before your kid.' Sorry, but when did life expectancy become a criteria in the acceptability of having a child? This woman is a child psychologist, and both she and her husband are financially secure professionals with an adult extended family. I imagine a great deal of thought went along with the great deal of money to have an IVF baby.

The discussions have been outrageous over here. It has sparked that fabulous and no, never tiring debate on how old is too old to have a baby. According to the HFEA (the regulatory body for infertility and fertility treatment), that age is 45 (remarkably, the age that the 63 year-old's doctors put her body at). This, because there are a number of factors involved in determining what's best for the baby-the health of the woman, fertility possibilities, pregnancy history, and the fact that the statistics of success shoot way down for women over 40 in terms of IVF, while the risk of Down's Syndrome skyrockets to one in 32. For the body, 40 seems to be some kind of magic number, a bitter destiny that nature gave us.

But we can sometimes fool nature. We do it all the time. We cure diseases, we see babies being born to women who would otherwise spend their lives babyless, and we even sew new faces on. To some extent, we can sometimes lead nature off the path of righteousness.

So why bitch about a 63 year-old woman using IVF and getting pregnant? I mean, you don't see men of similar age getting grief. A newscaster here at age 70-something just had a baby, that got all kinds of 'Oh, how sweet!' comments in the papers at a pic of him carting the baby around in a Baby Bjorn. Rod Stewart recently had his 7th child at the age of 60. That's right. He was 60, and has 6 other kids. Nowhere in the press did I read about outrage-no one screamed that he was a selfish bastard (perhaps because it is assumed that as a vain, self-obsessed rocker he already is one, so that argument is wasted) and that-my God!-he already has his war coupon allotment of children! He HAS 6, why does he need another one? No, it was all love and happiness in the papers for Rod-he was quoted with the heartwarming response: 'I count myself blessed to have bestowed upon me the honour of fatherhood again with Penny, whom I love and cherish so much.'

Women the world over must have menstruated simultaneously upon reading this.

Or what about Don Johnson, who just had his 5th kid at age 56? He's not faced any grief, not even any smirking that one of his daughters is roughly the same age that one of his wives was when they hooked up (Melanie Griffith, at 14.) No, it's a sign of his virility! He has 5 kids, has a massive fortune, his dick sends out swimmers and he still has the pastel jackets! He's the king! The press cooed over him, quoting him everywhere with: "over the moon times six." Ahhhhh! Isn't that sweet? Don't we just love him?

That's not even bringing into the fact that Australian Les Colley just fathered a kid. He's 93. You know, totally above reproach in the press because after all, all he did was deliver the jump shot, right? The line the press seem to take is that these men are going to be competent fathers because they are virile, so gee, that's ok then.

If people are going to condemn the women, then condemn the men, too. Why must these women have to be cast as the whoring madonnas, the mad bitches for trying to dream? No one decried these men who become fathers, who call them selfish and mental. As a society is it because men are above reproach, or is it because the assumed social role of the father has become unimportant? I'm sick of the women getting all of the fucking blame, how as the one who carries the child they must be the paragon of self-righteousness, instead of the men who get chuckles for acting like the perfect lad. The men are constant media paragons of fertility and youth for having kids. I'd like to be spared the constant gender derision-in this, the men and women are simply parents, who are we to step in and feel the need for derision?

So that woman who dared fall pregnant at 63, the one who had the audacity to approach the reporters condemning her and said: "We're delighted'¦We take our responsibility very seriously and regard the best interests of the child as paramount." Well, she must truly be evil. Because she wanted to get pregnant for the worst reason of all-she wants to offer her child the rest of her lifetime of love. That's right-her lifetime, because she and her doctor decided she was fit enough, so she could have many years still to live. There are no guarantees, and isn't it the very basic fear of every mother that they may outlive their child?

Age shouldn't have anything to do with it-they say, in fact, that kids make us feel younger. And the BBC parenting site warmed the very cockles of my very bitter and fucked-up heart when they wrote: 'Your children will think you're terrific regardless of your age.' This is a beautiful sentiment, and one I personally agree with. Added to that the fact that older parents are generally more stable, secure, tolerant, patient, and less prone to crises and angst, and I think there's a strong argument for people with a lot of history under their belts. I think they beat unexperienced teenage parents hands-down, and I should know about that one.

It's not about the age, it's about the fitness of the parent and the love that they will have. Put the stone down, sinners, and quit casting at the poor woman. I think that it's for none of us to judge her, and if the press is going to judge her then they should judge everyone equally, men and women. For most of us, the rest of our lives is all we can pledge to a child, no matter how old, how fit, how anything we happen to be. If this 63 year-old's kid gets half the devotion and love I think she means, then that is one lucky kid.

If only we could all be as fortunate.

-H.

Posted by: Everydaystranger at 05:46 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1481 words, total size 8 kb.