World's oldest mum pops clogs
María del Carmen Bousada de Lara, the Cadiz woman who controversially had twins at 67, has died of cancer aged 70, the Diario de Cádiz reports.* Former shop assistant Bousada de Lara lied about her age to the Los Angles clinic which imposed the legal limit of 55 years for IVF treatment. Following the successful deception, she …
As terribly sad as this is I'm inclined to agree with Quintavalle here. The mother in question appeared to want children for her own selfish motives, with little thought to what will happen to them as she aged. Although her mother lived to be 101 de Lara nursed her, giving up her own life. Did she just expect her (much younger) children to do the same when they should be out learning about life and forging a career.
Sad on too many counts.
now her selfish actions have left 2 three year olds without a mother
Surely the title should read- 3 year old twins orphaned- and the story read as to a lesson on why its not a good idea to actively try to conceive in later life. Personally I think the mother was selfish in the extreme to have kids at that age- and I feel incredibly sorry for the poor kids.
What an unbelievably selfish woman. She was incapable of finding a partner and now she's incapable of raising her children. No-one should be allowed to have IVF if they're not in a stable relationship - not only does it show that the person can be lived with (i.e. not mad), but raising kids, with all due respect to single parents, is much better done with two people around to share the burden.
You might want to bite you tongue in regards to your personal opinions on the merits of single parenting.
Not to mention the problems that boys can have when they grow up with no father figure.
So what - this is only a story because she's dead - people have kids and get hit by a bus (high street), run over by a tank (occupied territories), or win a Darwin Award (pretty much anywhere) - I don't see any stories about, "they should never have had kids because they live to close to the edge"
What about all the folks in California? They have kids all the time and there could be an earthquake at any minute - it's that the sort of irresponsibility you're talking about here?
If you want to criticize people for having kids you might as well start with MPs.
You're allowed to fuck your kids up as much as you like in a myriad of ways as long as there's no physical evidence.
Actually, I think most countries are the same.
You need a whole load of training and testing before you can work with other people's kids but your own are fair game.
Mu-ha-ha-haaa!
I'm not sure why you take exception to Arnold expressing his opinion. Personally, I agree that two parents are best if it's possible -- and as the child of a single parent I wasn't offended by his comments.
As for the old(er) loon in question -- a great example that older does not necessarily mean wiser.
Now, if only we can work out how to impregnate a corpse...
Why is that? Is PC PC of the Thought Police going to be knocking on my door? I know plenty of single parents of a range of backgrounds who do their very best to raise their children as best they can, but that doesn't change the fact that children of single parents (in general) do less well in life than children from STABLE two parent families (and no, I have no objection to stable same-sex partnerships). Not through any fault of the parents but purely because of the work that is involved.
It is from personal experience of raising two children of similar age that I can wholehartedly say that I could not have coped as well if I was single.
Sorry, but you're just going to have to accept reality on this one, and put YOUR pejudice to one side.
I'd personally concur about the single parent issue - two can only be better (providing one isn't a complete dick, of course) - but let's not get into a shouty scrap about it. Similarly, I think very little of this woman's decision but do try not to be too abusive to that end.
Cheers.
As a parent, you fight like hell to give your children the best start in life. It's a hard world out there, and what chance have your kids got if you've fucked them from the age of 3 by going and dying.
People seem to forget that there have been millions of years of human development, and there's a reason why women cease to be of child bearing age between 40 & 50. It's because their children fare less well when their parents are dead.
Most women have a biological need to be parents, and it's almost always terribly sad when they are prevented from so doing. However, just because science was able to give this woman children did not make it right. I don't buy that she lied to the clinic; they just took the money and ran.
Poor poor children.
You'd better hoof it over to the national statistic office website here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/DR2007/DR_07_2007.pdf
Shows the death rate per 1000 of the population... age 30-34 is 0.47, age 70-74 18.39, so yes, you're much more likely to die age 70 than 30.
but as shocking as this story seems it's no different.
Single parent issue? Dunno - I've known a few kids whose fathers were - lets say, "ships in the night" and were reasonably successful in their later lives.
Me, for instance.
Errr, don't all women who want children, want them for their own selfish motives? Or do some of them actually think global warming isn't happening quick enough and want to do their bit to help it?
Just to join on the dogpile here, I am a single parent as well and from experience it's a lot better with two. No matter how hard you try or how good your parenting skills are, it's a lot of work, this raising sprogs malarky, and sharing the burden also means there's more attention that can be given directly to the child (as opposed to the work that also needs doing).
As for the decision to have children, without getting all Twat-O-Tron about it, as much as it was any of my business at the time the original story broke, I thought it was a bad thing. Two orphaned young kids, however, is not really the right backdrop for I told you sos, it's just sad.
not a good situation...unfortunately I agree with most of the sentiments here regarding the age at which this woman decided to have kids.
While this technology should be used to aid someone who has prematurely lost the ability to have children (as a result of an illness for example), it is clear that it should not be used to aid a woman in her sixties to have kids due to the easily foreseen situation that this would have on her kids.
(sure younger people who have kids can get run down by the proverbial bus, or even be taken away off planet by a team of aliens, but lets face it, this situation was easily foreseen by anyone who participated in this procedure)
Having a child (and in this case children) in your sixties is simply idiotic and results in what can only be a tragic situation for the children concerned.
It's a tragic situation for all involved.
You know, without being argumentative, I agree that one excellent parent cannot be as good as two excellent parents, but I think that two humdrum parents are indistinguishable from one humdrum parent and that 95% of people are humdrum parents. I also think there's a perception issue in that the public image of a single parent is not someone in a particularly strong economic position and the unspoken assumption is always that more money = better parenting.
And in any case, the point raised isn't whether two parents are generally better than one parent, it's whether being a single parent makes you so much worse that it should be a barrier to IVF irrespective of any other considerations. Which I don't agree with.
Just my opinion, don't take it personally.
Of course this is a tragedy in the first instance as these two kid have been orphaned. I hope that, whatever happens now, their welfare comes first. However, it strikes me that this woman's behaviour was obsessional to the point of it almost being a mental illness. If there is an evil here, then one has to question those offering this service in the first place. Humans have clearly not evolved to bear children much beyond their mid-forties. To do so is clearly risky for the individual concerned (which I'm less concerned about - that's their business), but it is also dangerous for the new born. The medical industry has some difficult ethical issues to deal with here - the huge resources spent on this area might better be spent on the welfare of people in this position rather than a dangerous, expensive and socially suspect technical "fix". Of course it's not necessarily about money - you do have to wonder if some of the medical scientists involved with this technology are driven, not so much by the care of their patients, but through ego, fame and personal ambition.
Of course nature has been rather unfair here - men can father children two or three decades later than women, although that is risky too. Sperm produced in later life are far more likely to carry genetic mutations (some claim that old fathers are the primary drivers of evolution for this reason). That doesn't happen with eggs as woman do not produce new ones throughout their lives.
I agree with Arnold on this one. Women who are capable of having a healthy and sustainable relationship across the gender divide are more likely to be capable of having a healthy and sustainable relationship across the generation divide. Same goes for men - and this is equally important if one parent dies through whatever causes and the other has to bring up the children on their own as a single parent. Becoming a parent singly without a stable partner (stable in both senses) just selfishly increases the risks of orphaning the children because of the simple fact that there is no backup if the one involved parent dies.
"...and there's a reason why women cease to be of child bearing age between 40 & 50. It's because their children fare less well when their parents are dead."
Actually, the reason is a bit more complicated than that:
In ancient societies they bred young and a 45 year old woman would be a grandmother and her children would either be successful breeding adults or dead by then. Any new children at that age would be a massive risk to her own health, that is why women have the menopause, to protect themselves. They then go on to contribute to tribal group success by doing 'old folk stuff'.
Apart from that small point, I agree with you.
If it's true that the woman treated children as objects, and was outrageously selfish in having them, then aren't the kids ultimately better off now that they won't be raised by someone with such a poisonous personality?
"children fare less well when their parents are dead"
Is it too soon to suggest his might be better off?
...is as many as possible without losing the unified front.
Each carer needs to instinctively know what the other(s) have said on any particular issue, so that the little-uns can't divide and conquer. Also, each one needs to be equally well-disposed to all the others, for much the same reason. I can imagine a number of possible ways of meeting these requirements, most of which have been tried by various societies in the past with evident success. (ie, they left descendants)
I and my 2 siblings are children of a single mum, and while we turned out fine (all tertiary trained and in good jobs) my mum pretty much killed herself to get us where we are. I concur that while effective single parenting is quite possible, having two parents is definitely an advantage.
Main reason I am childless is I never managed to find someone to be a co-parent with me.
Any monkey or mouse can reproduce, /parenting/ takes time and effort - plenty of men and women that think they want to have kids just aren't up to it.
Sad for the kids short-term, but on the bright side at least they won't be having to look after a 90-year-old forgetful old woman while trying to study for their degrees. 3-year-olds are very resilient, she was incredibly selfish to have them, but did them a favour by popping her clogs ASAP.
If she hadn't conceived them, the sprogs would be completely, utterly unborn, so late better than never, methinks?
As for the right number of parents, the more the better of course, but they all have to be separated or divorced. That way the kid gets multiple allowances and if one parent will not allow something, chances are (one of) the other(s) will, if nothing else to upset parent A.
Also, her mum may have lived to 101, but her mum wasn't giving birth in her mid-60's.
Surely through existing at all, the children are better off than if they hadn't existed?
You can't say that without experience of 'not existing', for all we know it could be vastly better.
And the moral of this post is don't pose Existential questions without thinking them through.
I'm quite a fan of >2 parents, I wonder if there have been studies to find the optimum number of parents.
I reckon it'd probably be a figure above 2, possibly greater than 3, maybe 3.87. Certainly more than 1.
Anyway, my little boy is nearly 2 and the thought of him not having either me or his mum around is harrowing so I'm mainly sad for the babies.
Aside from that @L 4 pretty much everything you read in comments is going to be a personal opinion so you might like to keep your personal opinions about someone elses personal opinions to yourself unless you're going to qualify your argument slightly more than you have.
My mother's mother is in her 80s, wheres her prize?
I'm not expressing prejudice or Political Correctness, just that you're statement, needed qualification, otherwise you come across as slightly blindsided to certain issues. Through my work with the NSPCC, I've seen that 2 parents doesn't necessarily make things better. I'd agree that in theory it should, I think Bee put it best:
Two can only be better (providing one isn't a complete dick, of course) [or that both aren't].
I hope you'll agree.
>I also think there's a perception issue in that the public image of a single parent is not someone in a particularly strong economic position and the unspoken assumption is always that more money = better parenting.
How come if a Hollywood starlet wants to be a single mom she is treated as being generous and loving but if a single working mom busts her butt, never takes any $ from the states she is considered trash? Don't get me wrong kids are expensive and all but classism is so 19th century England and though much reduced in America will be nice when it finally fades away everwhere.
Without any kind of religious or spiritual mumbo-jumbo, there is no proof that anyone would be "better off" having been born as opposed to not. This is the kind of thinking that has every mother thinking that her little "Treysure" or "Prayshus" is *the* one that will unite the world in peace, cure cancer, feed the world's hungry off of seawater, and do it all by the time they are 30 and then plop some progs with her dashing actor/doctor/World Leader husband (who makes less than she does and defers all decisions to her, of course) so "Mummy Dearest" can be a grandmother before she runs out of money because there will be no Social Security.
Sorry, but the woman (yes - she exists in Central Indiana) described above has *already* given birth to this female Messiah, although most of the welfare money is going to cigarettes.
ALL parents (including myself) have children for selfish reasons. Who else are you doing it for ? Certainly not the child, who does not exist yet. The human race clearly does not need more kids.
No, every single person who has intentionally had a child has done so because THEY want to.
There's nothing wrong with this - this is the biological imperative that drives all living organisms to reproduce.
