I happen to think there’s lots wrong with this. Though I’m terribly glad for anyone who can become a mother, I don’t think it should be done at any cost, or quite frankly, through interventions like in vitro at any age. It seems unjust for the children, in a way. Imagine being 20 with a mother who is 80? And therefore no chance to know grandparents, and no chance for grandparents to know you?
by 
I think it’s just part-and-parcel of how we view children today … as commodities. When they’re inconvenient, ditch them. But when you want one, well darn it, you deserve it and no price is too high!
The medical community definitely prefers the IVF route and donor eggs for older moms for better genetic outcomes. Can’t have people conceiving with all these geriatric eggs, after all. There could be birth defects or chromosomal abnormalities! The horror! Also, it makes them a lot more money.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with being an older mother … my mom had me at 39, and both her sisters had their last children in their early 40s. My mother-in-law actually had her last baby at 47! But all of these children were conceived naturally. It does bother me that women are encouraged to try IVF long past the time when they are capable of naturally conceiving.
Full disclosure, I’m an “older” mother-to-be (42). I didn’t marry until 41, but my husband and I did want to try to have a baby if we could. We figured, if it happens naturally, then fine, if not, that’s fine, too. And we happened to get lucky. I would never consider messing around with fertility drugs, let alone IVF (even if the eggs are fresher). I never considered that having a child was my right.
Agreed, Jocelyne, and my point was not that being an older mother is wrong (I hope to be a mom someday myself, should I be so lucky, and at this point, that will mean I will likewise be contributing to the “older mothers trend”!) Anyhoo, back to my point. Natural conception at older ages is one thing. Organizing children through in vitro at 45 or 50 is entirely another.
45 or 50? That’s nothing. They’re doing it well into the 60s now. According to Wikipedia, the oldest woman known to have given birth was 70. Yes, 70. And she had twins. The mind boggles.
The funny thing is that older women are discouraged from conceiving naturally … or at least they are endlessly deluged with scary statistics about the odds of chromosomal abnormalities etc. and are strongly encouraged to abort at the least sign that something might not be OK. Having an imperfect baby is apparently a fate worse than death.
But any weirdness outside of that is quite acceptable. Post-menopausal women getting pregnant? No problem! A mother acting as a surrogate for her daughter and giving birth to her own grandchild. Hey, why not?
I am opposed to IVF in any case, although I know mine is a minority opinion. But if they must do it, it seems to men that an age cap would not be inappropriate.
Well and now we are getting into it… If IVF is fine, it’s really not appropriate to stop older women from using it. I’d rather take the harshness of mother nature than a random legislator muddling in and deciding 35 ok, 40, bad, etc, etc, etc…. It would be a never ending minefield.