THis is great for women who want to have children later in life. However, for me personally, I don't think I'd have the energy to be a 50 or 60 year old mother to an infant. More power to them though!

I think there was a book published a while back (I'm sure there are probably many) about an increased number of options leading to depression, unhappiness, etc. The idea being that a person can get so caught up in having to make decisions that it becomes debilitating (I kind of think of it as living in a supply-saturated market, where the market has to fabricate demand through advertising). For some reason, this topic--presented as a way to postpone childrearing or reprioritize ones earlier years seems that way (i.e., mostly an extra option that will add more stress to what seems a pretty stressful decision for many women... I've honestly never thought of men as postponing fatherhood to further their careers--this doesn't strike me as how men think, but maybe this is in effect what happens when they're so focused on their careers). I've got no ethical issues with freezing eggs (although I wonder what happens to them if the woman dies or decides never to use them... could there be custody battles over frozen eggs in divorce proceedings?!!!), but for the majority of those it would impact, would this really lead to more balance? And, as medical technology increases, people are most likely going to have to continue working longer as they live longer. So that retirement scenario seems laudably optimistic, but maybe a little pipedreamish. I can't see frozen eggs personally adding any balance to my family's life (or really any of the other families I know right now). Sometimes, for the sake of balance, it's good to artificially limit your options. Very curious to see if anyone else sees freezing their eggs as an option they would have liked to have had or one they see themselves realistically considering.

If this becomes widespread, I don't think you'll see tons of women post-50 using it - some, but I don't think they'll be in the majority. Making decisions about when to have kids isn't just determined by your career even for the most career-focused people - it's also connected to factors such as when your friends are having kids, if your parents will still be around to see them, how equipped you feel to deal with a screaming seven-pound bundles of needs, etc. What I would tend to expect, if this becomes widespread, is for women in their 40s to make the most use of it, with some women in their 50s (especially those in second marriages) and a few in their 60s.

I note that, despite media coverage of the exceptions, most men who have children still do so before 50, despite a lack of a biological clock and continued willingness of much younger women to marry older men. I'm not saying you won't have any 60-year-old moms, but I don't think you'll have hordes unless we all end up living longer and are much healthier for a longer part of that. (And, Leslie, I know this wasn't *your* intention, but I fear that we'll see increasing references to "60-year-old moms" in relation to egg freezing as a scaremongering tactic. Omigod, isn't this technology radical? People can have babies at 60! It's frightening!)

I personally am a single woman in my early 30s with no desire for single (biological) motherhood but with a wish to have kids some day. I'm seriously considering freezing my eggs. Now, I hate needles and the like, so if I do meet someone and the old-fashioned way doesn't work, I'd probably be more inclined to adopt (and if I don't get married, adoption would definitely be my route to parenthood, should I choose that). So, I may never use those frozen eggs, but having a semi-safety net sounds like a very reassuring idea.

Leslie - Couldn't help yourself, could you?: "No conservatives wagging fingers at working moms for being selfish."

I don't think this is a conservative or liberal topic or decision. It's a personal decision that I support - and I am a conservative. I know plenty of conservative women that have careers and kids and I am sure they would not appreciate the put-down either.

Do I want to be a 50 or 60 year old new mother? Heck no - I barely get by as it is. But who knows - if I hadn't married and I was approaching 40 like I am now - this may have been an option for me.

Posted by: | November 15, 2006 07:58 AM
That was mine - if you couldn't tell.

Thank you Cmac. I was thinking the same thing.

I'm pretty liberal on social issues, but this one troubles me--not so much on an individual basis, but as a societal issue. My parents, who are now 61 and 58, adopted a girl who is now 7. She's in the same generation as my kids, even though she is their aunt. Now for her, I know adoption is far better than the alternative, but bear with me here...

My concern is that my husband and I are already in the "sandwich" generation and know we'll probably be supporting parents and kids at the same time at some point--but taking on parenting of a sister because my parents wanted another adventure? And what about these kids whose older parents don't have extended families or unlimited resources? I know medicine gets further and further advanced, but assuming you'll make it to your 70s to see your kid through college seems a bit arrogant to me. At some point biology does make sense!

Good idea about freezing my eggs. Now, if only I could get a hold of some of David Crosby's sperm and freeze that as well. My children would have the same biological mother and father and incredible potential!

I find this one to be rather tough. I usually support options for as many as possible. However, pushing 50 as I am, there is no way I would advise someone to start having kids at my age. I'm not sure it is even advisable health-wise. There are just so unknowns for women and health... I'm with cmac..no way for me.

Sorry, but no way. Get organized, don't insist on doing everything to an extreme (being Supermom or SuperEmployee) and you can have children during the conventional age window.

I first heard about egg freezing in the context of female cancer patients in their late teens and early 20's. I thought that was a wonderful idea - it was a good way to alleviate one of the many horrible choices these therapies provide (i.e. - we'll save your life, but forget ever having children).

But as someone who studied evolutionary biology, I do believe that menopause happens for a reason. Basically it's nature's way of telling you that your body is not prepared to take the stresses of pregnancy anymore. It has nothing to do with politics or finances or personal empowerment, and everything to do with the body trying to protect itself from potential injury.

The concept that a healthy person with no family medical history of cancer, diabetes or other immune disorders that could easily cause problems with fertility really bothers me in a way I have yet to be able to define.

I agree that for most women, this option will be used to buy them a year more years -- not a few more decades. I don't know any women who want to become first time moms in their 60s...but I do know a lot who would do so in their late 40s and 50s.

Separately, I only know a few men who consciously delay becoming a parent past their 40s in favor of their career or "freedom." But what's key is that most men don't think too hard about when to have children -- because their sperm is viable into their late 80s they've got decades more time to play with, so there's no pressure on them to hurry up about it.

leslie, in my opinion, freezing eggs and playing around with one's fertility like you are promoting on this thread, for whatever reason, shows a lack of respect for human life. I think that technologies such as this will ultimately cause more suffering than happiness.

I have actually heard about this several years ago. I guess it depends on your health, financial resources, and your own personal energy level. I know several couples that had kids in their 40s and 50s. And they are a little tired to say the least. Generally happy, but really tired. I, myself, could never do it past 40. I was extremely tired in my early 30s with DD #1, who choose not to sleep till 2 years old. We are adopting our second daughter and I may be as old as 38 when the adoption is completed. After that I say quits. I am getting my tubes tied and that is it. Either biological or adoption, I said NO after 40. I don't care how much DH begs, pleads or coerces. I am just too tired and I don't want to be 70 and have a kid in college. But all the power to these people. I do know, that adoption agencies and countries have a universal under 60 rule. They just don't want to give a kid to a family where mom or dad (or God forbid both) drop dead before the kids is done with college. In some ways, I don't like this technology when it is women and men past past 55-60 years of age. But this is America and I think it is your right to do it. I like the idea of frozen eggs better then frozen embryos. I don't know of any cases where eggs themselves are in custody. But I know there has been some debate of actual embryos in divorce cases. The embryos are considered property and not people. And they can be allocated in a divorce. Kind of strange.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I read the quality of a man's sperm declines around age 40. They still have some good sperm (good golly, they produce millions) but that the overall quality reduces for men over 40. We all know with women 35 is advanced maternal age. I also read that in 40% of the infertility cases, it is generally attributed to the man, 40% women, and 20% unknown.

Although this sounds ideal in some circumstances, I think people forget that pregnancy itself can take a physical toll... and I think that older mothers-to-be tend to have more high-risk pregnancies (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!) So this would be great for cancer patients (as noted by Chasmosaur), but I'm not sure about other situations.

Oh on another note, guys, I don't think women are in "general" delaying pregnancy for career advancement. I think the majority of women who are having children later are either unmarried (did not find Mr. Right in their 20s or 30s), didn't know they wanted kids till around 35+, or divorced in their 30s before having a chance to create their family. I think the media does a disservice to women by protraying the infertility problem on women wanting to have high powered careers. I know about 30% of my female friends are still unmarried in their mid 30s. They would love to be mothers but do not want to go at it alone. Also, yes after age 35 the risks of complicated pregnancies does increase. When I went to my last OB/GYN appointment. The Dr. looked me in the face and said you better get a move on in finishing up your family or do something about permanent birth control. It really depressed me. Even though we had already decided that we wanted to adopt our second child, hearing that was really depressing. No one wants to hear you are an OLD LADY at 36. I think this is awesome for cancer patients but like everyone difficult for older moms. Truthfully, the pregnancy wasn't a big deal. It is the 2 years of nursing, sleepless nights, pumping, and constantly running around that I would find difficult at 50+. My friends that are doing it in mid 40s-50s, say it is terribly exhausting to have preschoolers at their age.

As I entered the year 40, I thought we were done. But as the year as worn on, I realized I really DO want another child. (Hubby NOT so sure.) But....the risks of advanced maternal age scare me. I have the energy, maturity and desire, but do I have healthy eggs....? It is a scary place to be. Eggs that I had frozen in my twenties would propably be FAR more healthy. So, yes I think this might be a good solution for some people.

My parents, who are now 61 and 58, adopted a girl who is now 7. She's in the same generation as my kids, even though she is their aunt. Now for her, I know adoption is far better than the alternative, but bear with me here...

My FIL did a similar thing. He got remarried in his late 40s and his second wife and him adopted two toddlers. Now they are 12 and 13 years old and he is in his late 50s. It is weird dynamic. We all adore the "little kids" and it was great to have them in the family before the grand children arrived. But on a selfish note, FIL is not much of a father to his adult children or to his grand children. He just has other pressing needs with having two minor children so close to retirement. In our case, at least they have a younger mother (she was in her early 30s ) when they adopted them. So it is highly unlikely that they will both die before the kids are done with school. Overall, I think there were more pluses to their addition. But it does cause some strange things. Like having Aunts and Uncles only 9 years older then their neices and nephews. And the lack of attention the adult children get and the grand kids. But overall, we just adore them and glad they found a forever family. BTW, the "little kids" love the grandchildren (their neices and nephews).

I think this would be a good option for some. I started trying to get pregnant at 36 and was pretty shocked when I researched the odds against me and the odds for chromosomal abnormalities. My husband and I had decided that we would give it a try and if it didn't work out, we'd either adopt or decide to be childless. Now I have an 8-month-old daughter, so things worked out well. For me, parenthood wasn't an imperative, but it is a stronger drive for others... a woman in her later 30s has pretty high odds of being infertile already, so I wouldn't think of this as just a 50s and 60s solution.

My husband is 54 and, though we are both tired, is a fantastic dad. Men on his father's side don't tend to live long (he's already outlived his dad by 4 years) but those on his mom's side are long-livers. I certainly hope he'll live to see our daughter graduate from college and beyond, but no one gets such guarantees... this is why we have wills, life insurance, guardian designations. In saying all this, I want to make it clear that I think that not just men should have the choice to be a parent later in life.

I think scientists are having doubts about the quality of men's sperm as they age. Just a few weeks ago there was the study linking autism and the father's age.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5768623

"The older the age of the father at the time of birth, the higher the chances of the offspring to have autism," Reichenberg says. "In fathers who were 40 years or older, the risk for autism was almost six times higher than in the offspring of fathers who were younger than 30 years of age."

I think losing your parents young, or having to care for aging parents while in high school, is a pretty heavy burden to place on a child simply because you want a career unhindered by child-care considerations.

"I think people forget that pregnancy itself can take a physical toll"

But, the physical toll of having a baby for young working mothers has been made very clear on this blog. It's hard to pursue career endeavors while balancing a family. Sure she may be young...but what about the struggles and stress that comes from balancing it all? What about an older mother who is financially secure, has accomplished tons in her job, and now has the fliexibility and time to raise a family? She may be older but has more to offer now in her life. Like Leslie says, older men do this all the time!!

As to regards as this being natural. Give me a break. Nothing about fertility today is natural. Tons of families are getting some "help" to reproduce. I have relatives that were having trouble and now just had twins! People are already playing with their fertility.

1. Men over 40 have 4 times the risk of fathering a child with autism.
2. Surrogate mothers can be implanted with embryos and carry and bear children for women who cannot or are at risk.
3. Father of 4, as far as "playing around with one's fertility", I assume that you and your wife had little or no problems reproducing. Otherwise, you might change yout tune.

I think this is great. For the most part, I believe people should be able to live life like they want. If tha means freezing their eggs (for whatever reason) to have kids in their 50s, then I say go for it.

Besides, we can argue who makes a better parent all day long, but for me, the better parent is the oen who wants the child, regardless of age. And yes, being older can invite more health problems, but so can being younger (*knocking frantically on wood*).

I am an only child because my mother married late (at least late for the 50's) and she wisely decided that she didn't want any kids past the age of 40.

I too have one child and did it at the age of 36. Now that she is 10 years old, I am very glad I had her when I did. I have a friend who had her first (and only) at age 40 and now is going through a nasty divorce with a 3-year-old and it makes me so glad that I did not wait.

Yes, some people are very high energy and can handle young children at a later age. But for some of us it is not a good idea. And I do worry about parents dying before their children graduate from high school if they wait until they're 50 or more.

"a career unhindered by child-care considerations" is just trying to provoke. Careers are just ONE of many reasons people do not have children until later than 21, as some would want....

I had a friend in college who was a 'surprise baby', conceived at the end of her mom's reproductive life. She was also an only child and a longed for miracle.

I know that having older parents (and knowing that she was the only child there to help them) took a toll on her. By the time we were seniors in college, neither of her parents felt comfortable driving and so she used to go home on weekends to take them grocery shopping -- and when most college seniors feel like they can do anything and go anywhere, she knew she'd be staying close to her hometown for the next few years to help her parents out.

Perhaps that's an exception and not the rule, but it seems like delaying parenthood can have your kids taking on some pretty grown up roles pretty early in life and dealing with some pretty grown up issues.

I'm more worried about the scenario where delaying parenthood becomes the rule rather than the exception for educated women and women who choose to do it the 'conventional way' -- taking time out in their early or mid-thirties -- end up having to explain their bizarre behavior to their employers. Someone said somethig on here awhile ago about someone scheduling a c-section so it was convenient for the husband's job, and I'm worried about the scenario where the woman employee gets told by her employer "This really isn't a good time for you to be taking maternity leave. Why don't we revisit the issue again in a year or two -- seeing as you have those frozen eggs and all . . . That's what all the other women did." Ick! am I the only one who has a problem with that?

Bonjour. I do not think this is so great idea. Why? because there are many orphans that need a home. If you really must have children and cannot, then you should adopt. This procedure is for selfish women who want it all. They want to control every aspect of their lives, plan their careers, plan their kids. I think they will also use genetic manipulation to pick the sex, color of eyes, and all that. Customize the baby, when to have it, and all that, non?

Medical procedures like this are wasteful and can be better used on real problems like AIDS and cancer. People who do this for purposes of career and convenience are just selfish. This should only be used on patients with a legitimate medical need.

Doing this to achieve work/life balance is stupid. I do not think anyone in their right mind will freeze their eggs at 30 and bear a child at 50. That is very stupid.

Has anyone else noticed that many of the much-older parents seem to be irrationally overprotective?

"I do not think anyone in their right mind will freeze their eggs at 30 and bear a child at 50. That is very stupid."

true, but she was talking to the Wharton Women in Business. :) :) :)

Armchair mom: That would be just GROSS. I can't imagine my boss coming up to me and saying, hey get pregnant next year. You got all those frozen eggs! Eeks...

Sam: I do have a friend who adopted a daughter at age 41 and her husband was 53. They both retired and stay home full time to raise her. It is pretty awesome situation. But most people can't do that even at age 41. Most of us need to work into our early 60s. They love their daughter but admit it is totally exhausting. Even with staying home full time. They also limited their family to one child due to their age. They did not do it to pursue careers. They just both divorced and did not remarry till mid 30s. Had fertility problems and ended up adopting later on.

"This procedure is for selfish women who want it all. They want to control every aspect of their lives, plan their careers, plan their kids. "

Yes, woman want to control all these things. Who are you implying should control these things for them? So who is legitimate?

Father of 4 probably didn't start trying to have kids when he and his wife were in their 40s either.

I do think that some of the other posters have a point about being an older parent. My siblings are older than me by like 12 years, if I had a kid at 50, they would be in their 60 and 70s. If something happened to me, who is going to take care of my kid?

to Thierry: I might have said the same thing a few years ago before knowing what adoption entails in the US. It is expensive, takes a long time, can involve the birth mother changing her mind (this happened to a friend of mine twice). This is not an easy solution. International adoption is an option, but it is also expensive and in many 3rd world countries is corrupted by the money made on each adoption, which has lead to some baby kidnapping problems in China and paying off mothers in Guatemala. I don't have all the answers to this problem, but I will also assert that you don't either.

I meant to address the question of custody of ova... why would this ever be a problem? A person's tissue belongs to him or her unless it is donated. A man's frozen sperm belongs to him as would a woman's ova. I would assume if a woman dies with frozen ova, she would have signed paperwork with whatever entity is maintaining them as to her wishes for the fate of the eggs.

I think someone would have to be incredibly driven and career-minded to do such a thing - preserve eggs at 25 to bear children at 50. She'd probably have 5,10,15,20yr career goals and probably have an extensive checklist of qualifications/tests for hubby-to-be. She'd have every aspect of her life planned out and be very controlling. This seems like a way-out-in-left-field way of achieving work/life balance. I suspect only in very rare cases would a 20-something do what Leslie proposed. Just my little opinion.

This reminded me of something I read recently in the good book:
"In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps."
Proverbs 16:8-10

Or how about this -- families, adopt children who need homes? Can't get pregnant -- then why not forget about fertility treatments and become a parent (even at late ages) to children who desperately need loving families? Time for our society to be so desperate about biology.

http://punditmom1.blogspot.com

OFF TOPIC ALERT! For folks who were discussing Catholics refusing to give Communion the other day, the yearly Catholic bishops synod just published a paper on this topic. "The Communion document was prompted by the 2004 controversy among the bishops over Kerry. During the presidential campaign, a handful of bishops said Kerry should be denied Communion for opposing a key church teaching; most bishops, including Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, said Communion was a matter for the conscience of the worshiper, not for the judgment of the priest or bishop. The Communion document endorses the less confrontational approach taken by O'Malley and other bishops, declaring that Catholics who "knowingly and obstinately . . . reject the defined doctrines of the church" should not seek to receive Communion, but it does not advise any action by priests or bishops against politicians who oppose church doctrine and yet seek to receive Communion. "

Yesterday's guest blogger is a 55 year old woman with a child in middle school. No one made a fuss about her age....

Pundit mom is right. I would also like to add that it's time that society lets all people who are capable and caring to adopt children who need homes.

To MaryB: I don't get that adoption is so expensive argument. We are in the process of adopting our second daughter, by choice, and the whole kit and kaboodle should come to around 28K-30K. Different countries have different visit requirements. I think Russia requires 2 visits, while Viet Nam requires one (we are adopting from VN). Also some countries, like Korea, bring the kid to you. About 8-10K is travel expenses. I don't really see this as associated to adoption. It is an exotic foreign travel for the adoptive family. For us, it is a chance to go back home and visit friends and family. About 5K goes to the adoption agency. Not very costly. I don't know why people think they should work for free. 2K or so goes to the home study (social work agency). Again, why should they work for fee. The rest goes to US government fees and 10K goes to foreign government. The international government has fed, clothed, and provided medical care for your adoptive child for 6-18 month time period. These are approximations. If you give birth to a child in the US, it generally costs insurance companies or families 8K to give birth on average. Why should the other country not be reimbursed for this cost? I don't mean to be angry. But it does sort of tick me off when people think children should be FREE or something. It is not adopting a dog from the pound. In short, if your child arrives to you around 12 months of age, you probably would have spent 10K or more (depending on day care) on your child for the first year. You are merely reimbursing the country for the cost of raising your kid for a year. Also there are tax credits for adoption. Approximately 10K for federal credits. There are income limits and we probably will not get all or most of the credit back. I don't know anyone who chooses to adopt based on getting the money back. Yes, you need the money up front. Yes, it does prevent some poor families from adopting. But in short, people are willing to spend 25-30K on car but scream adoption is expensive. I just don't get it. I don't want you to get offended. Because it is not anger directed to you. I just feel I need to educate people on the real adoption process.

Imagine two kids at the park.

#1: My great-grandmother says she went to school with your great-grandmother.

#2: That's not my great-grandmother, that's my mom, now quit trying to trip her when she walks by with her cane.

#1: So is that why you were a half hour late to our soccer game?

#2: Yeah, my 65 year old mother's corns were acting up. And with her arthritis she couldn't take her medicine. So I had to help her open her medicine.

#1: But you're 7. Should you really be opening childproof caps for your mother?

#2: If I don't who will? My father died of a heart attack last year.

What about the sociological aspect of first-time mothers in their 50s or even 60s? The children born into these families will likely never know their grandparents, and possibly have limited time with aunts and uncles, not to mention cousins who could practically be their parents. Where is the extended family for these children? How sad that they will miss out on such a wonderful experience.

I'm not agreeing with Leslie, primarily because of the over-bearing, pro-career way she casts her arguments; however, the biological clock is a tremendous incentive for women in their early to mid-thirties to marry whomever their dating for the purpose of getting the child-producing show on the road. I always wonder how many divorces are the result of a 32-year old woman wanting to have a family more than she wants to marry the particular guy to whom she says yes. They have two kids and eight years later they divorce.

I was fortunate to meet my husband when I was 30, so we had a little more time. Nonetheless, we had to keep the calendar in our sights at all times, and had our second child at 40. I'm not saying we would have frozen eggs, but if this issue of timing for our first child hadn't been so pressing, we might have had more than a year together both to become more financially stable and to cement our relationship.

With respect to this issue of how long older parents are going to live, I think this is a bit of a red herring. I might die today, at 50 or at 93. If you're thinking about having kids after 45, look at your family history, first and figure the odds; however, I don't think it's appropriate for others to look at your family and shake their heads at your decision-making on the basis of your age alone. My sister found Mister Right way too late from a biological standpoint. He turned out to be Mister Wrong in a way that, trust me, you'd all agree with, and now is in her late 50s. Her adopted two girls are now 13 and 6, and my sis is likely to outlive all her siblings because she's the fittest of the group. Or she could be Jim Fixx and drop dead on the jogging trail one morning. Who's to know?

PunditMom //Or how about this -- families, adopt children who need homes//

Oui! The problem with America is it is all about ME. This egg freezing option is another example of American society selfish.

You should be more willing to give up your individual riches for the common good. There are many needs in society but all you want is a bigger house, bigger car, more things to buy.

I might get flamed for this, but oh well. Has anyone stopped to think that there is a reason why eggs lose their viability as women age, and why women go through menopause? We're not meant to bear children in our 50's and over. Even the 40's can be questionable for some.

Health risks aside (for both mother and child), consider the wide generation gap. Would it really be fair to be 50 or 60 years older than your own child? Depending on the state of overall health, you might not live to see them go to college. Or perhaps even high school.

This is too much of playing God. Tampering with biology can lead to disastrous and devestating results.

I don't understand. If it's because a woman "wants it all" then why doesn't she take that $10,000 and adopt a child that's already here? If the urge to parent and nurture is there, please don't throw me the argument that it's not the same. So you might not get the experience to carry and give birth to that child, but you would be responsible for raising and caring for that child just as your own.

This is much in the same vein of people who want designer babies. It's playing with biology, and I don't agree with it.

I want to apologize if I offended anyone in my last post. Adoption is a very personal decision. I wish more people would go that route. Especially those facing infertility issues. But I do recognize it your right to choose how to form your own families. I just wanted to address the soo expensive issue. Because in short, adoption is not really that more expensive then having a biological child.

Thanks for the communion info too. I did correct my post later that day to say some cardinals suggested to deny communion.

What what it is worth, I believe that the main reason we should make the 'let's have kids' decision (when it is in our power to make) is for the sake of the kids - not for ourselves.

Yes, being a parent is a wonderful thing that many of us wouldn't want to miss for the world. But the only reason I would proceed to make this happen would be if I could have a prayer of providing my child with a terrific life.

I worried about whether I should try for Child #2 at age 42 (my first was born when I was 39, as I only met my husband at age 37). Would I be around when he/she was a teenager or young adult, and still really needed to have a vibrant and available mom? Would it be better to raise my daughter as an only child? In the end, I decided that the best odds went to trying for a sibling for my daughter, so that at least they would have each other if my husband and I died.

Now, of course, nothing is guaranteed - any one of us could die today, including either of my kids. But I needed to feel that starting my child's life when his parents were in their forties was right for HIM rather than right for me. The story ends very happily because I was able to conceive and now have two healthy kids. The 'shop' is closed now though. And I feel extremely grateful.

I don't want any of the above to sound as if I'm judging others who do choose to freeze their eggs - every situation is different, and only the individual woman can decide what is right.

I'm not surprised to see such stupid @ss advice coming out of Wharton Women.

To equal: good luck with the second one at 42. We did the same thing, though he was an "accident". Things are going along fine. We feel blessed to have him (third boy!).

Looks to me like a scam to get gullible 20 somethings to fork over a lot of money for the treatment.

To my mind, no one with any sense really believes they can plan thirty years ahead on anything so important, as alluded to by the earlier elegant bibilical quote.

Regarding the stats on sperm viability, I note that they are, as is often the case, not backed up by any cold hard data nor related in context (normal rate of autism, etc.). I take it with a grain of salt, therefore, that there is any particular danger in older men. Lack of energy for child raising strikes me as a greater concern.

From a very selfish point of view, the last thing I want is my daughter or daughters-in-law waiting to have children for any reason. I am more than willing to lend a hand to the young parents in exchange for the opportunity to know my grandchild.

"I'm not surprised to see such stupid @ss advice coming out of Wharton Women."

If there were less stupid @ss men, women could find decent husbands at earlier ages and get the ball rolling on reproduction.

A lot of these discussions recently are reminding me how much are society is changing. I'm in favor of good parenting at any age, but it occurred to me that the older you are, the less likely your children would have grandparents, or much time left with them... and the less likely you yourself would get to see your grandchildren, much less your great grandchildren. I sometimes feel very out of step with the general tone of this blog in the sense that most of my family live in the area and are pretty tightknit and focussed on family; whereas, a lot of these discussions tend more and more toward the individual or the immediate family with no extended family network. This certainly seems to be the trend in this country (or the one presented in the mainstream media).

I think this is an interesting option for some women. I am 37 and single. I am not currently in a relationship. I would like to get married someday and have a child. The odds of that happening are looking slimmer and slimmer. I would like to think I have some options out there (in addition to adoption) when/if I find the right person and get married. Perhaps I am not as queasy about having a child at an older age b/c I am the only child of older parents (I was a "surprise") - they were 40 when I was born, which was very unusual in 1969! Yes, my parents were different than other parents and no, we didn't do things like play catch or go biking together (which probably had more to do with the fact that my dad was disabled than to do with their "advanced" age), but every family is different with different advantages and disadvantages, and I am grateful to have had two parents who were so emotionally devoted and who also planned very well financially so I could go to college and graduate school with LOTS of financial assistance. Yes, I worry about their health and their advanced age, but I am blessed that they are very cognizant of their health and work hard to stay healthy to live longer. (They still hold out hope that I will find Mr. Wonderful before they leave the planet!) So being older isn't the end of the world when it comes to parenting. Besides, all of the criticism about being an older parent (especially those calling it "selfish") is somewhat insensitive to those of us who have no other option than to be older parents.

This subject resonates with me since my wife and I are currently trying to start our family with both of us over the age of 40. For various reasons neither of us felt ready to start when we were younger; however, had this technology existed earlier my wife may have used it to make it easier to conceive later in life if she so chose. My wife drew the line at the early/mid-40's for her though; no pregnancies in her 50's!

As an adoptee myself, I DO understand the benefits of adoption. However, I also have seen the very real downsides as well. As an adoptive parent you have no idea of maternal health or prenatal care nor early childcare.

And, to gnome, 28 or 30K IS expensive. My goodness, that is beyond the reach of many families. A birth child costs NOWHERE near that the first year.

http://preconception.com/resources/articles/oldsperm.htm

Dave, read this link about sperm and aging. Age does effect the quantity and the quality of sperm. There is more research being done. Just because a man may impregnate his wife or partner at age 90, doesn't mean that in general sperm quantity or quality doesn't diminish with advancing age.

When I gave birth to my daughter at 25, my ob-gyn said it was so nice to have a patient who was of the "ideal" child-bearing age (physically). And I know that if I were even ten, much less twenty, years older (I'm 27 now), I wouldn't have the energy to do what I do every day. I love giving my daughter piggy-back rides, carrying her on hikes, rolling around on the floor with her, and who knows whether I'd be able to do that at 45, for example. So it's definitely not for me, despite my "career ambitions".

On the other hand, my college roommate has uterine cancer and will have a total hysterectomy in a couple of weeks. If she didn't already have two children, she would definitely freeze her eggs, she's said. THAT's what this procedure should be used for.

In all the talk about older parents being around you might find these statistics interesting - average US life expectancy in 1929 56.8years, in 2001 77.2 years

Another aspect of this is, how many 25-year-olds actually have upwards of $10,000 lying around that they can devote to freezing their eggs? Nobody I know.

And as far as $25,000-30,000 being chump change, I think not. That's almost a year of college right there.

Raiseyourownkids: If freezing your eggs is playing with biology - what is infertity treatment in general? It is a slippery slope - the designer baby situation scares me - but can you deny an infertile couple (or person) the ability to have a baby because technology might advance to the point where designer babies are the norm?

Where do you draw the line - seriously?

I'm 23 and my Dad (51) just had a baby with his new wife. I'm tempted to hold off on children for another 10- 15 years because of how weird the situation is. Creepy! Get it out of your system the first time around!

those fertility commercials with the young, professional sounding, sweet nurturing voices with the infant cooing in the background put a lump in my throat. Yes, I have a lot of compassion for those couples who can't have children of their own.

/Pundit Mom Says/
Or how about this -- families, adopt children who need homes? Can't get pregnant -- then why not forget about fertility treatments and become a parent (even at late ages) to children who desperately need loving families? Time for our society to be so desperate about biology.//

Perhaps because I'm only 30 and I want to try for my own children first. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I want a child that is part me, part my husband. I'm willing (and can afford) to go through surgery and drugs that give me hot flashes to get there.

Frankly, I'm not about to put up with the US adoption system where birth parents can change their mind and and adoptive parents are treated more like long-term babysitters than parents. Nor do I want to be part of any sort of potential criminal activity by adopting a child that was taken from a parent who wanted them as could be the case in an international adoption.

It's nice for you that you adopted a little girl -- congratulations. However, if you truly believe that women should be able to make the choices they want (as you often claim in your blog) you'll keep your judgemental BS to yourself about those of us who make the extraordinary effort to produce our own offspring.

-Danielle
(who isn't sure if her current hot flash is from Clomid or anger)

"And, to gnome, 28 or 30K IS expensive. My goodness, that is beyond the reach of many families. A birth child costs NOWHERE near that the first year. "

Could have fooled me - by reading this blog I'm told that people spend easily $25K on childcare a year. Factor in diapers and formula and SUV strollers and a new SUV to carry the car seat and a fancy car seat and another fancy car seat for the old SUV and a custom nursery, and you quickly get to that number.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15720339/

Anyone else see this?

My parents adopted in their early 30s (my sisters and I). My mother gave birth to my brother just shy of her 41st birthday. She often says that she never could have gone through my borther's early childhood as well as she did if she hadn't had teenage daughters to help her. She also feels that despite being the oldest mom at the football games, having a teenager at 57 keeps her and my dad engaged and still feeling youthful. She also feels a bit saddened that she can't fully engage in all the grandmotherly things she would like to (such as my 51 year old MIL) because she still operates in "mom" mode. She can't just pick up and come visit her grandkids, she has to consult her teenager's schedule first because she doesn't want to miss any of his games or a meets. Also, we do wonder if my dad will be around when our brother marrys. I certainly think my dad (62) will not be around to see the birth of my brother's children. I worry about what kind of financial impact my mother will face if she is a widow trying to put a child through college.

Finally, as a soon to be 30 year old with two young children, I relish the idea of being free of taking care of kids in my 50s and enjoying married life with my husband, just the two of usm while we are still (hopefully) physically active and in full control of our facultys. We plan on enjoying retirement after kids. Lets face it, for most parents, we don't get to travel to London on business as young 30 and 40 somethings. We work ordinary jobs, never travelling farther than our children's temperment and budget can take us. I don't want to spend 30 years grinding it out for a paycheck and then spend another 18 (+ college) taking care of kids.

62-year-old Redding woman gives birth to 12th child

Friday, February 17, 2006 10 38 PM

22:38 PST Redding, Calif. (AP) --

A 62-year-old woman gave birth Friday to a healthy 6-pound, 9-ounce baby boy, becoming one of the oldest women in the world to successfully bear a child.

The newborn is the 12th child of Janise Wulf, who's also a grandmother of 20 and great-grandmother of three.

Family members said the delivery at Mercy Medical Center went smoothly Friday, despite earlier concerns about the mother's health. Wulf, a diabetic, experienced swelling and higher blood pressure earlier this week, prompting doctors to perform the Caesarean section a week early.

"I believe our only hesitation collectively was her health and her coming through this. Giving birth is hard at any age, in any body, let alone with her being 62," Wulf's 28-year-old daughter, Desiree Myers, told the Redding Record Searchlight newspaper. Myers gave birth to a baby of her own four months ago.

Wulf and her third husband, Scott, 48, named the red-haired boy, Adam Charles Wulf. He follows just 3 1/2 years behind his older brother, Ian.

"I hate to raise one alone, without a sibling," said Wulf, who was impregnated both times through in vitro fertilization.

Both boys are the only two children of Scott Wulf, who said he always wanted children but his previous wife was infertile.

"I never even dared to hope that it was possible," he said of his sons.

Wulf has given birth to a total of 12 children, although one son died in his 30s and another died at birth with undeveloped lungs. Of her 10 living children, the oldest is 40.

"I think she's amazing. She's got more than enough love to give," Myers said.

While Wulf isn't the oldest on record, Friday's delivery put her among only a handful of senior-aged mothers.

The oldest woman on record to give birth is a 66-year-old Romanian woman who had a Caesarean section Jan. 15, 2005. Adriana Iliescu was aided by artificial insemination, doctors said.

The Guinness Book of World Records also lists two 63-year-old women who have given birth: Rosanna Della Corte of Italy in 1994 and Acheli Keh of California in 1996. News reports, however, list Della Corte's age at 62 when she gave birth.

The Record Searchlight independently verified Wulf's age.

Wulf is used to defying the odds. Blind since birth, she was a synchronized swimmer in high school, worked as a piano and organ saleswoman and developed a passion for cooking.

Wulf said Friday that she considers her late-in-life pregnancy a groundbreaking act for older women.

"Age is a number. You're as old as you feel," she said. "Every time you revolutionize something or you do something different, there's going to be naysayers."

cmac re: designer babies.

It is a slippery slope and a topic of great debate. People will argue for hours according to their worldview.

Keep in mind that a person's value is much more than the color of her eyes, IQ, athleticism or other genetic trait. We've seen the smartest people commit crimes (eg. Skilling, Lay, Ebbers, Milken) and the most ordinary people becoming heroes (eg. Medal of Honor recipients, moms, dads!).

You would be surprised how much a birth child costs in the first year. I said minus foreign travel. Now your looking at 20K. I paid 15K on day care the first year of my child's life. I can easily say that I paid an additional 10K on clothes, food, equipment etc.... I think the government averages you spend 5-10K each year on non day care related expenses. Not to mention the actual cost of the birth. Sure a lot of families have health care. We do. But someone is paying 8K for your child to actually be born.

I haven't read any of the comments yet, but this REALLY bothers me. I had my first at 28, and felt all alone. The only other mothers with young children in my office are in their mid forties. I think that if people keep putting off having babies, it will only get harder for women like me who have babies in their 20s to find any sort of work/life balance. People at work will say, well, you should have just waited to have kids. Oh, and if you have your first baby at 50, it's not like you will ever know your grandchildren. How sad.

cmac:

You're right, it is a slippery slope. As far as infertility treatments go, I don't understand the rationalization for spending that much money on procedures that may or may not take. I've seen and heard that often times it takes over the marriage or relationship, and takes a major emotional toll.

I'm also of the mindset that things happen (and don't happen) for a reason. People often throw around the phrase "God's will"...well, maybe it should be applied there, too.

I still firmly believe that if the desire to parent and nurture is the driving force here, there are other ways. I don't know all the rules and red tape involved with adoption, but I'd venture to guess that it's not even widely considered, for whatever reason. Same with fostering. I don't see how that could be a losing situation at all. The adult gets to parent, nurture and care for a child. And the child might find some comfort and normalcy.

I honestly don't know where you would draw the line on the designer baby issue. It's scary and can't help but be reminded of Hitler. (The plight of a history major.) Perhaps a better screening process should be implemented?

Does anyone seriously think a hot-shot career-minded woman wants to be raising preschoolers at 60? She'd be getting ready to enjoy retirement and spend her millions!

My grandparents had their first child of four when she was 18 and their last when she was 42. The first was 24 years older than the last. Both children came from the same mother and father. First grandchild was born 1.5 years later. It was a little weird, I agree, but not as bad as you might think since it was the result of one married couple and not divorced parents starting a "new" family.

"I'm not surprised to see such stupid @ss advice coming out of Wharton Women."

I'm going to say it slightly differently - I think this is a dumb idea!

Some anthropologists think that the evolution of women including a long life period where they are not fertile has contributed to advancements in human civilization.

As yesterdays' blogger brings up - a Grandmother is a wonderful thing in a child's' life. They bring wisdom and experience plus hands to help that are not full with their own small children. Despite the annoyances an extended family is usually an asset for any woman. We've all got stories of relatives we're better off without but I'm speaking generally here.

To freeze your eggs and circumvent what has evolved over so many generations is nuts. You'd think women would get that.

Foamgnome, you have a point. But it is not necessary to spend the money you did on an infant in the first year. It is necessary to spend the money on an adoption if you want to do it legally. Equipment and clothes can be purchased second-hand at yard sales or thrift stores or handed down from friends and relatives. A baby should cost you next to nothing for food, if you breastfeed exclusively for 6 months and use a baby food grinder (I bought mine for new $5 on eBay) to turn what the family is eating into baby food. And daycare, while a necessary expense for those who have to work, doesn't have to cost $15K a year.

I think it is irresponsible to encourage women to voluntarily engage in oocyte preservation. Medical ethicists and physicians have issued guidelines discouraging women from harvesting and freezing eggs if they do not have a clinical indication -- a medical reason -- for doing so. Harvesting one's eggs is not risk-free and can result in significant adverse events.

"The technology to freeze unfertilized eggs is relatively new, expensive at over $10,000 for the drugs, surgery and storage fees (most not covered by insurance)..."

I would HOPE it's not covered by insurance. This is the kind of capricious foolishness that drives up health insurance rates for the rest of us.

Here's another issue I didn't see mentioned, but is equally important.

What about the potential for multiple births taking place as a result? The health and financial implications for an older woman could be tragic. Not to mention that multiples born to younger women of normal reproductive age rarely have a total clean bill of health...

(Sorry if this was mentioned already.)

Also to ANon - how old is your stepmother - if she is younger and doesn't already have kids shouldn't she have the opportunity to have a family? Being made to choose bewteen the man you love and having a child shouldn't have to take place just because his children think it is wierd.

Being 23, out of the house, and supporting yourself is very different then having teenagers who live at home to help change diapers and babysit. When you are in your twenties, or even older, you want to have your own life, not have to be pulled back because you parents decide it may be fun to have another.

The new baby will never his siblings siblings as such, but more as aunts and uncles. He will never have cousins of the same age. His parents will be in their 70's when he is in college. It is not a healthy situation for anyone.

Older people who have older children in late teens or early twenties should really consider waiting for grandchildren.

I am 23 and about to donate my eggs to a couple unable to have kids on their own. They are both in their 50s, did tons of stuff that caused them to put off having kids. But now they are secure (financially) and want one. Ok. I am being paid $7000 for my eggs.

Thing is, they also need a carrier. SO that's another $20,000. Plus all the medical and legal bills.

This child is going to end up costing $100,000 before they even get it. While I am clearly a willing participant in this whole process, I can think of TONS of stuff to spend $100,000 on which would be a greater benefit to society.

All this because the husband wants it to be "HIS" child (made with his sperm).

My boyfriend is supportive I'm doing this, but we have talked about it and if we had any problem conceiving we ewould adopt rather than spend all that money. Just doesn't make sense to us.

She is 45.

What happens to the harvested eggs that are not used? Are they thrown away? Should the egg banks and sperm banks work together to create embryos for stem-cell research from unwanted eggs?

I think this is walking a tricky path when you talk about harvesting eggs.

IMHO, the reason so many people do not find suitable mates or spouses in their 20's is because too much time and effort is spent nurturing and furthering their careers. Graduate schools, MBA's, PhD's, 80-100 hour work weeks - none of these are conducive to a balanced social and/or family life. Actually, I guess the education doesn't suck as much time out of your life if that is all you do and you don't have to also work while attending school.

Within my very large extended family, only one has a high-powered career. While some of us are admittedly envious of their money, home, vacations, etc; none of us want her work schedule.

Bravo! Couldn't have said it better.

"Older people who have older children in late teens or early twenties should really consider waiting for grandchildren."

With all due respect, if what one wants is to take on the responsibilities and joys of parenting, waiting to be a grandparent is not going to satisfy the desire to parent. These are entirely different roles (yesterday's guest blog aside). If someone told you she couldn't wait to be a grandmother, would you suggest she adopt instead? I think not.

SAHM: You are definitely correct that it can be a lot cheaper to raise a baby for the first year. I was just directing it to the upper middle class people that balk at the idea of paying for an adoption. It seems like they think children should be raised for the first year of their life for FREE and then they can go collect their child. Like I said, people pay 25-30K for a car. That isn't even a great car. But think adoption should be free. The problem with international adoption, is that a lot of lower middle class and maybe even some middle class families, would struggle to come up with 30-50K. They would be great parents if the adoption costs were lowered. I am just directing it to people who HAVE the money but think they are entitled to a child for FREE because they desire to have one. Certainly, I wish adoption costs were lower. Not to save people like me money. But to allow the people on the lower middle class-middle class a fighting chance at having a family. Also, fertility treatments are very expensive. Some are covered by insurance. But a lot isn't. People think it is OK to spend money creating their own biological child but balk at an adoption. I spent way more then 20K on my daughter in her first year. I needed to buy a 300$ pump to pump breast milk. I still spent tons of money on clothes, equipment, toys etc.. Of course she didn't need all that stuff. But most upper middle class people do the same for their biological children. It just kills me when people equate adoption with buying a baby. You are paying for your child's care from birth to the time of adoption. Your not buying anything.

Gag. This is the ultimate desire to "have it all." Ok, maybe I just can't see it because I made the choice not to have bio children by the time I was 30, and 15 years later, I have never regretted it. I recently visited a new gynecologist who must have thought I was coming to him for fertility treatments because he was STUNNED to learn that I was happily without children and had no interest in becoming pregnant. When he asked me why I didn't want a baby, I said with a smile, "I'm too old" and he then spent 10 mintues telling me that he now helps women over 50 in the DC area become pregnant. When my exam was over, he joked, "You're bad for business!" So ladies, look at that side of it too -- fertility is a large and growing industry in our country. Is having a baby at 60 really the best thing you could do, or is it something you're being pressured to do.

It's not a question of whether women in general should put off childbearing into their 50s or beyond. Of course that wouldn't work for most of us, and for all the obvious reasons. Most of us are way past wanting to by then. It's that some women do, and it's a terrific advance now that it's an option. Better yet if "Mr. Right" has some sperm stowed away from his own youth. Of course people of that age can be wonderful parents. Millions of couples can and do raise kids if their own grandchildren are orphaned. If they can do it, so much the easier for would-be parents of the same age who have the desire and the financial stability to take this on.

Call me silly but how does one get to be a grand parent, if they were never a parent to begin with? I imagine some are delaying child birth for their first child.

foamgnome--Way to go pumping to feed your adopted daughter! Kudos to you! Most people wouldn't dare!

I agree, foamgnome. But you're missing the part of the argument that says that upper middle class people who adopt will also turn around and spend thousands and thousands in the first year of the baby's life on daycare, equipment, food (and most adoptive mothers don't even have the option to breastfeed), etc. So while I agree - people who can afford it shouldn't complain about having to pay for an adoption - you also have to consider that the adoption costs will be on top of the costs that every other parent already has.

To NC Lawyer,

You are right. Parenting and grandparenting are very different. In many ways, I have become the grandparent, as the away-from-home, much older child. I am the one expected to shower the child with gifts and affection and babysit whenever possible. It's a strange role-reversal that I am not enjoying.

"Frankly, I'm not about to put up with the US adoption system where birth parents can change their mind and and adoptive parents are treated more like long-term babysitters than parents. Nor do I want to be part of any sort of potential criminal activity by adopting a child that was taken from a parent who wanted them as could be the case in an international adoption."

These issues crop up only because Americans want to adopt newborns only. It's the "I want a baby" syndrome.

If people were willing to adopt toddlers and kids a bit older than that, they would have few problems and no renegging.

VAreader is selling her body for $27000.
Great to be a woman, eh?

foamgnome - I apologize if I missed something. I didn't realize your daughter was adopted? If so, disregard my last post because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!

SAHM: Most children adopted from foreign countries arrive much older then a newborn. I think the average is 9-18 months. So that first year has already happened. A lot of the equipment the baby would have outgrown. Also the clothing would start at a later age. The number of diapers you used will be less then a newborn biological child. To you see my point? Time has already passed. I don't know of any foreign adoption where the child is less then 6 months old. 12 months is a good average age the child arrives in this country.

I think she's only selling it for $7000. Another woman is selling hers for $20000.

I see your point now, foamgnome. :)

NO, my first child is our biological daughter. I pumped breast milk for 2 years for her. We are in the process of adopting our seoond daughter. I will pump breast milk for her if she is less then 2 years old. But most likely, it would be for only a year to 6 months. We are requesting an infant girl age 12-18 months. They can choose any age to give us. And we will gladly accept our daughter at any age. You can bet if she is less then 12 months, I will do my best to pump breast milk for her. After 2, I would probably just try to acclimate her to regular milk.

To 1054: If I were VAreader, I would have asked for $50K. My body is beautiful. My genes are outstanding.

I'm selling my eggs, which would be washed down the drain every month anyway, for $7000. So that two people can make a baby.

Some other woman (who I don't know) will be carrying the baby (which is genetically not hers).

Now 1054, if you have an equally strong objection to a man donating sperm, then at least your view is consistant. If not, then you need to understand you have a double standard here.

1. What precisely is wrong with wanting to have everything? When did ambition become an undesirable trait?

2. Why do so many people on this blog use the phrase "upper-middle class" as some sort of invective? It's as if you're saying, "Those damn people who have the nerve to be financially well off - they ruin everything!" What gives?

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with older parents. My dad was 49 when I was born and he was much more engaged as a parent than most fathers I knew growing up. He also had years of building his own business behind him and was financially secure. So I guess that's what these women want. But still, it's sad that so many smart and successful women can't find a way to have a husband, career, and children when they are in their 30s and 40s. 50 just seems so old to be dealing with pregnancy and menopause within the same few years.

How can you have breast milk if you adopt the baby?

Re: VAreader --- And then she's going to have a kid somewhere out there in the world that will come knocking one day wondering where her blue eyes came from.

For those who are freaked out by parents who have children in their 20s as well as children under 5, this used to be quite common before birth control when there were many more large families. My dad was the youngest of nine can he grew up with his nephew, who was a year younger and the son of his oldest brother. They were great buddies and nothing about the situation "freaked them out" because it was relatively normal in large families.

The act of sucking stimulates milk production, not the act of actually having a baby. The pump helps to do that. :)

"1. What precisely is wrong with wanting to have everything? When did ambition become an undesirable trait?"

Sometimes ambition is just selfishness under another name.

How much does sperm go for? $100 a shot if you're lucky. This must be the only industry with gender bias in favor of women.

Oh, forgot about the adult film industry. The women get 100xxx more money than the johns.

There are some hormonal or chemical changes in the body during pregnancy that aids in breast milk production. Medical people help me out on the proper lingo. But technically, the breast milk is produced by the suckling. Not being pregnant or giving birth. That is how they had wet nurses in the olden times. You can also pump breast milk at any point in time. But menopause does reduce milk production. I don't think I could actually physically nurse a child that is 12-18 months who was not used to nursing. Mainly because the child would reject nursing. But I can always pump breast milk for the child. Also there are some teas out there to help milk production. A lot of biological parents use them as well. If you adopt a newborn at birth, you can nurse the child the same way you do your biological child. A child does not know or care if you are the biological parent. It is really a matter of teaching your child to nurse. I loved nursing and I would definitely encourage parents who adopt a newborn, to give nursing a try. But just with biological parents, some adoptive parents find nursing way too difficult. I would not force anyone to nurse or pump breast milk. BTW, no human being has been allergic to breast milk. For us, coming from VN, a lot of kids are lactose intolerant. And breast milk would be much better for a toddler then cows milk.

Lou //The act of sucking stimulates milk production//

Not true. I suck twice a day for a good 30mins but so far nothing yet. :) :) :)

Maybe so. I understand that a person with my genetic code will be out there. I'm ok with that. I don't see it as "my baby". In the same way that if I adopted I WOULD see that child as my own. It has to go both ways.

The prospective parents, who I have met, plan to be very open with the child about where it comes from. But the process was done with first names only. I don't know how to find them, they don't know how to find me after this is all over.

This is the same as donating sperm. Only, a little more complicated medically.

//These issues crop up only because Americans want to adopt newborns only. It's the "I want a baby" syndrome.//

I buy that on the renegging part but this concept of "open adoption" is what really burns me. I have researched several adoptions agencies and the great majority force open adoptions where I, as the parent, would have to send photos and updates to the birth mother and/or somehow include the birth mother as part of the family. You know what - not a chance in hell am I going to do that. She wants to give up her kid for adoption - that's commendable. But to give it up and insist that she still have information and contact is really just treating the adoptive parents like babysitters.

I don't have any problem with the child wanting to find their birth parents and be in contact with them when it is appropriate but I'm not going to pay someone to be a glorified nanny to their kid.

Adoptable children older than toddlers seem to typically come with a whole host of issues that would be difficult for a seasoned parent much less a new parent. My guess is that reason is why there is so much "I only want a baby".

I think that women who suddenly realize at age 40+ that they have deep need to have a baby actually have a deep emptiness they are trying to fill by having a child. Much like the teenage girls in poverty who have nothing to look forward to so they have a baby to fill their need for love and something to do with their lives.

"Sometimes ambition is just selfishness under another name."

as long as you are consistent in this view, you're welcome to it; however, were I a betting man, I'd bet that ambition is only problematic for you when a woman admits to having it. If a man wants to provide for his family and he's ambitious, we label him as a traditional guy with his priorities right. When it's a women, she's selfish.

First off, Leslie, have you thought about the kids in such an arrangement? I'm not sure that I'd want to be 21 with my mom suffering from Alzheimer's Disease or in long-term care or, just generally, in declining health. It really doesn't sound like fun.

Second, Leslie, what's it like living up there with all your wealth and your head in the clouds? Do you ever think that maybe the vast majority of people DON'T live like you do? You need to get in touch with reality. The expense of these procedures is far beyond the means of most Americans.

Finally, if this is what "feminism" is coming to, that's a sad state of reality. We were biologically built to be new parents at a MUCH younger age than our 60s. Why is it that, for so many people, "feminism" means going against biological reality? Why can't feminism work WITH biological reality?

That's awesome about the breast milk. I didn't know that.

This industry is in favor of women. But I have to do a whole lot more than the average sperm donor (who arguably might have a good time donating).

I am not saying the pay is the same, I'm saying the concept is the same. If you are against one, you would logically have to be against the other.

Questions:
//1. What precisely is wrong with wanting to have everything? When did ambition become an undesirable trait?

2. Why do so many people on this blog use the phrase "upper-middle class" as some sort of invective? It's as if you're saying, "Those damn people who have the nerve to be financially well off - they ruin everything!" What gives?//

Ambition is fine, everyone needs a healthy dose otherwise is unmotivated. "Wanting everything" is extreme ambition and can lead to ethical compromises. That is the problem with most rich Americans.

2. yes, the rich are the source of many societal problems because they got rich at the expense of other people, and because they do not give back to the common good. you see, there must be higher taxation to equalize the wealth disparity.

VAreader - while I think your intentions are good, I personally don't agree with them. Would you still do it if you weren't getting paid? You aren't technically "donating", because you are getting paid. I feeling the same about sperm donation, so it's not just one-sided for me.

This gets me thinking---why do people choose abortion so readily over adoption (often times with the reason being they don't want someone else raising their child), but then a lot of young women choose to "donate" their eggs and have others raise their child???

I think this is a good option for some people. These are all really personal choices. People should have kids whenever they feel the time is right. It's a tremendous amount of responsibility. You worry and agonize over all sorts of things that never occurred to you. And I know that given the risks associated with pregnancies later in life, it will be comforting to older parents if they can avoid some of those risks by using eggs from earlier in life (Assuming this is so. I am not a scientist).

For myself, I really prefer having had my children earlier starting at 28. But I'm a man, so I don't have to worry about some of the issues women in the workforce deal with. Still, I'd rather leave the office earlier than my co-workers who have no kids, so I am not totally insulated from those types of concerns. Also by starting earlier, it kind of forces you to get your financial house in order at an earlier time. If I didn't have kids, I'd probably blow my money on silly things like expensive cars and armani underwear. Instead, I dutifully save for retirement and their education. I also eat at McDonald's, which allows me to save money, and also I probably won't need as much in retirement because I'll die early from heart disease. Ha!

I'd like to say that by having kids earlier I am more able to chase them around then I would be at age 50. I'm not sure that's true. I'm pretty out of shape (see mcdonald's comment earlier) and I get winded easy. Also, I am generally tired all the time from lack of sleep with a 6 month old and a three year old.

I don't think my post really added much to this discussion. I'm sorry you read this far.

Danielle, that is precisely the reason people go internationally. Not a strong chance the birth parents, or birth family will get on a plane demanding their child back. We went internationally for a host of other reasons. I strongly wanted to adopt a child from my birth country. I thought what greater gift could I share with my adoptive child. But the Vietnamese connection and the knowledge to teach her about the Mother land. Not that I am at all against transracial adoption but I thought it was a gift to teach my child what it truly means to be Vietnamese. Also we felt that VN is the third world. And any loving home in the US, offers a host of educational, medical, and career options to that child. But I agree, there is no way I would do an open adoption either. But not all domestic adoptions are open. My DH's half brother and sister do have an open adoption. They visit their biological grandmother once a year. So far, it has not been a problem. The birth family has no desire to take the children and the children get a chance to learn about their birth family. So far, I think the kids just think of them as extended family who come once a year and give them gifts.

VAReader just wants to money. She's pretending to be such a saint by "helping" some poor couple. Come on, she's just selling her body like a prostitute. It's the same as sperm donors. They don't do it to help out some poor couple. they're college kids out to get a $100 jerking off in front of a porn flick.

"I always wonder how many divorces are the result of a 32-year old woman wanting to have a family more than she wants to marry the particular guy to whom she says yes."

I totally believe that the answer is MANY because I've seen it so many times. The young woman has waited for Mr. Right too long and finally she takes some guy that seems ok because she's getting older and wants a baby. What stupidity! But yes, I have seen it and a couple of women I know even admitted to me after their divorces that they realized they "wanted a baby" and hoped the marriage would work. Again, stupid and selfish.

Maybe women need to put as much effort into selecting the right husband as they do into their careers. Then we wouldn't have so many broken homes.

"Perhaps that's an exception and not the rule, but it seems like delaying parenthood can have your kids taking on some pretty grown up roles pretty early in life and dealing with some pretty grown up issues."

What is so wrong with people taking on "grown up roles" when they are in their 20s? Plenty of people all over the world do so. The prolonged adolesence in the U.S. isn't doing that much to make our kids' lives better.

Lou,

I did not hide the fact that I am being paid for my services. I am using the money to pay off student loans. Unless it was for family or friends, I would not do this for free.

Where you and I disagree is in your labeling the resulting child as "my kid". I do not see it that way. And by using that label, you are invalidating the thousands of adoptions that do take place every year. Are you saying to those parents that the child they have choosen to love isn't "their kid". It may not be genetically theirs, but they are its mother and father.

This is how I approch adoption. As a result, it logically follows that although my genetic material will be used to create this child, it will not be my child. i will not raise it, I will not provide for it, I will not love it the way its parents will, I will not even carry it in my womb. Its not mine.

I am not saying you are "wrong" I am saying that the mindset I have--that the people who raise you are your parents-- allows me to do this guilt free.

I believe your point of view is a valid one, though. Its simply a matter of opinion.

VAreader: once you pay taxes, the $7000 goes down to $5000 pretty quickly.
you ARE planning to declare that income, aren't you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Becoming a parent in your 50's or 60's? You need to consider what this will do to the child. Yes, you might be able to be home with the child, but how many comments about the kids "grandparents" will they have to deal with. I'm pregnant and 34 and people make comments like that to me about waiting so long to start having kids. I can't imagine my parents making the decision to start having kids now in their early 60's. That seems crazy to me.

VAReader just wants to money. She's pretending to be such a saint by "helping" some poor couple. Come on, she's just selling her body like a prostitute. It's the same as sperm donors. They don't do it to help out some poor couple. they're college kids out to get a $100 jerking off in front of a porn flick.

But if they didn't do it, some people wouldn't be able to have children.

-Danielle
(who isn't sure if her current hot flash is from Clomid or anger)

I love it. Best of luck on your decision. In our extended family we have biological children (conceived naturally), biological children (conceived with the aid of fertility), and adoptive children. They are all loved and wanted. Every family has a right to form their family as they choose. My guess is pundit mom is just saying that she wished more people would be open to adoption. I wish that too. But you are certainly entitled to form your family the way you choose. Nothing wrong with bio kids. I got one myself!LOL.

Lady D: It take more than the woman to make that marriage in the first place. It isn't like the woman dragged the man to the alter and said something about marrige so I can have kids. Whenever two people enter a marriage, there is hope. don't blame some kind of need for a child for the dissolution of a marriage.

'What is so wrong with people taking on "grown up roles" when they are in their 20s?'

They are too busy getting an education and establishing their careers to have spouse and children in their 20's - how could they possibly care for aging parents? :0)

Great. Now the company I work for is going to have to spend more money to their benefits ma