![>](style_images/Executiv-909/nav_m.gif)
Yes, I heard about her, too. Here is a link to that story by CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/0...ania.mother.ap/
Also from the article:
QUOTE |
Asked why he had let a 66-year-old woman become pregnant, Dr. Marinescu said: "She was in the right condition to carry a pregnancy." There is no law in Romania stipulating a maximum age for artificial insemination, and he declined to comment on ethical questions regarding the pregnancy. However, Marinescu said he was impressed by Iliescu's faith in God and her determination to have a child. |
Although I think that the mother should have thought this through a bit more, I congratulate her. I hope she and her new daughter are happy together and that she lives long enough to see her daughter grow up.
I do wonder how she is going to raise a child at her age by herself. Its hard enough being a single parent at a younger age, but taking care of a child at 67? Wow, she is either very courageous, or very naive. I hope its the former.
Good luck to her, as with all pregnancy, I hope the child benefits from a loving home and a mother who remains able to stay active in her life as she grows up.
I'm from Romania and that mom and the girl are from Romania ... everything happened in Romania
It was an artificial insemination, so I think no one knows who the father is ... and she was never married.
I don't mean any offence, but after all I read in the papers here (it has a STORY a few days), my feeling has that this woman (and the doctors) wanted to "break the record" for the oldest insemination.
P.S. imagine the doctor's ego breaking through the sky.
I don't doubt that RaulDrake, since artificial insemination was used. Why a 67-year old woman would want to take the risk of becoming pregnant, and then attempt to raise a child alone, is beyond me. Even if it means breaking a world record. Maybe she is counting on the publicity working in her favor to where she gets a lot of baby supplies for free. The link to the story is outdated now, but I wonder if this woman did not have any other children, and felt that she should be a mother at least once before she dies? To that I would say there is always adoption as an alternative. The risk of birth defects, in my opinion, makes this decision very selfish.
I can understand her wanting to be a mother, wanting to have a child, but I can't understand what were the doctors thinking. I mean ok, they wanted to do the insemination to prove that they are very good doctors, but is that all? As a doctor don't you have to consider the risks for the baby?
In conclusion, a tend to blame the doctors - if there's anyone to blame. I think they should have been more careful. One could say that they were lucky or SOMEONE up there protected an innocent soul.
there has just recently been a similar case to this in the UK. Everyone was outraged, I personally think that a bit more thought should be given as to what health problems are being put on the Mother, and who is going to raise the child should the Mother die before the child reaches 18. I can understand the desperation of the Mother from a personal prospective, but surely you have to tell yourself there is a 'cut off limit' to when it isn't going to happen?
I know that no parent can guarantee to what age they live, but surely a person in their 60's is bringing down their chance of being there when their child reaches adulthood. I think the child would always have to be prepared for this happening.
Name: Cutegirl
Comments: I think people should stop having kids at 45 because what kind of life is the child going to have with its mummy the age of peoples' grannys and also it has one in a million chance that his mummy will be there when its 25 and I don't think that's right.