MADRID, Spain - A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest mother after she gave birth to twins in the northern city of Barcelona on Saturday, a hospital official said.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
The woman, whose identity has not been revealed by Sant Pau hospital, gave birth by caesarian section on Saturday having previously undergone in vitro fertilization in the United States, according to the national news agency EFE.
Originally from the southern region of Andalucia, the new mother chose the Barcelona hospital because it specializes in high-risk births.
The mother and twins are all doing well though the babies are both in incubators, a hospital spokeswoman said. The hospital did not reveal the gender of the twins.
The previous holder of the oldest mother record was 66-year-old Romanian citizen Adriana Iliescu who gave birth to baby Eliza Maria in Jan. 2005.
2007-01-01 05:15:34 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Severe disorder of some kind. What kind of doctor's sanctioned this? There is a good possibility this woman will be deceased before the children have reached adulthood. Very selfish. The only reasons I can think of for someone to do something like this, (and it is definitely not good reasons), fame (her 15 minutes in the limelight!) Money, (EXTREME SELFISHNESS) or maybe she's already rich and has no one to leave her money to. All in all no acceptable excuse for this kind of behavior, including the ethics of the doctors involved.
2007-01-01 05:25:03 · answer #1 · answered by mld m 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I disagree that the abuser's sin isn't 'as bad' as the abortion doctor and the mother for seeking an abortion for her. A sin is a sin. Since all 3 adults were involved in the sin, they should all have been excommunicated. I am prolife but I do understand the mother's concern for her daughter carrying a pregnancy due to her being only 9. Her body can't hold a fullterm and healthy pregnancy and birth. She is to small to have a pregnancy, even though she started menses early. I think this is the only thing a doctor would suggest. It's either terminate the preg to save her daughter or let her go thru with the preg with a high chance of her dying along with the twins. This must have been a hard decision, especially knowing it was her husband that raped her. I feel for the mother and the daughter. I pray that God understands the entire situation (I know He does) and forgives the mother and doctor for this hard decision. Honestly, if it was my 9 yr old daughter, I would probably do the same thing. I would do anything to save my child. If she was 16, I would help her through it and either raise the child as my own or her her put it up for adoption. It's very odd for me to sided with a decision of an abortion because I've always considered myself 100% prolife no matter what. But now I see there are exceptions. As for the decision for not kicking out the step-father, that I totally disagree. I'm not sure what is all considered when excommunicating a person. But he molested her for years and that it a grave sin. Harming a child is sinful. I have to conmpletely disagree with the church's decision on this. A sin is a sin. I'm a Catholic and love my faith. There are a few things I question the church about but none of them being with scripture and faith teachings. In this situation, I disagree with their decision. If the church kicks out an abortion doctor, it should kick out all molesters, even the priests.
2016-05-23 03:16:53 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My personal choice would not to be a mother at that age, but that is my choice.
There is no difference between a woman this age having a baby as the 13-20 year olds having them now. This woman may live to be 100, and the 13 year old might walk out in front of a car tomorrow and die. Death can happen at any age, and the child would be parentless.
At least a woman this age would be mature enough to raise a child, and is obviously financially secure enough that she could afford the in-vitro.
where as the 13 year old would be dependant on their parents, and the tax paying population to support her and her child.
2007-01-01 09:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by tequilagold_32 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nature has more sense than modern technology. This woman isn't going to have the physical stamina needed to keep up with one lively toddler, let alone two. Her children are probably going to feel embarrassed about having a mother who looks more like a grandmother (or even, possibly, great grandmother!) if not now, then at a later stage. They may well have to spend their childhood looking after her if her health doesn't remain good. There will always be the worry about what will happen when she dies.
I regard this woman as having behaved irresponsibly, but the doctors who allowed this situation to arise have behaved even more irresponsibly.
2007-01-01 06:38:09 · answer #4 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just think, when those babies start Kindergarten she'll be 72 or73
When they graduate high school she'll be about 85 years old
And she'll be almost 90 when they grad college or 92+ if they go on to grad school.
Could you imagine not being able to enjoy your children b/c you were too old? That would suck. I hope she has a good Will with guardianship set up for those babies b/c she'll surely need it.
2007-01-01 05:21:35 · answer #5 · answered by sixcannonballs 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know it is physically possible for some women to conceive and give birth at that age, but a better question is why, or should they. Will she be around to raise and nurture her daughters? You can't restrict someone from doing it, but it certainly brings up many questions.
2007-01-01 05:19:02 · answer #6 · answered by jh 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The article did not mention if she had other children, if she did not and wanted to experience motherhood, who among us can say that she should not.
Besides she may make lots of money from the publicity and the children will be well taken care of.
2007-01-01 05:28:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't make a law against it, but I don't know how any one of that age could be so selfish to have a child when they know they won't live long or have the physical abilities to be the best caregiver possible
2007-01-01 06:20:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's really unfeeling for the children. Fertilization should not be done on a woman who most likely won't be around or healthy to raise her children fully.
2007-01-01 05:19:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
My lord. Being 80 is bad enough, but to have not one, but two 13 year old is cruel and unusual punishment.
2007-01-01 05:21:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋