A baby at 66 for desperate divorcee set to become Britain's oldest mother

dailymail.co.uk ^ | May 15, 2009 | Andrew Levy and Christian Gysin

[Free ThinkerNY]

With her sizeable bump on show, this is Elizabeth Adeney - Britain's oldest mother-to-be.

At 66, she is four years older than the previous record holder.

Mrs Adeney, who is around eight months pregnant, is believed to have undergone IVF abroad because most British clinics will not treat women over the age of 50.

Friends say that the divorcee, a wealthy businesswoman who is still working a five-day week, is in perfect health and looking forward to the birth of what is thought to be her first child.

But her pregnancy will reignite the debate over late motherhood and the ability of science to enable women in their fifties and sixties to become mothers.

Mrs Adeney will be just short of her 80th birthday when her child becomes a teenager.

A friend said she had been desperate to conceive for years.

Last year, she travelled to the Ukraine, where a controversial IVF clinic has helped countless women get pregnant using donor eggs and sperm.

The friend added: 'She was desperate for a child. She was over the moon when she learned last year that she was pregnant and has been quite open about it - it's not the sort of thing she can hide.

[brytlea]

Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. However, I wish her good luck. I cannot imagine having a baby at MY age (not nearly 66). I think she’s crazy. She should have gotten a puppy instead.

[Dustbunny]

I wish her luck and a healthy baby.

[mplsconservative]

What was she doing the previous 66 years? There was plenty of time to have a baby. This is just selfish on her part.

[Mamzelle]

While I don’t think this is ethical behavior on the part of the health personnel, this isn’t so much different than old guys like Fred Thompson starting a family this late in life.

[Dallas59]

It will be a shame for the child at such a young age to loose her parent.

[mplsconservative]

I will have to disagree, Mamzelle. The old guy can still supply genetic ‘material’ but to carry a baby at that age is very risky. I became pregnant at 35 and the risks for mom and baby zoom after that age. A human engineered pregnancy at 66 is a bad idea all the way around. There is a BIG difference. If this woman was sincere about her desire for children, why didn’t she do it 20 or 30 years ago? Is she so dense that she doesn’t understand children take energy? i sure wouldn’t want to be dealing with a teenager at 80!

By the way, my husband and I are roughly the same age. Fred may be older but his wife appears to have the family around to support the child. I know nothing about those kind of marriages, but this lady is divorced and decided to go for it, artificially, at 66.

[annelizly]

The difference is...if Fred dies of old age the child still has a young mother to finish raising him/her.

This woman has no husband and the child will be an orphan.

[Yaelle]

I do not have a problem with this — good luck to her. This will be a lot better than a young gangbanging drug addicted chick popping out a baby destined for misery.

[napscoordinator]

I feel sorry for the baby. She might make the best mother in the world, but she will be 86 when the baby is 20. The chances of her becoming a grandmother is very low. Her baby will possibly be an orphan much sooner than most kids (who loses their parents typically in their 50’s). I feel sad actually.

[pandoraou812]

I had my last baby at 41 yrs old. At times I feel like the oldest mom in the neighborhood even though I don't look my age. I am having more fun with Sassy then I did with my other 5 because I am more financially set & I am a a stay at home mother. She has 5 siblings & a father to care for her if I die thankfully. Sassy was a total surprise, I was told I was sterile but she is the Blessing of our lives. I don't think having a baby at 66 yrs is fair to the child. I hope she has made arrangements in case she dies.

[Razz Barry]

So true.
'For those who have never received that gift we can well understand their desire to have children but it is always important to think in those circumstances about what is really in the child's best interests.'

It sure isn't in a child's best interest to grow up in a crack infested housing project, dodging bullets and having a new "daddy" every other month.

[Rudder]

That’s Lyndon Johnson in drag.

[SIDENET]

That’s Lyndon Johnson in drag.

LOL!!!

[Rudder]

[giotto]

Even worse than losing his mother at a young age will be the embarrassment of having a mother the other kids assume to be his grandmother. When the child reaches middle school age, he will be constantly teased about it. She may be able to provide the material necessities for the child, but I question whether she, living without a mate, can meet its emotional needs.

[mrs. a]

I wish her and the baby both the best.

However, why couldn’t this “wealthy” business woman have adopted a child or two, long ere now?

[Mamzelle]

I don't see much difference, except the eternal exception that is made for men that is not proferred so much for women.

This woman appears to be provident and there is likely a guardian somewhere. And news reports say that she had longed for a child her whole life. Fred already had one family, he divorced it, but I guess he liked to prove he still had it in him in his mid-sixties...

Deliberately having children this late in life is fraught with selfishness and risk, even when you're a popular conservative public figure. I would save my criticism for the health personnel that made it possible.

[trisham]

What a selfish woman.

[Bellflower]

The child will need to realize without it's mother's bazaar behavior it would not even exist. If it is glad to be alive it will appreciate it's mother. (This applies to all who hate or disapprove of one or more of their parents).