Thoughts on antique maternity...

There's been a hue and cry of late concerning the 66 year old Romanian woman who has become a mom for the first time. Much has been made of her age, and many have been outraged at her and at the medical community that enabled the birth.

I'm of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, my small-l liberal, feminist side tells me that if her body was capable of sustaining the "miracle" of birth, she has every right to give it a go, that to protest against an aged mother not being able to nurture her child is a blatant hypocrisy when the media celebrates every 80 year old man who gets it up long enough to impregnate a trophy wife. After recently running afoul of my own beliefs about gender roles in child-rearing, I wouldn't want to assume that she is the only one capable of raising that child.

Yes, she will die before her child is an adult. Big deal. So do many young, healthy parents. The vagaries of fortune dictate that some will die of illness, some will die of malice, some will die by accident, and some will be swept to sea by the wrath of mother nature. This is fact. We operate every single day on the assumption that we will live forever; if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to leave the house in the morning (not that that would save us - most accidents happen at home). In any case, people die, whether they are young and strong or old and weak. Being a parent won't change that.

I won't belabour the obvious point that her child could also predecease her, a victim of any of the many reasons a child may die young. However, I think that a realist will point out that none of us knows what tomorrow may bring. A prudent parent plans for his or her own mortality, recognizing that life has many twists and turns, and a good plan beats cock-eyed optimism any day. If the woman has planned for her future (and, as she's been bombarded by doom-and-gloomers, she has), she already has a good friend or family member waiting in the wings to step in should it become necessary.

I don't want to make light of the pain her child will feel upon her mother's demise - it'll hurt like hell. The death of a loved one always does. However, fear of pain is not the way to live life (unless your lower back hurts like mine does - then fear of pain is the only way to live!). To forgo having a child, in order to save that child future pain, is foolish. Parents inflict pain on their children all the time, in the form of corporal punishment, mind games, and piano recitals.

The other, right-wing, knee-jerk side asks 'what was she thinking?!' She's not likely to see the child live to adulthood, and the risks she took with the child's development by reproducing at that age are fearsome to contemplate (how many times have 40-ish women been warned of the developmental problems they risk because they chose to wait?).

It's one thing to risk dying before a child (after all, every soppy '80s-era movie of the week featured some young woman forgoing chemo in order to have a child, an act that shortened her own life, and usually left her mother and doctor teary-eyed at her bravery), it's another to play Russion roulette with its health. Yet, how different is that action from all the doctors on the evening news, trumpeting their success at keeping some miniscule preemie baby alive, regardless of the problems it may encounter later in life.

See what I mean? The issues are extremely complex. Just because technology allows us to do something (give birth in our 60s, clone sheep, genetically modify our food) doesn't mean we should do it. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, either (aggressive cancer treatments, in vitro fertilization, computer animated cartoons).

Nor should we assume that, just because something has been done and paraded in the media as a triumph, we get a say in the matter. Why should we assume we have the right to comment on this woman's private decision? In a culture that values individual choice, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of one's neighbour, exactly when did this woman invite us to criticize her choice? When did she stand up and say "make an example of me - base policy around my decision - feel free to tell me exactly what you think of my choices"? We're all fired-up on privacy rights, yet you can bet people have sent this woman letters of support and letters denouncing her every move.

Being a young mom doesn't make you a good mom, nor does being an old mom make you a bad one. How many grannies out there are raising their grandchildren right now? How many are trying to figure out what the difference is--they, at least, were spared the trauma of birth, but in every other way that matters, Big Mama, Nana, Gramma, Gran, Bubba and MeeMaw are mothering children 50 or 60 years their junior, and no one says boo. Then again, none of them are on TV...

Bottom line for me: just because one woman has made a choice that we don't agree with doesn't mean that a) others will follow in her footsteps, or b) we have to create an entire field of study and branch of policy around the act. Let's not make such a huge deal out of this situation that it will cause a lot of nutcases to crawl out of the woodwork and try the same thing, but at a more advanced age, in order to get their slice of the limelight. After all, getting a group discount on diapers is no reason to have a baby.