Fertilised, with wrinkly bits.

First published 11th May 2006.

I’ve been pondering over what exactly is so disturbing about a 63-year-old woman giving birth. It’s amusing how so many people have taken to calling the pregnant Patricia Rashbrook a selfish woman who obviously is terrible at her job because no child psychologist in their right mind would be an old mother.

I’m not sure if people have realised, but having a child (out of choice) is an inherently selfish affair. There’s the obvious argument of biological propagation (though the egg used in the IVF treatment was not hers, her husband wanted a child). And then there are the countless other reasons a couple might have a child: the need to love something, the need to own something, the need to stare at something cute, the need for company, the need for care in old age, the need to feel good about themselves, the need for a donor for another child, and sometimes, even the need to save their marriage.

I cannot think of a single unselfish reason to have a child, because even seemingly selfless acts provide immense gratification to a couple. So this whole “plunging to new depths of selfishness” argument is stupid. Morally, people can do worse than have a child in their 60’s.

Then we have the “baby is for life” objection. Now before we see banners stating “a baby is for life, not just for Christmas,” let’s look at this whole thing in perspective. The problem some people have is that they reckon a child needs somebody who will run around and play games with them in order to be emotionally healthy. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but when I was a child, both my parents were too tired from working to be able to spend time kicking a football around in a park with me. Leaving aside the fact that none of us know how fit and healthy Rashbrook is (she looks quite radiant), is physical playtime with children the only way to help them develop?

Children are active creatures and they can keep themselves entertained or play with other kids. They are not going to mind that their parents don’t want to run up and down the stairs with them twenty times for fun. Is there really no value for mental stimulation? What about the arts, reading, music, politics, morality and the many other things this couple could have to offer? How long will a child be entertained by simply kicking a football around? One year? Two years?

So the early years pass by, and the child grows into a rebellious teenager. Oh dear. How embarrassing to have old parents, right? Everyone wants a cool, young, hip mum! The truth is, no matter what a parent does, they will be embarrassing for their child until he grows up and learns that they’re human beings and not aliens sent to make their lives a misery. Curfews, silly dancing, driving a horrible car and many other mediocre things would upset an angst ridden teenager. But asking your dad to drop you off a couple of blocks away from school so your friends don’t see him isn’t as selfish as being an old parent.

Probably one of the biggest problems all these disturbed folk have is that Rashbrook could die or become ill well before her child’s 21st birthday. Of course old people are more likely to die or become infirm than us virile, fertile twenty-something’s, but then so are disabled and poor parents. Is it irresponsible for anyone to procreate just because they may die tomorrow? If either Rashbrook or her partner were already quite ill, maybe this argument would have some substance, but they currently seem very healthy. To expect them to sit there and predict how long they will live before giving birth is unfair. Not even actuaries, who have previously vastly under-calculated the increase in lifespan, get that right. Besides, when exactly is the right time for a parent to die? Does it really hurt less to lose a parent at an older age? It would suck to be left alone, but people are passing judgement without knowing about any extended family that would help in the case of such a loss.

There are also issues with her choice of doctor, Severino Antinori, the nutcase who claimed to have created a human embryo via cloning. He said Rashbrook was "perfect" for the treatment and because “she is very slim, blonde and in perfect condition, she fits all the criteria for maternity." What’s surprising is that nobody suggested it was disgusting for a doctor to suggest only slim, blonde (how random) women are fit for maternity. Nope, old women giving birth are disgusting, but being a pratt isn’t.

Of course there exists the wider argument that old ladies giving birth are unnatural. Wow, someone stop the press. The whole point of medicine is to challenge the course of nature. IVF in general is an unnatural procedure, but people only really call on that fact when something particularly disgusts them. The rest of the time it’s a “miracle”.

And that brings me back to my initial point. Why exactly are people so disgusted by this news? The real reason people are having issues is because they're imagining things going in and out of a 63-year-old vagina and it disturbs their internal ideas of what's normal. What I find peculiar in all of these discussions about Rashbrook’s new found motherhood is that people will never challenge their perceptions of normality; the just seek to chastise this couple by calling them selfish.

Maybe “selfish” is the new polite way of saying, “women with wrinkly bits make me want to be sick”?