Congratulations Elizabeth Adeney
A 66-year-old is set to become the oldest woman to give birth in Britain, it was reported last night.
Elizabeth Adeney is reported to be eight months pregnant after having had IVF treatment abroad.
She is four years older than the previous record holder, Patricia Rashbrook, who gave birth in 2006, aged 62.
Patton Oswalt is not safe for work or around the kids…
Patton Oswalt on Sex and Science – watch more funny videos
Posted on May 17th, 2009 at 10:16am under Science and progress
| Related posts... • ‘He seemed like he could chuck an arugula leaf through my skull’ • Twitter daily digest • Nasty, brutal and long |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 14 Comments |
This is ‘humour’?
Sorry, Patton, you failed the cardinal rule of stand-up – BE FUNNY!
PS: I posted the “everyone mind their own fucking business” tweeet before I read this but I stand by my remark. This child will be wanted, cared for, loved and provided for. It won’t be the product of a quick, drunken fuck by a 28 stone slag. It won’t get anally raped by it’s mother’s boyfriend when it’s 5 months old. It won’t be taken to hospital with make-up on to disguise abuse. And, of course, it will be in the news only because it has an elderly mother rather than an elderly father. After all, old men father children all the time and we never hear anything negative about it.
Yeah, that was a bit rubbish. I come here for highbrow outrage, dammit, not tabloidesque “[subs: please include pun about frankenstein]” outrage.
Still, I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s post about facebook being bad for children’s brains.
Highbrow? Are you sure you have the right blog?
Actually, it’s a pretty cool story. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins talks about delaying childbirth until later in life as a way of extending humans’ lifespan – he says it’s morally dubious but if he doesn’t want to live until he’s 150, sod him.
This is a deeply disturbing story. Elizabeth is clearly driven by self-absorption instead of thinking about the future welfare of this child, as I was saying on my blog today.
“This child will be wanted, cared for, loved and provided for.”
Oh, please. There is no father in the picture and statistically speaking the mother is likely to be ill, frail or possibly dead by the time the child sits their GCSEs.
Listen up, LFAT, there are thousands of orphans in the UK. Most are children of dead heroin addicts.
Many of those ‘brave soldiers’ killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, fully supported by you had children who are now fatherless. My brother died at 35 leaving two young children.
As for statistics, you are wrong. This woman is likely to live for at least another 20 years and be in reasonably good health – (go check some actuarial mortality and morbidity tables). And she is clearly fitter and in better health than a great many smoking, drinking, lardarsed mothers half her age.
But most importantly, it’s got sweet fuck all to do with YOU! She funded her IVF treatment. She will support herself and her child out of her own funds. In short neither she, nor her child will be a burden on the system and they won’t require a penny of your taxes.
Interestingly, I haven’t read a letter from you concerning elderly fathers.
We should just but out of this woman’s life and MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS!
PS: LFAT, whats with the “Elizabeth” bit. Do you KNOW this woman personally? No? Then treat her with some respect, you condescending little cock!
LFAT- Boris puts the case against your point of view in today’s Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5341676/Britains-oldest-mother-deserves-congratulation-not-disapproval.html
And he’s right.
Oh dear, Mike. Perhaps you should have read the letter on my blog BEFORE making a prat out of yourself by making assumptions.
I know she funded her own treatment. However, your assertion that she will not require any taxpayers’ money is totally unsubstantiated. There was nothing in the BBC or Guardian article about her refusing benefits or state support.
I have concerns about elderly fathers as well, but seeing as fathers cannot have a child without a woman being involved at some point the situations should be treated separately.
And your point about calling her by her first name is just hilarious. If I’d called her ‘this woman’ or ‘ that woman’ you would have accused me of not treating her with respect. Laughable stuff.
I made no assumptions. I simply reiterated that this woman has her own income and is funding her own treatment.
There was nothing in the BBC or Guardian article about her refusing benefits or state support.
So what? Why should she have even mentioned it. Pathetic!
You could have called her by her FUCKING NAME! Just as Justin did in this piece. What don’t you understand about that? Jeez, what an arrogant wanker you are!
Do you advocate all soldiers with children being withdrawn from active duty? Should all prospective parents pass a physical to make sure they don’t die prematurely?
As I said earlier. Mind your own business! This has got fuck all to do with you.
Eh?
Presumably you mean that old goats can make babies with younger women – but that still raises the spectre of a single parent family to come, which from your blog post you clearly object to. I suppose that’s consistent, sort of. Perhaps I find it hard to sympathise with your position as I disagree with your emphasis on [/ definition of] “the family”.
Can just take the opportunity to say that I don’t think I really give a shit either way? I just used the excuse to show the Patton Oswalt clip which, (pace Mike, a man of otherwise fine taste) makes me laugh like a hyena.
I have to say that, since my first comment here and thanks to LFAT, the humour quotient of this post has been raised significantly, although not quite to hyena level,
I liked the last line, but the rest left me cold (not for any political reason, I hasten to add). One man’s Bill Hicks is another’s Jim Davidson.
Can anyone cast light on “Tory Poppins”’s comment beneath mine, on LFAT’s blog here?
I’m having trouble reading it charitably. Interpretations welcome.