Doesn't the question of how old you can be to have a child depend on what sex you are? Nobody asked David Letterman, Larry King or that old oil baron guy who allegedly knocked up Anna Nicole whether they were too old to be a parent.

Sure, there are biological reasons to argue against a 66 year old incubator (thats what women are from conception to birth - which is the real abortion issue not life, but can a women be a forced heat lamp for a potential chick) but assuming medical science can ensure a 66 year old capable enough to have a baby as marry Ashton Kuchter, why not?

If the real issue is can a 66 year old raise a child who will graduate from highschool while she watches on life support at the local hospital than shouldn't that same question be posed to Larry "I'll be dead or a clone before I see my child out of diapaers" King?

Science: We're all about coulda, not shoulda.

The reason no one protested those old men having children is that their wives or partners were 15 or 20 years younger than they were. This 66 year old woman is single. Big difference. I am currently dealing with my parents as they age into their mid 70s and it is very stressful. I'm just trying to imagine this kid dealing at age 12 with the same issues I'm dealing with at age 38.

While obviously not the ideal family construction, the example of the old guy knocking up his younger wife isn't a valid corrollary to the 66-year-old mother, because while the old guy is just as (or more) likely to die before his child reaches college, at least there also exists the younger mother. The 66-year-old mother has no husband. There's no younger father who will still be around to raise Junior after mom kicks it.

If the mom dies before the kid reaches 18, does he go home to live with his nanny? become a poor little rich orphan ward of the state, or be raised by his mother's lawyers? Sounds like a Francis Hodgson Burnett novel, but with more in vitro.

Calling this woman's choice selfish is funny. No one ever had a baby for altruistic reasons. No one was ever "thinking of the child." Every woman in history who chose to have a baby did so for selfish reasons, regardless of age or other factor.

I, for one, am no more comfortable with the public being in this woman's life than I was everyone being in the middle of Terri Shaivo's. Hands off, peeps. It's her life, her body, her decision, and none of your business.

You might want to get your own lives instead of worrying about hers or her baby's. And if you are so worried about babies, perhaps you could go adopt one, or become a foster parent, or work in a shelter, or something.

Then again, it's much easier to sit on the sidelines, throwing stones, isn't it? And a lot more fun for you, too.

Good. Lord.

I have an aunt who is 15 years younger than me, and I know several people who had fathers that were more than 60 years older than them.

If it wasn't a requirement that a older woman will have to have a medical procedure to become pregnant, then I doubt there would be any controversy.

But kids do thrive under all sorts of conditions, and some of them even come out better for not having a normal childhood.

You make it sound so harmless calling it "not normal."

But really when we talk about sick, aging parents, we're talking about the potential for severe child trauma here.

Most adults don't end up severely traumatized by watching a parent die, but this is the most traumatic thing a child can experience, and the traumatic response in a young child can be even worse than that from sexual or physical abuse.

Would ever consider in your right mind saying something like, "some of them even come out better for having been traumatized by sexual abuse"?

For a young child, taking care of a severely ill or dying parent can leave damage that is just as bad.

doesn't change the fact that a person who goes out of their way to have a child they can be pretty reasonably certain they will not see into adulthood is an asshole. A selfish, lousy asshole.

People complaining of the gender double standard have it wrong I think- we do see and decry those ancient fathers as narcissistic jerks- that is why we hear about them. And in this case it is a little different that there is no partner involved doubling the chance that this child will be an orphan before adulthood.

There is no way to enter into parenthood without taking some risks and certainly it is a gamble that you’ll be around to care for your child. But we should try to the best we can to make sure we’re doing the best for our children and this is clearly not one of those cases. I don’t think we should legislate away the choice. Doctors should consider the ethics and have guidelines and as they do in this case- there will always be someone willing to flout ethics for a buck and people who will make stupid choices.

1. Far be it from me to argue that women's choices should all be determined by biology, or that natural is always better, but I think the fact that it naturally becomes impossible to conceive and carry a child without extraordinary medical assistance past the age of about 50 is probably a fairly good indication that there are reasons why that is the case, and that we ignore them at our peril. Seriously, how stressful would it be on a 66-year-old body to carry a pregnancy to term?

2. It is in fact becoming more of an issue when older men have children, as we learn more about the risks of genetic defects carried by older men's sperm. As someone described it astutely, that DNA is like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy....

3. What seems wrong to me is not that a parent of either sex might not live to see a child into college--that's a risk of parenthood at any age. I object to knowingly burdening a child with the physical and mental challenges of a very old parent. A middle- or high-schooler shouldn't have to deal with parents entering a nursing home, quite possibly succumbing to Alzheimer's, cancer or heart disease, if it can be helped. Or to end up at a very young age as a geriatric caregiver to a parent. Or to lose a single elderly parent very young and have living situation and family/financial support compromised while trying to graduate from high school. Parents are supposed to be able to care for and support their children. I have trouble seeing how a mother in her 60's or 70's can do that fully. To to go extraordinary medical lengths for a child, given the likelihood of the child ending up in a really unstable or untenable situation--yes, I find it horribly selfish and impaired of judgement.