Pensioner parents: Indian couple in their 70s have first baby

[webfact]

Pensioner parents: Indian couple in their 70s have first baby



A couple from Northern India, who are in their 70s, have reportedly become parents for the first time.

The mother, Daljinder Kaur, who says she is 70, but does not have a birth certificate according to several media reports, and her husband Mohinder Singh Gill, 79, have been married for 46 years and had been trying unsuccessfully to have a baby naturally.

It is said that after receiving IVF treatment, Daljinder finally became pregnant, giving birth to a baby boy.

In India, infertility is sometimes seen as a curse those unable to conceive can often end up ostracized by members of their family.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-05-12

[Songlaw]

Though ordinarily a blessed event, this particular instance is troubling on many levels. I pray (metaphorically) that there is a kind, compassionate and committed younger relative waiting somewhere in the wings. Apart from that, congratulations.

[F4UCorsair]

IVF treatment in her 70's...........irresponsible of her and the specialists providing the service.

[losworld]

Gee one of the highest birth rates in the world coupled with high poverty in an already overpopulated world... is this really necessary?

[KKr]

doctors without ethics.

IVF likely from two donors, so what is the point ?

[Credo]

I wonder if they expect to have grand kids one day.

[willyumiii]

I saw this on the Thai visa news program today.

My first thought was that it is pretty irresponsible to bring a child into the world with a father who is 79 and a mother who is 70.

This was not a mistake or a miricle, the woman was taking medication to get pregnant..it was a planned pregnancy!

How long will they be around to care for the child?

and while they are still alive, how active are they capable of being in the child's upbringing.

I fathered my first and only child at the age of 55 and I still have concerns about my longevity and providing proper care for her.in the long run.

I have made sure she will be financially secure after I pass, and I do try to watch my health..

I am 62 now and my daughter is 8, but none of us last forever!

[smotherb]

IVF treatment in her 70's...........irresponsible of her and the specialists providing the service.

Had a couple of hours to kill, so I tried to comprehend your comments.

I had to ask myself, what would be your problem? I don’t see the irresponsibility and apparently, neither they nor their specialist felt the irresponsibility you feel.

First, I doubt the old parents are poor. Why? The article says they are pensioners, they appear to be well-dressed and live in a nice home, if that was their house. Additionally, saying the parents are poor may be a stretch because IVF treatments are not free; unless overpopulated India is funding methods for having more children.

So, what are the potential problems?

The child may end an orphan because the parents are too old?

There is a chance both parents could live another 20 years, but more likely the mother may. However, let's say both parents die and the child has nothing. What happened to the parents’ pension/assets? Would they not have prepared for that event and assigned guardians? They may have preferred to leave their pension/assets to a child of their own, rather than a niece or nephew. Sure, the old parents may be cretins and leave the child without, but so could younger parents.

The child may suffer some form of trauma from being left an orphan?

True, but that is most likely if the parents had no money and no plans for taking care of their child. The child may bounce from orphanages to living on the street, to worse. Had they made plans, the child would be cared for as a child with younger parents who died, but made plans.

The child would lose out on some interaction a child could better have with a younger parent?

Perhaps, but many children are raised by grandparents and many others cherish the time they spend with the grandparents—maybe the grandparents would have more time for the child. And, maybe old daddy wields a mean cricket bat.

What if the parents live in abject poverty and they have no plan for caring for the child?

The problem here would be the child would simply be like millions of other poor children in India—remember, in this instance, the parents are poor Indians and this is the only life they know. So where is the problem in their minds? This is the normal life.

What if the old parents are lousy parents?

Well, the parents certainly must have wanted the child to go through this at their age, wouldn’t they? However, that potential exists, but it also exists with younger parents and may even be worse; the child would have to put up with them longer.

What if, no matter their assets, they have someone willing to take care of the child?

This may be the biggest problem. The guardians selected by the parents may abuse the child and treat them as a slave. However, the guardians selected may be good people and raise the child as their own.

It appears to me there is no great irresponsibility here; if the parents are prepared. If they are not prepared; irresponsibility may apply. Too bad we don’t know their financial capabilities or their plans.

[MockingJay]

A sick, sick world we live in...

[Mudcrab]

Happening daily with geriatric pensioners flooding to Thailand to inseminate a young lady and eventually leaving a single parent family behind them.

In some cases multiple single parent families as some posters have openly bragged about on this forum.

For a visa based on retirement it should include a certificate of vasectomy for any male.

[Morch]

Some posters seem to apply assumptions based on Western morality and conventions. The OP serves to demonstrate these are not always universal.

As the OP relates, being childless is somewhat of a social stain in India. That's without mixing in superstition and religious beliefs. People in rural areas can be shunned, get hurt or and worse, for being different, let alone being suspected of bringing bad luck on communities. Even among supposedly better educated people, there are often traces of the same thinking.

Indian parents love their kids, that's no different. Kids, though, are in turn brought up with the more or less overt expectations that they will one day take care of their parents (especially so for boys, and firstborns in particular). Having kids (read sons) is sometimes regarded as a pension/retirement plans.

Adoption, however, is relatively unpopular. This relates to orphans being regarded as a financial burden, and less likely to provide back when grown up. There's also the orphans being unlucky thing (yeah...same same but different). Children who do get adopted do not always receive proper care, and might be regarded as being in debt to the magnanimous adopting family.

Young children inheriting deceased parents assets? Not unless there's a very kindly and honest adult relative to handle things on their behalf.

On the bright side - there are so many people and possibilities in India (re OP), so it may be that the above does not or will not apply.

[Henry The Bull]

What an idiots, poor child, sterilize the lunatics at once before another child comes up

[Credo]

I think there is a reason that nature had a very good reason for generally terminating the ability to get pregnant in the 40's to early 50's. Raising a child is about a lot of things, not just money. It takes a lot of energy. Think about the number of times a parent has to run at break neck speed to keep a child from running into traffic, or falling into a swimming pool, or pulling a pot of boiling water off the stove.

Children need a lot of guidance and direction and leaving them as an orphan isn't good. The odds are against this child.

At 70, I think the social stigma of not having had a child would be something these had learned to cope with well.

[jaidam]

It's a minority view I will accept, and is likely a generation thing, but wasn't the world a better place when parenthood was dictated by nature? These days there is a glut of totally unsuitable adults that are using weird science to create babies - often for very worrying reasons. These experiments are cheered on by like-minded deviants, reconfirming their "normality", with not a thought for the child, making reasonable debate impossible. Quite sick.

[Credo]

People usually have children for selfish reasons. And nature tried to fix it so that we were young and dumb when we had them, otherwise most of us wouldn't be around.

In this situation, I think they have well exceeded the limits of what is good for any party, child or parents.

[RuamRudy]

It's a minority view I will accept, and is likely a generation thing, but wasn't the world a better place when parenthood was dictated by nature? These days there is a glut of totally unsuitable adults that are using weird science to create babies - often for very worrying reasons. These experiments are cheered on by like-minded deviants, reconfirming their "normality", with not a thought for the child, making reasonable debate impossible. Quite sick.

Who defines suitability?

[Koosdedooes]

What an idiots, poor child, sterilize the lunatics at once before another child comes up

Who are you referring to the Indian couple or the farang geriatrics in Thailand who do something very similar ?

[Morch]

More on the OP:

The parents are Sikh, not that well-to-do farmers.

Apparently, material issues were at least one of the main motivations for having the baby. The husband's father disinherited him for not having children (read sons), and a lengthy legal battle ensued between the husband and his family.

The cost of an IVF treatment cycle in India starts from 1500$ USD, the total value of the inheritance is reportedly over 700,000$ USD.

The couple did adopt a child long ago, but things did not work out as planned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/indian-woman-gives-birth-at-70-with-help-of-ivf/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/10/indian-woman-in-her-70s-gives-birth-to-healthy-baby-boy

http://www.friynds.com/m/news/view/-n-Mum-had-IVF-baby-at-72-039-to-end-500-000-family-estate-row-039-n (copy of The Daily Mail story)