BTW ... for the fruitbats out here ... I wish this couple of putzes nothing, good or bad, just that they will now go away.
Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
REDDING – A 62-year-old woman gave birth Friday to a healthy 6-pound, 9-ounce baby boy, becoming one of the oldest women in the world to successfully bear a child. The newborn is the 12th child of Janise Wulf, who's also a grandmother of 20 and great-grandmother of three.
Wulf and her third husband, Scott, 48, named the red-haired boy, Adam Charles Wulf. He follows just 3½ years behind his older brother, Ian.
“I hate to raise one alone, without a sibling,” said Wulf, who was impregnated both times through in vitro fertilization.
Wulf has given birth to a total of 12 children, although one son died in his 30s and another died at birth with undeveloped lungs. Of her 10 living children, the oldest is 40.
“I think she's amazing. She's got more than enough love to give,” Myers said.
Wulf is used to defying the odds. Blind since birth, she was a synchronized swimmer in high school, worked as a piano and organ saleswoman and developed a passion for cooking.
Wulf said Friday that she considers her late-in-life pregnancy a groundbreaking act for older women.
“Age is a number. You're as old as you feel,” she said. “Every time you revolutionize something or you do something different, there's going to be naysayers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Giving birth to, loving, providing for, and raising a child is generous in every sense of the word. And there is nothing in this article to suggest that all of her children, including this youngest one, haven't been well-loved, well-provided-for, and well-raised.
So, I would argue that her use of in-vitro was bebatable; but as for this generous woman's generative contribution, God bless her.
Her kids and grandkids will construct the world of tomorrow ---- will pay for and care for US in our old age, either directly or through their taxes. And this grand old lady is only making up for the gays and the "child-free" couples (heterosexual gays) who don't have any kids at all.
Children enrich our world.
Ping
"Wulf and her third husband, Scott, 48,"
Maybe she wore the others out and decided to go for a younger one? Lol.
It's a relief to know this didn't happen without medical intervention. To me it's a relief anyway.
“Age is a number. You're as old as you feel,” she said. “Every time you revolutionize something or you do something different, there's going to be naysayers.”
Well.....raising a child at age 62 could be QUITE a challenge.....here's hoping she and hubbie are up to it...
'Redding Red Wulf' Bump:)
I don't know, Don-o, but the article gives the impression that it's all about her and her own self-fulfillment.
But I wish the family all the best.
I think that in-vitro is okay for a young couple in child bearing age. However, I don't think that a 62 year old woman should be having this.
AMEN! Also I helped by not having kids at all so she had my share and then some.
It's true that raising a child at 62 is a challenge. But there are lots of grandparents who are raising grandkids. And this particular child has a rich and plentiful family to lend a hand (hands) (dozens of hands.)
But not this "young lady"
Whatever floats your boat I guess. I think its great that she's 14 years his senior.
I wonder if she looks like Ann Margaret or Sofia Loren??
Does anyone know what is the highest number of children a woman has ever had?
“I hate to raise one alone, without a sibling,” said Wulf, who was impregnated both times through in vitro fertilization.
Even if she does look like one of them......c'mon...12 kids and 62.......I'd take her home early.
I clicked on hoping for a picture also. :)
I lived in Redding.....not much to do there, except perhaps.......
what diff does it make how she looks?
"Neither does the Catholic Church since many embryo's/children are created and subsequently destroyed..."
But it's not just that, Coleus, it's that the Church does not approve of any "third parties" being involved in reproduction. They are so in favor of "nature" they could basically be hippies. But I'm not sure ALL fertility medical help would be off the table. I'm not sure about that at all.
Maybe someone else can give more info.
Hey, she's a leadpenny.
Childbearing, like teaching and healing, is a vocation that inherently draws you OUT of yourself and orients you toward filling somebody else's needs and desires.
I am not denying that there is such a thing as blameworthy selfishness, and that someimes it can be expressed through your children (or through your church, or through your political party, your job, or any other way.)
I'm just saying that people who are able to have, raise, and provide for large families are, in the main, outstandingly generous, and are making a contribution that enriches everyone in this society and --- if they do it right --- enriches heaven, too.
I can't see bringing children into the world at such an advanced age that you probably won't live long enough to raise them.
Hey, if her other children are healthy and happy, why not? My grandparents were healthy and vital into their 90s.
My mother's doctor is amazed by the fact that she's still menstruating and (theoretically) fertile in her 60s.
My wife's great-grandmother was married at 16, had her first child at 17, and her sixteenth at 48. 12 of them survived to adulthood. She lived to be 90.
With the above noted exception, both my and my wife's families (Northern Europeans all) tend to have small numbers of large, healthy children very late in life.
A generation in our families is 25 or 30 years rather than the accepted figure of 20. Long lifespans, long fertile periods, low fertility rates- I think we're decended from Elves.
BTW ... for the fruitbats out here ... I wish this couple of putzes nothing, good or bad, just that they will now go away.
She has three great-grandchildren! Imagine being older than your great-uncle.
Not to mention that this 62 yr old woman is also BLIND! Did y'all catch that?
"Wulf is used to defying the odds. Blind since birth, she was a synchronized swimmer in high school..."
I know of a family that had 22 but it involved two sets of twins.
An obvious statement, given the storyline.
Her husband is 48 and her oldest son is 40?
Curiosity.
There are a lot of risks involved with in-vitro, one of the main being multiples.
I had twins (by act of God) at 34, and know first hand the toll that a twin pregnancy.
I think it is horrible for the doctor to actually go through with in-vitro on a woman of this age due to the risks to both the mom and the future babies.
Anyway, I think it is tooo risky and doctors should not be doing this.
I think we're decended from Elves.
They must have lived in a very big tree.
She said she doesn't like to raise one without a sibling .... sounds like there are plenty of "siblings" for her "young" husband.
And, she's BLIND!!! Unbelievable.
It's her 3rd husband
So, her newborn is what now? An uncle and great uncle already?
I don't care how many kids she has, but a blind cook is a hazard to the whole neighborhood.
I think the Catholic Church is right about in vitro. I believe strongly that to go the in vitro route requires a low view of life. How anyone can conceive several babies knowing in advance that the majority of them won't make it is beyond me. I understand the desire to have a child, but there are many children who need a loving home if the desire is that strong, and if the desire to raise a child is purely unselfish, which many claim it is. IMO in vitro is an act of selfishness, not an act of love, and reveals how many parents want to have children for their own selfish reasons.
My hat is off to the many parents who have children naturally, and who adopt, and truly do give of themselves sacrificially to raise them properly.
My daughter has a neighbor with 3 children. There is a set of 4 year old twins and a 3 year old. All 3 were conceived through in vitro. The weirdest aspect of it is that the 3 year old is a triplet of the twins. Her embryo wasn't implanted with theirs. Now their dilemma is that they have a few more frozen embryos and don't know what to do with them.
Let's see: 62 + 18 = 80. When this baby reaches 18, his mama will be 80. Somehow I just don't relish the idea of dealing with a teenager when I'm 80.
And that is the other reason I vehemently oppose in vitro. To me it's no different than abortion. In fact, in some ways it's worse. My blood ran cold when a friend of mine, who has had 2 babies by in vitro, told me she'd rather destroy (i.e. kill) their left-over embryos (i.e. unwanted babies) than to give them to someone else to raise.
Dear jocon307,
"But I'm not sure ALL fertility medical help would be off the table. I'm not sure about that at all."
Without getting into the graphic details, the Catholic Church permits some fertility treatments.
IVF is clearly not one of them.
sitetest
lol
I'm curious, because I contemplated in vitro quite a while back (before my fertility kicked in a little too well). I had planned on telling the doctor to only make embryos that we would actually implant me with (3 max, I guess) and implant all, no selective reductions, etc... Is that not an option? I figure if we were going to pay for it, we could set the ground rules.
I went to High School with a group of kids that had 18 kids in their family. All had the same Mom & Dad.
A guy I was in the Army with came from a family of 16 kids.
Those are the highest number of kids I know, but I'm sure that record's been beat. :)
Maybe someone should tell her where they come from. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.