THE 2,000-YEAR-OLD MOM

By MARGARET CARLSON

I trace much of the distemper between the sexes to the fact that men can reproduce in near perpetuity, marrying and remarrying, having second and third families, with rarely a raised eyebrow about their right to do so. For men who have a late child, there's a nudge and a wink from your pals, a spread in People if you're Clint Eastwood, and a bump in the polls if you're Strom Thurmond. A trophy kid is so common among the '90s tycoons, you'd think it was a corporate perk, like stock options. Meanwhile, a woman's peak childbearing years coincide precisely with her peak career-building years. Try having a baby at age 38 while your tier of associates at Shearman & Sterling is up for partnership. See who becomes "of counsel."

Still, the news that a 63-year-old California woman gave birth to a baby girl gave me pause. She will be pushing 80 when this child is denting the family car, filling the hamper and emptying the refrigerator. What's more, 63 is not the outer limit. What this birth shows is that by using donor eggs, a woman can carry a child well into her dotage, like the legendary Thurmond. Think about it: Mother Teresa could become a mother.

Dr. Mark Sauer, director of the fertility program at New York City's Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, admits that the uproar "speaks to ageism and a double standard in society." Though the cutoff in his program is 55 (there's no cutoff for men), he had treated the woman earlier, believing she was 53. Now that she has given birth, he says, "I'm happy with the outcome, but I can't endorse the practice because of the risks. We see serious obstetrical complications in more than half the women over the age of 45." But if a woman accepts the risk, this medical advance could alter the emotional landscape. With her clock not ticking, a woman of a certain age will be less likely to size up a suitor as a potential father while he is still treating relationships as if they were disposable diapers. Gradually, it might even become fashionable for older women to marry younger men.

But because women can have babies past their prime, just like men, does it mean they should abuse the privilege, just like men? Why not adopt an older child? Isn't having a baby so late selfish--especially if both are codgers--robbing a child of parents who can toss a ball and chaperone the camping trip?

Sadly, adoption is often not an option; past menopause, it's more difficult than learning how to program a VCR. And 9 out of 10 reasons for having a child have always been selfish--from having an extra farmhand, to all my friends are having kids, to I'm bored with wine tours of Provence. The older the parents, the more serious the decision. What an older mother loses to lower back pain, she gains in serenity and perspective. Only the most determined women, like the Italian mother who gave birth at 62 after her only son was killed in a motorcycle accident, are going to undertake 2 a.m. feedings and toilet training in their seventh decade. There aren't going to be many such mothers, but if medicine can help make it so, why not greet them with the same joy accorded Tony Randall, who appeared on David Letterman the same day news about the California mother broke. He had just had his first child at 77, without any fear that a doctor could tell him not to.