quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
Nature also dictates that a lot of us should have died in infacy but medical sience has kept us alive.

The original poster said nature is sometimes right. Having just watched someone of my age die a long and painful death I know exactly what you mean though.

Where is this confirmation that most of us should all have died in infancy?

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
Nature also dictates that a lot of us should have died in infacy but medical sience has kept us alive.

The original poster said nature is sometimes right. Having just watched someone of my age die a long and painful death I know exactly what you mean though.

Where is this confirmation that most of us should all have died in infancy?

You misunderstand...
Read 'em again.

quote:

Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:
It's a liberty...nature has made sure that this doesnt happen in the way women naturally age, and for her to put her own needs before that of a child is selfish and ultimately wrong.

Absolutely agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
Nature also dictates that a lot of us should have died in infacy but medical sience has kept us alive.

The original poster said nature is sometimes right. Having just watched someone of my age die a long and painful death I know exactly what you mean though.

Where is this confirmation that most of us should all have died in infancy?

When Did I say most Are you aware of infant mortality rates in undeveloped worlds.

quote:

Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:As I said in a previous post a parents age is no guarantee that they will be with them until they are an adult.

As medical advances has allowed women to become pregnant later in life why should they be denied the use of these advances.

There is no guarantee that a woman having a baby at 30 will not die at 40, but she is a LOT more likely to live and be healthy til the child is a responsible mature adult, than a woman who has a baby at 66.

And yes, medical advances have enabled us to find cures for diseases, but using medical advancement to satisfy someone's selfish needs, by bringing a human life into the world and having a baby when you are almost SEVENTY, is selfish and wrong..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:When Did I say most Are you aware if infant mortality rates in undeveloped worlds.[QUOTE]

You said a LOT of us... that sounds like you were saying 'most' to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
Nature also dictates that a lot of us should have died in infacy but medical sience has kept us alive.

The original poster said nature is sometimes right. Having just watched someone of my age die a long and painful death I know exactly what you mean though.

Where is this confirmation that most of us should all have died in infancy?

They said a "lot of us" not most. I presume they said this because many people, children and adults, have required medical intervention over the years which nature would otherwise have condemned us to a early grave.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:When Did I say most Are you aware if infant mortality rates in undeveloped worlds.[QUOTE]

You said a LOT of us... that sounds like you were saying 'most' to me.

Well you are quite wrong that is NOT what I ment or said and I will kindly ask you not to put words into my mouth

this is an interesting thread

but im off for my breakfast now-i just looked at butchers thread and saw all them sausages

ina bit

quote:

Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:

As I said above, it's OK to intervene and cure illnesses and diseases, with medical advancement ... but it's incredibly selfish and irresponsible to use it to bring a baby into the world when you are nearly 70.

This thread is about having babies in your late 60s, NOT about medical advancement curing diseases.. Can we get back on topic please??? Thank you.

Imho.. it is no worse than some kid having kids.

quote:

Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
Nature also dictates that a lot of us should have died in infacy but medical sience has kept us alive.

The original poster said nature is sometimes right. Having just watched someone of my age die a long and painful death I know exactly what you mean though.

Where is this confirmation that most of us should all have died in infancy?

They said a "lot of us" not most. I presume they said this because many people, children and adults, have required medical intervention over the years which nature would otherwise have condemned us to a early grave.

Yes injections etc.

As I said: This thread is about having babies in your late 60s, NOT about medical advancement curing illness and diseases..... Can we get back on topic please??? Thank you.

So having a baby in your 60's in nothing to do with advances in medicine

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
So having a baby in your 60's in nothing to do with advances in medicine

Having a baby is your late 60s, is NOT anything to do with medical advancement curing illness and disease, no.

As I said, can we get back on-topic please? thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
So having a baby in your 60's in nothing to do with advances in medicine

Having a baby is your late 60s, is NOT anything to do with medical advancement curing illness and disease, no.

As I said, can we get back on-topic please? thank you.

I think that some of the responsibility for this should lie with the medical team who agreed to her having the treatment...I assume she paid for the treatment?

quote:

Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:
I think that some of the responsibility for this should lie with the medical team who agreed to her having the treatment...I assume she paid for the treatment?

Oh yes .... she paid for it. And she went overseas, to an eastern block country, because over here in the UK, they will quite sensibly not give IVF to anyone over 50..

So i can only post if I agree with you and keep the argument to slagging off the woman in question. sorry but that is not debate. Debate involves differing points of view. Not wanting to put words in your mounth but you clearly only want to hear from people who agree 100% with you. That is a great shame.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:
I think that some of the responsibility for this should lie with the medical team who agreed to her having the treatment...I assume she paid for the treatment?

Oh yes .... she paid for it. And she went overseas, to an eastern block country, because over here in the UK, they will quite sensibly not give IVF to anyone over 50..

So for the doctors it was a business transaction only

Who will support her? At least with a young parent there are usually parents and family around to help, if this woman struggles who is there to share the hard times?

Children are sadly orphaned by parents of all ages so to base the argument on this factor seems wrong. She could live till she is 100 years old - who really knows. I agree that 66 is too old to have a baby but I also have to say that in the pictures I saw, she looked very fit and healthy. Youth is not the most important pre-requisite for bringing up a baby - there are unfortunately MANY cases in our country where children are being let down by much younger parents.
I find it hard to be too hard on this woman. I will re-iterate that I do agree she is too old but perhaps she also feels that after many years of aching to hold a baby and having only one life it is a wish and a hope and a dream that she must fulfil. I hope and pray she has many years ahead with what she has obviously sought so hard to achieve.

quote:

Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
So i can only post if I agree with you and keep the argument to slagging off the woman in question. sorry but that is not debate. Debate involves differing points of view. Not wanting to put words in your mounth but you clearly only want to hear from people who agree 100% with you. That is a great shame.

I simply asked if we could get back to the topic in question, which was basically 'is it morally right for a woman to have a baby at 66 years old?' You seem to insist on talking about medical advancement curing illnesses, which is nothing to do with the topic in question.

If you see it as me saying 'you can only post if you agree with me,' then that is your problem. You are the only one on this thread who is actually turning this into an argument.

I am not going to spend the rest of this thread arguing with you. Feel free to post away with your opinions, but as you see everything I say as an attack on you, then I shan't be answering you again in this thread. Good day to you.

quote:

Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:So for the doctors it was a business transaction only

Who will support her? At least with a young parent there are usually parents and family around to help, if this woman struggles who is there to share the hard times?

Exactly. There will be no-one else to help or support the child if the woman dies at 78 to 80, which is not an uncommon age for someone to die. As i said, people should think this through before bringing a baby into the world at almost 70 years of age.

Oh whats the bloody point.

quote:

Originally posted by Triggers:
Children are sadly orphaned by parents of all ages so to base the argument on this factor seems wrong. She could live till she is 100 years old - who really knows. I agree that 66 is too old to have a baby but I also have to say that in the pictures I saw, she looked very fit and healthy. Youth is not the most important pre-requisite for bringing up a baby - there are unfortunately MANY cases in our country where children are being let down by much younger parents.
I find it hard to be too hard on this woman. I will re-iterate that I do agree she is too old but perhaps she also feels that after many years of aching to hold a baby and having only one life it is a wish and a hope and a dream that she must fulfil. I hope and pray she has many years ahead with what she has obviously sought so hard to achieve.

Good post and good points ... but I still think it's utter madness to bring a baby into the world when you're almost 70. As I have said.... The child will more than likely end up an orphan at a young age, (maybe even less than teens...) or a carer. As nature does not usually allow women to have babies past middle age (mid 40s,,,) why does anyone think they anyone should be having one at 66? We stop conceiving at our middle age for a reason...

quote:

Originally posted by Triggers:
Children are sadly orphaned by parents of all ages so to base the argument on this factor seems wrong. She could live till she is 100 years old - who really knows. I agree that 66 is too old to have a baby but I also have to say that in the pictures I saw, she looked very fit and healthy. Youth is not the most important pre-requisite for bringing up a baby - there are unfortunately MANY cases in our country where children are being let down by much younger parents.
I find it hard to be too hard on this woman. I will re-iterate that I do agree she is too old but perhaps she also feels that after many years of aching to hold a baby and having only one life it is a wish and a hope and a dream that she must fulfil. I hope and pray she has many years ahead with what she has obviously sought so hard to achieve.

One last comment.. you said pretty much what I feel.

I'm with SRT on the counters to the argument that she should not be bringing a child into the world.

The argument that she shouldn't have a child because she may die leaving a child orphaned is flawed. It can equally happen to a child whose parent/parents are of 'acceptable' child bearing age. There may be an issue of the mother is in her 60s so the chances are increased, but it is not a given.

Similarly, the whole she is over what nature dictates is child bearing age so that must mean she shouldn't have a child. Well how does that equate to people who are of child bearing age but for one reason or another have to have medical intervention in order to conceive and deliver a full term baby. Should they not have children because nature has dealt them a cruel hand?

I think the most important thing is.. is the child going to be wanted, loved and cared for.. for however long the parent(s) are around. As for the possibility of her passing on before the child reaches maturity.. well I would have thought that had to have crossed her mind.. maybe she has put measure in place should that happen. We just don't know do we.

quote:

Originally posted by Marguerita:
It goes without saying.. ridiculous.

Well said Marguerita. The poll results speak volumes. Most people feel the same. It's a bad idea...to have a baby at the age of 66 years old.

I assume this woman hasn't any other children?

The urge in her to have children must be very strong for her to consider having them so late in life and to me 66 seems very old and the child may not have many years with her mother.

However, there are no definites in life and women much younger leave their children orphans and unfortunately there are many women of childbearing age who are unprepared to take on the huge responsibility of a child.

I think it comes down to choice ultimately and if she has approached it responsibly then I cannot condemn her and hope that she's has a long and healthy life with her child.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Nuts:
I agree, very selfish. Stupid Bitch!!

Looks like that's the feeling of the majority here.

Most people on here though haven't resorted to childish name calling.

quote:

The argument that she shouldn't have a child because she may die leaving a child orphaned is flawed. It can equally happen to a child whose parent/parents are of 'acceptable' child bearing age. There may be an issue of the mother is in her 60s so the chances are increased, but it is not a given.

That's true tupps, but dealing with 'fate' and deliberately going out of your way to have a child knowing full well your time with them may be limited is what's different here.

Nature is very cruel, in many different ways to millions of people round the world, but they all have to deal with it, accept it and live with it, and in most cases it affects only them directly, others around them just have to adapt. This woman's decision directly affects herself AND her child, and the possiblity that the child will be left motherless and without any supporting family just feels like too big a gamble to me in the face of the woman just accepting that maybe she shouldnt have had a child...

This of course is just my opinion, but it all feels wrong to me.

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:

The argument that she shouldn't have a child because she may die leaving a child orphaned is flawed. It can equally happen to a child whose parent/parents are of 'acceptable' child bearing age. There may be an issue of the mother is in her 60s so the chances are increased, but it is not a given.

Similarly, the whole she is over what nature dictates is child bearing age so that must mean she shouldn't have a child. Well how does that equate to people who are of child bearing age but for one reason or another have to have medical intervention in order to conceive and deliver a full term baby. Should they not have children because nature has dealt them a cruel hand?

I think the most important thing is.. is the child going to be wanted, loved and cared for.. for however long the parent(s) are around. As for the possibility of her passing on before the child reaches maturity.. well I would have thought that had to have crossed her mind.. maybe she has put measure in place should that happen. We just don't know do we.

As i said in the original post tupps, I have no problem whatsoever with a woman having IVF if she is of child bearing age, because nature has been cruel and has made her unable to conceive or whatever..

But a woman having a baby at 66 is wrong on so many levels. The needs and desires this woman has to have a baby, may be strong, but she is 66 years old, and should NOT be allowed to have IVF in my opinion.

No matter how many different ways people say 'the mum could still die when the child is only 10 or 15, even if she has the baby at 30... there are NO guarantees....;' her child is probably 100 times more likely to be an orphan or a carer in their teens than a child would be if their mother had had them at 30/35 years old or less..

quote:

Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Nuts:
I agree, very selfish. Stupid Bitch!!

Looks like that's the feeling of the majority here.

Most people on here though haven't resorted to childish name calling.

Their loss.

quote:

Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:That's true tupps, but dealing with 'fate' and deliberately going out of your way to have a child knowing full well your time with them may be limited is what's different here.

Nature is very cruel, in many different ways to millions of people round the world, but they all have to deal with it, accept it and live with it, and in most cases it affects only them directly, others around them just have to adapt. This woman's decision directly affects herself AND her child, and the possiblity that the child will be left motherless and without any supporting family just feels like too big a gamble to me in the face of the woman just accepting that maybe she shouldnt have had a child...

This of course is just my opinion, but it all feels wrong to me.

Excellent post 'watchittoomuch,' Couldn't have put it better myself... It's the fact she is DELIBERATELY putting her child in the position of being an orphan or carer at a very young age that is the issue, just to satisfy her cravings..

quote:

Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Nuts:
I agree, very selfish. Stupid Bitch!!

Looks like that's the feeling of the majority here.

Most people on here though haven't resorted to childish name calling.

Shall we start?

I wonder how people feel about Grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?

Mother nature stops women having babies after their mid 50s not ecause its morally wrong to bring a child into this world at that age,but it's downright dangerous.
Pregancies a risky business.When my son was born i had to have an emergency operation to save my life.Without medical intervention their dad would have had to raise 4 cildren under the age of six.
The risks pregnancy poses to the mother are greater with age.Thats why women past childbearing age arent encouraged to have babies even if the tools to do so are available.Its not a judgement issue.Its medical.

It's hard to judge, without knowing the woman and all the details.

The human race wouldn't have got very far, if we had worried about dying and leaving our offspring at a youngish age.

In Zimbabwe the average life expectancy of women is 34 at the moment. Should they stop having kids?

quote:

Originally posted by Blizzie:
It's hard to judge, without knowing the woman and all the details.

The human race wouldn't have got very far, if we had worried about dying and leaving our offspring at a youngish age.

In Zimbabwe the average life expectancy of women is 34 at the moment. Should they stop having kids?

Oooh that's a big old can of worms you're touting there Lizzie

quote:

Originally posted by Moonbeams:
I wonder how people feel about Grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?

The OP wants to keep this thread on topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
As i said in the original post tupps, I have no problem whatsoever with a woman having IVF if she is of child bearing age, because nature has been cruel and has made her unable to conceive or whatever..

But a woman having a baby at 66 is wrong on so many levels. The needs and desires this woman has to have a baby, may be strong, but she is 66 years old, and should NOT be allowed to have IVF in my opinion.

No matter how many different ways people say it; her child is MORE than likely 100 times more likely to be an orphan or a carer in their teens than a child would be whose mother had had them at 30/35 years old or less..

Without any knowledge of her back story it would be difficult to know why she has made this decision wouldn't it. IVF has been around for 27 years.. not that long really and continually advancing all the time. Maybe she could never conceive naturally. Maybe the opportunity for IVF was not available to her when it first hit the fertility scene. Maybe maybe maybe..

I'm not sure how you get the 100 times more likely statistic. And without her medical records and a crystal ball how are we to know that she will not live to a ripe old age and be there until her child reaches maturity? How do we know she won't be an active older person? How do we know that her child will end up being a carer for her? There are many variables.

And where do you draw the line? 40? 50? 60?

I'm not saying it is the wisest decision but it is her decision. If she has gone through the whole IVF proceedure and pregnancy I'm sure she hasn't done it lightly. As I said.. my only feeling about this is that I hope the child is happy, loved etc... for however long she is in the child's life.