quote:Originally posted by watchinittoomuch:
Oooh that's a big old can of worms you're touting there Lizzie
Who me?
Who me?
There's a reason nature dictates the cut off point for having children 
, not only is this child more likely to grow up without a parent, the mother is putting her own life at risk
, not only is this child more likely to grow up without a parent, the mother is putting her own life at risk
As for all this 'morally wrong' stuff.. a person gets on sticky ground when they start taking the moral inventory of another human being. It is one thing to have an opinion on something but quite another to start pointing at people's 'side of the street' and say that's not clean. No-ones is.
quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:
I wonder how people feel about Grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?
yup..
quote:Originally posted by Trix-ster:
There's a reason nature dictates the cut off point for having children
The reason nature dictates such a cut off point is that we weren't meant to live this long. Women used to die before they reached the menopause, as I mentioned that they still do in Zimbabwe (and other countries).
quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:
I wonder how people feel about Grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?
And grandparents who raise children who's parents cant look after them for numerous reasons either temporary or permanently.
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:
I wonder how people feel about Grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?
And grandparents who raise children who's parents cant look after them for numerous reasons either temporary or permanently.
I think, speaking personally, the difference is is in the fact that it's not deliberate
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Trix-ster:
There's a reason nature dictates the cut off point for having children
The reason nature dictates such a cut off point is that we weren't meant to live this long. Women used to die before they reached the menopause, as I mentioned that they still do in Zimbabwe (and other countries).
Yes, and now that we do our bodies aren't prepared for such a strain at such an age- because our bodies only produce the right materials for a certain length of time, then things start going wrong. We are a complicated machine and our guarantee runs out a lot earlier than we do nowadays, so why put even more pressure on?
quote:Originally posted by tupps:
As for all this 'morally wrong' stuff.. a person gets on sticky ground when they start taking the moral inventory of another human being. It is one thing to have an opinion on something but quite another to start pointing at people's 'side of the street' and say that's not clean. No-ones is.
I would agree with that.
Plus we really don't know her situation.Am sure she's thought long and hard about making her decision and maybe shes made plans if she dies whilst the child is young.Most of the rest of us take it for granted we'll be around to see our kids grow up and dont even consider this.
I think my objection to this (and I don't really care all that much - people can do what they want) is that I think that she has put her own needs before the needs of the child. I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned. Yes, of course anyone can lose their parents at any age - we know this, however hers has an increased likelihood which I think is quite selfish.
Of course, we could then discuss the teenage pregnancy epidemic we have at the moment, which also in many cases isn't the ideal start in life I would agree. These are young people who have made poor choices possibly to the detriment of the kids. This is a fully cooked, mature woman with lots of life experience and I have to say I think she has made a poor decision in this regard.
Like I say, I really don't care that much and I certainly wouldn't condemn her to death by stoning. She can do what she wants but this is just my opinion.
Of course, we could then discuss the teenage pregnancy epidemic we have at the moment, which also in many cases isn't the ideal start in life I would agree. These are young people who have made poor choices possibly to the detriment of the kids. This is a fully cooked, mature woman with lots of life experience and I have to say I think she has made a poor decision in this regard.
Like I say, I really don't care that much and I certainly wouldn't condemn her to death by stoning. She can do what she wants but this is just my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Trix-ster:
Yes, and now that we do our bodies aren't prepared for such a strain at such an age- because our bodies only produce the right materials for a certain length of time, then things start going wrong. We are a complicated machine and our guarantee runs out a lot earlier than we do nowadays, so why put even more pressure on?
But we have better mechanics nowadays and they can keep the machines working for longer. If she managed to concieve and get to eight months pregmunt, that in itself is pretty amazing!
quote:fully cooked, mature woman with lots of life experience
Sounds like a personals ad
quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:
I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned.
But then would you think the same of a woman who had a life limiting disease, but still wanted kids?
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:
I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned.
But then would you think the same of a woman who had a life limiting disease, but still wanted kids?
Yes I would.
Well there is this belief that we live longer now than we used to.. although the richer, wealthier folk used to live to the same age as we are capable of living now. Some people forget that. It was only the poor who died in their 30s and 40s... So even though more of us live to 'pension years' now, this doesn't mean we should be bringing a newborn baby of our OWN into our lives at 66. IMO Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally. The oldest you are allowed it in this country is 50. THAT is why the woman had to go somewhere else. Somewhere where they were just happy to take her money and didn't care about any consequences of a woman 'choosing' to have a child at 66. Why do people suppose the deadline is 50 in this country?
And I think people do have a right to get on their moral high ground, because there is a young life being brought into the world, who will be badly affected by this selfish woman's actions, when they are motherless at a very young age...
As someone has already stated, it's the fact that this woman is DELIBERATELY bringing a newborn of her own into the world at such an age, that is the problem here. I think it's morally wrong, I disagree with it and I think she is selfish and thoughtless and has not thought ahead about how the child will be alone at a young age.
And I think people do have a right to get on their moral high ground, because there is a young life being brought into the world, who will be badly affected by this selfish woman's actions, when they are motherless at a very young age...
As someone has already stated, it's the fact that this woman is DELIBERATELY bringing a newborn of her own into the world at such an age, that is the problem here. I think it's morally wrong, I disagree with it and I think she is selfish and thoughtless and has not thought ahead about how the child will be alone at a young age.
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Well there is this belief that we live longer now than we used to.. although the richer, wealthier folk used to live to the same age as we are capable of living now. Some people forget that. It was only the poor who died in their 30s... So even though more of us live to 'pension years' now, this doesn't mean we should be bringing a newborn baby of our OWN into our lives at 66. Women should not ne allowed IVF past the age that womnen would normally conceive naturally. The deadline in this country is 50. THAT is why the woman had to go somewhere else. Somewhere where they were just happy to take her money and didn't care about any consequences of a woman 'choosing' to have a child at 66.
And I think people do have a right to get on their moral high ground, because there is a young life being brought into the world, who will be badly affected by this selfish woman's actions, when they are motherless at a very young age...
As someone has already stated, it's the fact that this woman is DELIBERATELY bringing a newborn of her own into the world at such an age, that is the problem here. I think it's morally wrong, I disagree with it and I think she is selfish and thoughtless and has not thought ahead about how the child will be alone at a young age.
It depends which era in human evolution you mean. We all used to die young and yet the human species survived.
In fact, a lot of our most celebrated geniuses lost parents at an early age.
quote:In Zimbabwe the average life expectancy of women is 34 at the moment. Should they stop having kids?
There are so many things to think about when you have a child..will it sleep at night, how will it be when it's teething, will it be a sickly or healthy child (it doesnt have to be a complicated illness to affect the way a family copes) will it feed ok, will it develope at the 'normal' rate that other kids do, will it be a happy child or will it cry alot, will it have tantrums as it gets to toddler stage....all of these little things, but enough to affect any mother no matter what her age..
I think an older mother, and one approaching old age at that, will find any of these a challenge, and the fact that its a possiblilty that the child may have one or some or maybe all of the above will just put greater pressure on the mother given her age.
I hope she copes... because it's too late now..
I think an older mother, and one approaching old age at that, will find any of these a challenge, and the fact that its a possiblilty that the child may have one or some or maybe all of the above will just put greater pressure on the mother given her age.
I hope she copes... because it's too late now..
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
quote:Originally posted by Triggers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
Good question...
Who was that and when? I did actually say the age when women would NORMALLY naturally stop conceiving. This would be around mid 40s. The vast majority of women are not able to conceive naturally after that age. How many women have you ever known who conceived 'naturally' past the age of 45???quote:Originally posted by Triggers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
As I said, this country does not allow IVF after the age of 50 years old. Why do you think that is?
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:
I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned.
But then would you think the same of a woman who had a life limiting disease, but still wanted kids?
Took the words out of my mouth lizzie.
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:Who was that and when? I did actually say the age when women would NORMALLY naturally stop conceiving. This would be around mid 40s. The vast majority of women are not able to conceive naturally after that age. How many women have you ever known who conceived 'naturally' past the age of 45???quote:Originally posted by Triggers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
As I said, this country does not allow IVF after the age of 50 years old. Why do you think that is?
My aunt was 47 when she had my cousin and that was 25 years ago.
Women are staying fertile longer so it's possible a lady in her early 50s could concieve.
Whether or not they can carry the baby to term is another question tho.
quote:My aunt was 47 when she had my cousin and that was 25 years ago
I have never known anyone conceive naturally past 43, but that's just me... I guess it's possible a woman could conceive at 47, and if nature made that happen... fine, but 66 is a totally different kettle of fish. It's a GENERATION older. And as she is actively choosing to do it; it's crazy.quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
My aunt was 47 when she had my cousin and that was 25 years ago.
Women are staying fertile longer so it's possible a lady in her early 50s could concieve.
Whether or not they can carry the baby to term is another question tho.
The world's oldest woman to give birth was Omkari Panwar, 70, from India, who gave birth to a twin boy and girl last year.
^^^ crikey
^^^ crikey
But taking that argument to its logical conclusion.. about 'normal naturally conceiving'.. then that puts the question of all women using IVF to conceive. What is 'normal'? Any woman using IVF to conceive is judged as not being able to conceive naturally. That is why medical assistance is needed.
From what you have posted CP, it is not so much about having the child as her age that seems to be the problem for you. But many women have children beyond their 20s and 30s for a whole host of reasons. And yes some have had them into their 50s. But the same remains for all of them.. none know when they are going to die. None know if they may have an illness or accident which may leave them disabled or infirm.
If people decided on having children based on might be or maybe then the human race would die out.
From what you have posted CP, it is not so much about having the child as her age that seems to be the problem for you. But many women have children beyond their 20s and 30s for a whole host of reasons. And yes some have had them into their 50s. But the same remains for all of them.. none know when they are going to die. None know if they may have an illness or accident which may leave them disabled or infirm.
If people decided on having children based on might be or maybe then the human race would die out.
quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:
Took the words out of my mouth lizzie.
A friend of mine has a sister with MS and she actually made her condition worse by having kids. I think people underestimate the strength of the natural desire to procreate.
quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:
I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned.
But then would you think the same of a woman who had a life limiting disease, but still wanted kids?
Took the words out of my mouth lizzie.
And I said I actually would.
Who was that and when? I did actually say the age when women would NORMALLY naturally stop conceiving. This would be around mid 40s. The vast majority of women are not able to conceive naturally after that age. How many women have you ever known who conceived 'naturally' past the age of 45???quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triggers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Women should not be allowed IVF past the age that women would normally conceive naturally.
What age do you think is acceptable then? The oldest person to conceive naturally was 57 years old.
------------------------------------------------
It was in the late 90's and in America I think. Since you asked I DO know a woman who conceived naturally after YOUR cut off point of 45 years old. How did she feel? She felt absolutely overjoyed to have been given the gift of another child. To her chagrin and sad dismay she felt a certain amount of embarrassment by the reaction of some other mothers in the maternity ward and then the school gates. Its sad that, don't you think?
quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Girlrider29:
I can absolutely understand the yearning for a child, however, in achieving this she'll be bringing a child into the world with an increased likelihood of the child being orphaned.
But then would you think the same of a woman who had a life limiting disease, but still wanted kids?
Yes I would.
Even knowing they had a dad,grandparent,family,etc, that could raise the child??And may even be a comfort to the family after you'd gone??
Thanks Blizzie, but the fact that it's made headlines in a national newspaper proves how rare it is. Let's face it, not many women have babies 'naturally' at almost 60 do they? (That's if she actualy 'did' conceive naturally...' I must say if *I* conceived naturally as this woman supposedly did, I am not sure I would go ahead with the birth, as I would think it extremely unfair to the child.quote:
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:I have never known anyone conceive naturally past 43, but that's just me... I guess it's possible a woman could conceive at 47, and if nature made that happen... fine, but 66 is a totally different kettle of fish. It's a GENERATION older. And as she is actively choosing to do it; it's crazy.quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
My aunt was 47 when she had my cousin and that was 25 years ago.
Women are staying fertile longer so it's possible a lady in her early 50s could concieve.
Whether or not they can carry the baby to term is another question tho.
Its a massive health risk to her.But I dont think we can judge her as we dont know much about her apart from the fact shes 66
Before the pill some women would have conceived in their forties and fifties and life expectancy was about 70 years old, so it's not much different, is it?
I don't know what else to say TBH Tupps, without repeating myself over and over... I just think CHOOSING to have a baby at 66 is wrong for so many reasons which I have outlined in my numerous posts here. Many other people have stated many reasons against it too. Clearly you disagree with me. I disagree with you. That's cool. People on here aren't going to agree in everything all the time.quote:Originally posted by tupps:
But taking that argument to its logical conclusion.. about 'normal naturally conceiving'.. then that puts the question of all women using IVF to conceive. What is 'normal'? Any woman using IVF to conceive is judged as not being able to conceive naturally. That is why medical assistance is needed.
From what you have posted CP, it is not so much about having the child as her age that seems to be the problem for you. But many women have children beyond their 20s and 30s for a whole host of reasons. And yes some have had them into their 50s. But the same remains for all of them.. none know when they are going to die. None know if they may have an illness or accident which may leave them disabled or infirm.
If people decided on having children based on might be or maybe then the human race would die out.
Never known one single woman EVER to conceive 'naturally' in the 50s.quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:
Before the pill some women would have conceived in their forties and fifties and life expectancy was about 70 years old, so it's not much different, is it?
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
I don't know what else to say TBH Tupps, without repeating myself over and over... I just thing CHOOSING to have a baby at 66 is wrong for so many reasons which I have outlined in my numerous posts here. Clearly you disagree with me. I disagree with you. That's cool. People on here aren't going to agree in everything all the time.
Of course not.. and what would this forum be without differing opinions huh..
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Moonbeams:
Took the words out of my mouth lizzie.
A friend of mine has a sister with MS and she actually made her condition worse by having kids. I think people underestimate the strength of the natural desire to procreate.
Snap. My friend has MS and had ivf she has beautful twin girls now. But she is paying the toll now health wise. But the smile on her face and her girls(she has an older girl as well) faces is the best thing ever.She's not one to be told what she can and can't do.
quote:Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Thanks Blizzie, but the fact that it's made headlines in a national newspaper proves how rare it is. Let's face it, not many women have babies 'naturally' at almost 60 do they? (That's if she actualy 'did' conceive naturally...' I must say if *I* conceived naturally as this woman supposedly did, I am not sure I would go ahead with the birth, as I would think it extremely unfair to the child.
Of course it's rare, but then women wanting IVF at sixty plus will also be rare.
I'm not sure terminating a pregnancy for the sake of the child, despite actually wanting the child, makes much sense.
Humans have and still do survive much worse than losing parents in their twenties, or even their teens.