maybe now fertility clincs will think twice

[BroomJockey]

If someone were to ask those twins in twenty years, "Did your mother make the right decision in having IVF at that age?", I suspect they'd be fully in support of it.

I'd be highly disturbed if they weren't. Anyone who says "I shouldn't have been born, and my parents did wrong in having me" probably has mental issues.

[DesignFox]

I<snip>

So, DesignFox, it's not an automatic sentence of physical horror. I mean, everyone's different, but I guess some women at least don't find it so bad.

This is good to hear. I know one or two women who had "glowing" pregnancies. But I also know quite a few who developed all sorts of fun issues during/afterward.

I will say that I don't know a single mother who didn't want their child, though. Even if the pregnancy wasn't all roses and sunshine, she was happy to have children.

At this stage of my life I prefer not to (and I'm no where near in a position to consider it, anyway.) So I don't want to risk going through the nightmare pregnancy, either. I have plenty of other reasons why I prefer not to go through it, too. But I'll leave it alone for now.

I do hope those twins end up alright...I wouldn't expect them to not want to have been born, but perhaps in twenty years if you asked them how they felt about what their mother did, they may have mixed feelings (like, I wish she had done this when she was younger...etc.). We won't know unless things go well and someone decides to eventually ask that question.

[Boozy]

I'd be highly disturbed if they weren't. Anyone who says "I shouldn't have been born, and my parents did wrong in having me" probably has mental issues.

Yes, that was my point. There's always a case to be made that creating human life in any situation has value.

[BroomJockey]

There's always a case to be made that creating human life in any situation has value.

To the person making it, to the person being made, yes. But to society, in any situation, no.

I can understand the desire to have kids that are, in that ineffable way, "yours," and I'd like to have kids myself, but if I make it to 60, married, and don't have kids by that point, I don't think it's a great idea to have them then. The physical requirements of waking up at all hours, chasing them once they begin locomotioning, are things that at that age I'm less likely to be able to deal with. The life created in that situation has value, but am I honestly doing anyone a favour by creating that life? I'd be less effective as a parent at that age than I'd have been when I was say, 30.

Or the parents whose children are starving, and they have no income. And then they have another kid. The life created has value, but in that situation, it was a valueless decision.

There's a difference between the process of deciding, and the results of that decision. And this was a decision. It's not like she accidentally wandered in to a fertility clinic and was implanted when someone else was supposed to be in for the procedure. It in no way is equivalent to someone having an unplanned pregnancy. If she'd actually valued the life she was deciding to create, she'd have contemplated the factors limiting her ability to protect, nurture, and assist that life. Thus she wasn't placing sufficient value on THAT life, compared to her own and the process of deciding.

[Flyndaran]

Interesting how most people that want to limit other's reproduction rights are the ones that don't want kids of their own.
Evolution made our instinct to reproduce, and those without it that don't reproduce will get left by the wayside genetically.
The supreme court of the U.S. and most human rights organizations deem reproduction a human right.
Honestly, what is more innately human than the ability to pass on to the next generation their heritage?

[Lace Neil Singer]

This isn't natural reproduction tho, this is basically implanting embryos into someone who's reproductive life is over. Just cuz we can, does not mean that we should.

Reproduction is a right only as long as nature allows it; if you are a sixty nine year old woman and you are telling LIES to get yourself impregnated for no other reason than your own selfish desires, then that is the height of selfishness. If she'd wanted something to cuddle and that would give her unconditional love, she should have gotten a puppy or kitten. That could have been fairly easily rehomed after she died.

There is also the fact that the cancer could have well been prevented... by her putting her selfish feelings aside and not telling fibs to get herself fertility treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...twin-boys.html

As for Miss Bousada's cancer, it is understood that the former shop worker had been told that the drugs used during her fertility treatment may have hastened the advance of the disease.

It is known that some types of cancer are sensitive to hormones associated with both pregnancy and fertility treatment. Miss Bousada told doctors in Los Angeles that she was 55 when she travelled there to undergo IVF treatment.

[DesignFox]

This isn't natural reproduction tho, this is basically implanting embryos into someone who's reproductive life is over. Just cuz we can, does not mean that we should.

Reproduction is a right only as long as nature allows it; <snip>

Bingo.

I'm not saying that we need to take perfectly healthy people and sterilize them. I'm not even saying that we should prevent people from having children who can't afford them- so long as they do it naturally and don't pay THOUSANDS of dollars to have a kid they can't afford!

You don't go into debt just to get something that is going to put you more into debt (oh, wait, I live in America...)

If you're biological clock ticked it's last tock, don't have a kid for god's sake.

[daleduke17]

I've seen this response from you quite a bit.

What do you consider news?

This is not news that a lady died and orphaned her kids. The fact she was north of 60 when she had the kids isn't noteworthy, either. This just gives pro-adoption fanatics more fuel to chastise regular folks who want to give birth.

This story (and related ones) gave the old kook exactly what she wanted: attention.

[BlaqueKatt]

Honestly, what is more innately human than the ability to pass on to the next generation their heritage?

This is not about that-besides this woman was past menopause=no eggs left-she was not "passing on her genetics" in any manner-I had my kid, and due to my genetics I will not be passing on any further-how do you feel knowing that because I exercised my "basic human right" your tax dollars will be paying to care for my son-he's autistic-to the point where he doesn't even speak, will never be able to live a fully productive life-heck he's 8 years old and just got out of diapers. Should I have a ton more kids to feel "fulfilled", nope I plan on adopting in a few years, I am not selfish enough to have the desire to pass on my very defective DNA.

[BroomJockey]

regular folks who want to give birth.

She was hardly regular. Regular people don't get to spend tens of thousands of dollars to cheat nature's decision about who gets to have kids.

[Flyndaran]

This is not about that-besides this woman was past menopause=no eggs left-she was not "passing on her genetics" in any manner-I had my kid, and due to my genetics I will not be passing on any further-how do you feel knowing that because I exercised my "basic human right" your tax dollars will be paying to care for my son-he's autistic-to the point where he doesn't even speak, will never be able to live a fully productive life-heck he's 8 years old and just got out of diapers. Should I have a ton more kids to feel "fulfilled", nope I plan on adopting in a few years, I am not selfish enough to have the desire to pass on my very defective DNA.

Menopause has nothing to do with number of viable eggs left. That's a common misconception. Hormones can cause a post-menopausal woman to produce more viable eggs.

Even if that wasn't the case here, it still all falls down to making medical decisions by congress. I refuse to give them that power, and I doubt most others would either except on personally chosen issues.

As to nature versus technology, that decision was already made by our primate ancestors millions of years ago. Nature is something to be controlled and fought til our dying breaths.

No one has the right to say that I shouldn't do what I want because it isn't natural. Just because you might pay for it in some way, does not give you the right to chip away at my human rights. Or do you really believe that everyone doing things that might impinge you and your tax dollars shouldn't get medical technology?

If you do, then I certainly don't want to live in your ultimately totalitarian state. Any personal choice that might lead to advanced technology when they "didn't have to make that choice", shouldn't get it? Obese needing heart surgery, then to bad. Smoker needing lung surgery, then to bad? etc.

[BroomJockey]

If you do, then I certainly don't want to live in your ultimately totalitarian state. Any personal choice that might lead to advanced technology when they "didn't have to make that choice", shouldn't get it? Obese needing heart surgery, then to bad. Smoker needing lung surgery, then to bad? etc.

And I don't want to live in your anarchic state where your whims get to ride rough-shod over my rights. As for your examples, they're specious at best, unless by "surgery" you meant "transplants." And smokers don't get lung transplants, and obese people don't get heart transplants. For "surgery" to work, there'd have to be a limited number of total surgeries available. After all, there's a limited number of foster homes and people doing adoptions, and space in children's homes.

[BlaqueKatt]

Menopause has nothing to do with number of viable eggs left. That's a common misconception. Hormones can cause a post-menopausal woman to produce more viable eggs.

you had better let the medical community know that-they're under the impression that menopause is when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs.

Menopause

"What causes menopause?

A woman is born with a finite number of eggs, which are stored in the ovaries. The ovaries also produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which regulate menstruation and ovulation. Menopause occurs when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs and no amount of stimulation from the regulating hormones can force them to work. "


again typing "what causes menopause" into google led to this after 5 seconds-stop posting your opinions as fact without checking them-really it takes under 10 seconds.

[Flyndaran]

And I don't want to live in your anarchic state where your whims get to ride rough-shod over my rights. As for your examples, they're specious at best, unless by "surgery" you meant "transplants." And smokers don't get lung transplants, and obese people don't get heart transplants. For "surgery" to work, there'd have to be a limited number of total surgeries available. After all, there's a limited number of foster homes and people doing adoptions, and space in children's homes.

Famous alcoholics get transplants here in the U.S. And smokers get them if they pretend to quite for a while.
I guess that transplant teams are far more totalitarian than most of the U.S.
Usually the organ goes to whoever is closest and the best match. I wouldn't want any other considerations to be taken.
How many heart transplant patients aren't obese? Not being able to get up to move seems like a great pusher towards obesity.
Adoption criteria are much much much stricter than fostering is here in the U.S. It's still the same kid. Ever hear of how it's legal for gays to foster kids, but not adopt them in florida?

I believe in personal freedoms trumping everything butothers' rights when verifiablly proven and only when it isn't against fundamental human rights to life, reproduction, marriage, etc.
My right to eat trumps your right to never get fallen on by a fat guy.
My right to needlessly endanger my life should trump your right to get hit by a flying fat guy.

[BroomJockey]

Famous alcoholics get transplants here in the U.S. And smokers get them if they pretend to quite for a while.

And we could debate all day about famous people receiving preferential treatment, I'm sure.

http://www.jhltonline.org/article/PI...ltext#sec1.4.1 Obese patients are to lose weight or suffer an "adverse outcome of transplantation" (doctor-speak for fukkin' ded).

I believe in personal freedoms trumping everything butothers' rights when verifiablly proven and only when it isn't against fundamental human rights to life, reproduction, marriage, etc.

And you are not entitled to any of my money to support your progeny when you kick off 'cause your dumb arse had kids when you were physically unfit to do so, and it's my personal freedom to have fewer unhoused rugrats running around because some fucking idiot put her desire to shoot living beings from her crotch instead of using her brain. This woman in absolutely no way was fit to be a parent, either physically (dying proved that), or mentally (bankrupting herself proved that). If she'd managed to have a kid just by fucking every sailor in port, then I'd hail a medical miracle of natural conception so late in life, then call her an idiot still for having kids so late in life. But at least she'd have had money to look after them, instead of creating a burden on an already stressed social-safety net.