Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Gav · 01-17-2005, 12:29 PM

Apparently a Romanian lecturer has given birth at 66. This followed a lengthy period of IVF and not all the babies survived. What do you all think?

There is a link to the story on BBC news here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4179057.stm

Maeve_Mari · 01-17-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gav

Apparently a Romanian lecturer has given birth at 66. This followed a lengthy period of IVF and not all the babies survived. What do you all think?

I don't know if it is an ethical question. It is definitely an insanity question.
Out of curiosity, was there a reason for her wanting to have a baby? Bone marrow or blood transfusion or did she just want to be a momma?

mrbiggs · 01-17-2005, 12:41 PM

I saw that, and my immediate response was "who was the poor bastard who had to impregnate a 66 year old woman?"

Maeve_Mari · 01-17-2005, 12:43 PM

I don't know if it is an ethical question. It is definitely an insanity question.

As to her "right" to have a baby.... my first reaction was, what about men? Is there a point in time where they should no longer be able to impregnate? Should we establish a timetable by which they are "turned off" also? Or is it okay for men to keep depositing so long as they mate with young women??? If pregnancy is possible, it can't be denied a woman because of her age.

I think that it is pretty outrageous to want to have a baby in your twilight years, but it is also testament to the phenomenal desire of humans to hold their own children.

Personally, I couldn't imagine my life never having met my children, but had I not met them by now, I think I would have found friends with children and just settled for being a really great "sorta-aunt" instead!

Soldier · 01-17-2005, 01:02 PM

And a crazy old aunt you would be.

Maeve_Mari · 01-17-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soldier

And a crazy old aunt you would be.

You ought to see the kind of mother I am! Ever see the movie Carrie?
Muhahahahahaw!!

jeff · 01-17-2005, 01:15 PM

I think the mother has a right to bear children at whatever age she can (we can argue about how wise that is separately). What I question is whether she has a right to demand society provision that right through IVF or other heroic measures.

Maeve_Mari, you aren't that scary - are you?

noodle · 01-17-2005, 01:20 PM

indeed, its not really an ethical question.

its a choice that is up to the lady, who should know the risks (both to her potential children and to herself)

Maeve_Mari · 01-17-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff

I think the mother has a right to bear children at whatever age she can (we can argue about how wise that is separately). What I question is whether she has a right to demand society provision that right through IVF or other heroic measures.

Maeve_Mari, you aren't that scary - are you?

I'm a great mom. I don't know how I do it, but I am great. (sure, I almost never send her to the closet to pray!) Just ask my daughter - but wait until after we get back from the mall. Her answers are better after a good shopping outing!

lochinvar · 01-17-2005, 01:42 PM

"Dr Bogdan Marinescu also said he had been impressed by her faith in God."

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the child when her mother dies--which may be before the kid can walk.

Honestly, speaking as one who has raised three, who has the energy for an infant--not to mention toddler!--at age 66? And how flexible will the mother be, who has had 40+ years of ordering her life to her own liking?

I personally anticipate that she will soon come to think she's made a Devil's bargain. Raising kids ain't as easy as it looks from the outside.

Peach · 01-17-2005, 03:16 PM

Let's reduce this to its essence: a person who might die before the child is adult decides to have a baby.

Any mother has done that.

Having kids is an act of faith (or idiocy, sometimes) under the best conditions.

Personally, I think it's goofy, but then I had my first (and only) kid at 31, which used to be considered ancient. Autre temps, autre moeurs.

latenight · 01-17-2005, 03:43 PM

does she have a right......yes.

Is it a good idea not knowing who will provide for said child should she pass at an average age.......no.

Inquartata · 01-18-2005, 03:54 AM

There's also another issue: the older the mother the greater the chances of certain sorts of birth defects in the child. This too imposes costs on society.

But no, the state ought not be in the business of making decisions such as what is the upper limit of "permissible" age for childbearing, any more than it properly ought to be in the business of making decisions about whether it will permit women NOT to bear children. As long as the costs of the decision are borne by the person(s) making the choice, the choice should be theirs, IMO.

lochinvar · 01-18-2005, 07:34 AM

I don't think the purpose of the thread was to ask whether the state should permit, endorse, or prohibit child-bearing at certain ages, Inq. I think Gav was just asking our personal opinions on the matter.

She has the right, but I don't personally feel she's being very responsible.

Maeve_Mari · 01-18-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There's also another issue: the older the mother the greater the chances of certain sorts of birth defects in the child. This too imposes costs on society.

But no, the state ought not be in the business of making decisions such as what is the upper limit of "permissible" age for childbearing, any more than it properly ought to be in the business of making decisions about whether it will permit women NOT to bear children. As long as the costs of the decision are borne by the person(s) making the choice, the choice should be theirs, IMO.

Would you advocate, unlike your Administration bretheren, that the cost decision must be considered for a lower limit for childbearing too? Perhaps if teenagers are too young to borne the great expense and cost of their choice, that they should be limited, or at the very least - that the government provide that they are educated on the implications of their promiscuous choices?

Gav · 01-18-2005, 08:21 AM

I was actually looking for personal opinions.

I did an ethics course at uni' and we debated this very issue (mandatory for my Biology and yes I did enjoy the course). Personally, I don't think that this woman has a right. In her case she was effectively sterile - it was only chemical intervention that has allowed her to have this child. I think it's irresponsible of her to selfishly claim it as a right for her to have children, especially as she has been quoted several times as saying that she put off having a child to chase a career. It's not as though she has been infertile all her life. Because she is basically infertile, she has no right to a child. The fact that IVF is available to her suggests to me that this is a privilege and consequently she has no automatic right to carry a child. There are wider health implications here, for her and the child and so, at her age [and also as an educated woman], I believe that she has acted irresponsibly.

JackSparrow · 01-18-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

As to her "right" to have a baby.... my first reaction was, what about men? Is there a point in time where they should no longer be able to impregnate? Should we establish a timetable by which they are "turned off" also? Or is it okay for men to keep depositing so long as they mate with young women???

Maybe. Didn't actor James Doohan (played Scotty in Star Trek) become a father at 79-years old. Okay, it's quite impessive, but it's also very wrong. He could die at any moment. They should think about the kids.

Inquartata · 01-18-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I don't think the purpose of the thread was to ask whether the state should permit, endorse, or prohibit child-bearing at certain ages, Inq. I think Gav was just asking our personal opinions on the matter.

Er...what gave you impression that I wasn't giving my opinion? Did the "IMO" throw you off?

Did you think I was speaking for Planned Parenthood or something?

Maeve_Mari · 01-18-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

Maybe. Didn't actor James Doohan (played Scotty in Star Trek) become a father at 79-years old. Okay, it's quite impessive, but it's also very wrong. He could die at any moment. They should think about the kids.

Peach said it earlier. Any one of us could die at any point during our children's life. The fact that he became a father at 79, while certainly lunacy, didn't increase his chance of dying any more likely.

IMO, I'm not in favor of old men having babies. Or old women for that matter. Or very young men and women either! But, rarely does anyone ask for my opinion before they start the activity!

jeff · 01-18-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

Maybe. Didn't actor James Doohan (played Scotty in Star Trek) become a father at 79-years old. Okay, it's quite impessive, but it's also very wrong. He could die at any moment. They should think about the kids.

It may be worth pointing out that Doohan, while still alive, is suffering dementia from Alzheimer's. Not a pretty picture for him or his kid. Also: celebrities who have children late in life might have the financial resources to support a minor that most people can't afford. Add to the list: Anthony Quinn (lots of kids, last in his 80s?) and Tony Randall (child in 1997 at age 77, he died 2004)

Besides, and referring to Gav's point: males are different: we don't experience menopause and become sterile, while the person who gave birth at 66 essentially was. A wording quibble: I don't think "irresponsible" is the same thing as "unethical". Depending on how you feel about those words you could say "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter. Gav - did your course parse that distinction?