Conference back40::soapbox

    re 63 year-old women having babies...
    
    I can imagine a 63 year old woman living another 20 years I just can't 
    imagine a 76 year old woman with a teenager to raise...
    
    Seems pretty selfish to have baby and be unable to cope with them 
    after the first couple years...
    
    Sounds like this woman needs a puppy or some Great grand kids to 
    spoil for a couple of years but to take on a 20-25 year responsiblity
    twords the final phase of your life is foolhardy and dependant on 
    some other's kindness and good nature to raise your children...
    
    
    JMho
    
    JOhn W.
    

    
    	Tell him, Mr. Bill ... she just might have grandchildren in 20-25
    	years.
    

Of course, an argument in favor that I've heard is:

	63-year-old men have always been able to become parents.
	Now women have the same right.

/john

    I am not in her shoes, so I have no idea about her choice or why she
    AND her husband made this one.  I do know that people don't find it
    that shocking that men do this, and even have heard some men exress
    envy about the old goats who are fathering children into their 80's. 
    somehow it doesn't seem to be as bad as a woman having the "gall" to
    have a child late in life.  It even raises eyebrows in some people's
    eyes when a woman in her 40's has a(nother) baby.  
    
    meg

    really, what's the big deal, eh?

    Women get breast implants all the time and it doesn't make people sick.
    Men get hair transplants, no big deal. Even sex change operations are
    generally accepted. penile implants, lipo suction, nose jobs, face
    lifts. we could care less, right?

    Here we have an older woman who wanted to have a child. Sounds normal
    to me. So she was older and needed help, big deal. What's so incredibly
    odd about that given all the other odd things that we see every day?

    If she had tried to give birth to a harp seal or something then I could
    see the outrage or aversion to it. As to an old person having
    difficulty with coping with a child, that's a crock. Many children were
    raised by their grandparents and in the old days it was way more common
    to be raised by grand parents as both parents would have to work the
    land during the day.

    So, I acknowledge the science involved in making this woman's wish come
    true, I just fail to see what the brouhaha is all about.

    re: -.1
    
    I'm outraged because if she retires in two years Social Security will 
    have to pay for the little-one all the way through college....
    
    (Was thisin the US?)  How is a 63 year old going to pay to raise
    a child without any assistance?  If she's well off fine, but if 
    she's just an average citizen I get to pay for her little bundle of 
    joy even and including their college years...
    
    Not a good choice...
    
    IMHO
    
    John W.

     <<< Note 14.13812 by SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI "ADEPT of the Virtual Space." >>>
                     -< This woman needs a god or a cat... >-
    
    
    Now this is an interesting suggestion.  Keeping deities as pets.  You
    could be onto something here.  

    .13815
    
    /Sexism is alive and living
    
    an unbelievable stretch, imo.  
    

    RE the outrage on the women and her age around Social Security.  
    
    1.  She AND HER HUSBAND made this decision in case anyone forgot.  There
    is a man involved (should make it ok with some people, she at least
    wasn't immoral)  
    
    2.  Fertility treatments, particularly those that use donor eggs are
    EXPENSIVE and most insurance companies don't cover these procedures. 
    This couple obviously has money.
    
    3.  I suppose you don't want anyone who pays into the SS system to have
    kids.  Many people die or become disabled wqhile raising children who
    are much younger.  
    
    meg

 Was it immoral that she lied to the doctors about her age?

     The mere fact that it is now medically possible for post-menopausal
    women to carry an inplanted zygote to term doesn't make it right, nor
    an especially wise choice. 
    
     Men are naturally biologically capable of fathering children far past
    the point of chronogolical sensibility, but there is at least the
    guarantee that the mother is of an age to expect to survive until the
    child reaches adulthood (except when mankind attempts to defeat
    evolutionary biology). That men are capable of fathering children well
    past the point where they can reasonably be expected to raise them is
    an artifact of men's relatively minor biological role in reproduction.
    The required biological changes to a male's body to enable natural
    reproduction are miniscule compared to that of females. Whereas there
    is virtually no physiological impact on a man, with women the physical
    impacts of childbearing are profound.
    
     The fact that the woman had to lie to be accepted into the program is
    an indication of how doctors viewed the reasonableness of her desire.
    

    
    	So, Doc, you're saying that women ARE useful even beyond the point
    	of conception?
    
    	I should write that down so I don't forget.
    

|   Men are naturally biologically capable of father children far
|   past the point of chronological sensibility....
    
    But does this makes it right and an especially wise choice?
    
    (BTW, what with Howard Winston Carr III's recent much-too-public
    decision, is it an unwise choice for a man to get a vasectomy?
    Is is not natural afterall.  Or does it depend on how old the man
    is, or how many children he's fathered?  I mean, since you have so
    much wisdom to share with the world, I can't resist seeking your
    knowledge on these important *PERSONAL* matters.  Oh, and at
    what age is it chronologically UNSENSIBLE for a man to father
    a child?)
    
|   at least the guarantee that the mother is of an age to expect to
|   survive until the child reaches adulthood
    
    Check the life expetency tables again.  This woman can expect to
    survive until her child reaches adulthood.
    
|   Whereas there is virtually no physiological impact on a man, with women
|   the physical impacts of childbearing are profound.
    
    While the physical impacts of *childbearing* are profound for a woman,
    the physical impacts of *childrearing* are very nearly the same.
    
|   The fact that the woman had to lie to be accepted into the program is
|   an indication of how doctors viewed the reasonableness of her desire.
    
    This is an ethical question that the woman and her husband face for
    deceiving the doctors.  (She did pass a physical, so while they
    did lie about her age, they did not lie about her health.)
    
    But let me ask you, since you are such a source of wisdom.  If she
    had been 55 when she entered the program, and if the typical woman
    takes three to five years to bear a child under the program, why
    it OK for 60 year old woman to bear a child, but wrong wrong wrong
    for a 63 year old?
    
    								-mr. bill

    because it makes people guts feel weird.

    wrt 63-yr-old mom-
    
    Bizarre, momentarily interesting, but why would ANYONE get their
    knickers in a twist about it?  Somebody else's life, after all- 
    you don't wanna have a child when you're 63, don't have one.
    
    interfering busybodies with nothing better to do, grumble, etc.
    
    DougO

    
    I should think all sorts of guts feel weird, not just people guts.
    

    
    jesus, dougO, have you forgotten where you are? My god, man!! This
    is Soapbox. 

    Jesus is here?!?!

    
    	Now THERE'S a straight line if I ever heard one.
    

    
    _____________________________________________________________________
    
    

    
    	Translation, please?
    
    	I never did learn Morse Code.
    

    I think it's legitimate to ask if it's fair to a child to have aged
    parents.
    
    

    .13834
    
    glenn, in your recent replies your attitude seems to be
    well, geez, if it's medically possible to do why not
    go right ahead and do it!  sorry, i can't equate having a
    facelift with a 63-year old woman having a baby.
    
    just because medical research comes up with an "answer" to a 
    perceived "problem" doesn't make it automatically right to 
    do it.  i'm all for _preventative_ medical answers; i question
    answers that open windows after they've been naturally closed,
    e.g., a post-menopausal woman having a child.
    
    

    if it's possible, and all parties are amenable and it makes someone
    happy, why would it be wrong? Why is it so much more acceptable for a
    woman to be in control of her body for an abortion but wrong for a
    woman to be in control of her body for childbirth simply based on age?

    I'm really not understanding why people are so upset.

    > I think it's legitimate to ask if it's fair to a child to have aged
    > parents.
    
    Ask who?  Has there been any concerted effort to poll the existing
    population of children who've grown up with older-than-average parents
    to determine if THEY'D rather not have had the chance?  Or has it been
    more a case of uninformed speculation complete with accusations?  Some
    people should go get a life.
    
    DougO

    .13844
    
    because when some things are ova, they're ova.
    
    i'm not upset; i just hope this sort of thing
    remains a _rare_ event.  

|   I think it's legitimate to ask if it's fair to a child to have aged
|   parents.
    
    Somehow I'd guess the legitimate answer to that question comes from
    the parents.
    
    								-mr. bill

    It's legitimate to ask if the new title is accurate.

    
      I object to the arbitrary title assigned by the moderators.
    
      bb

    re 14.13842
    
    Is it fair to have children atr all?  There is a small, but very real
    risk that ANYONE may die before raising their children to adulthood.
    That was a MUCH higher probablility for women 30 years and longer
    ago than it was for this older woman to have carried to term that the
    woman would have died in or shortly after a pregnancy, be it that or
    another child's.  
    
    My sister used to whine about that fact that mom and dad were older
    than many of her friends parents, and "ain't it awful!  they will die
    before I am grown up!"  Well Dad lived and was active until my sister
    was in her 30's.  Mom is still cooking along, albeit slowly in her late
    70's.  
    
    Three of my sister's friends lost one or both parents before
    they were 13.  My parents fostered the across-the-street neighbors' kid
    when both of her parents died of cancer within 6 months of each other
    before their 40th birthdays and before her 18th birthday.  Was this
    fair?
    
    My older parents had the time and energy for Girl Scouts, Campfire
    Girls, Cub scouts.  Mom was a room mother as well.  Dad taught me how
    to ski and got his "Golden Ager's" card that enabled him to ski free or
    at reduced prices at most areas in the state.  He taught me horses and
    competitive trail riding.  One advantage of older parents is they often
    have more money than younger parents and can afford to do more.  None
    of this was posible when my brother was growing up.  The money just
    wasn't there at that time, although dad and mom did cubscouts and got
    kids into UC berkley labs and things they would have missed out on
    without having parents in grad programs.  
    
    meg
    

 Does sound rather ageist, doesn't it.

    
      Right.  If you're going to fabricate tittles, at least you could
     bring in an expert.  Like, say, Covert...
    
      bb

    Covert is a tittle maker?
    
    IDKT

 Y, a fine one at that..

>   <<< Note 853.67 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>


> Does sound rather ageist, doesn't it.

	In what way?

	You don't like the word "elderly"?  You don't like the
	term "parental units"?  What?

    How about one of these? 
    
    The pc title:
    
    People having children beyond their reproductive zenith.
    
    The Jerry Springer title:
    
    My mom was a post menopausal child bearing hussy!
    
    The Oprah title:
    
    My dad is old enough to to be my great grandad!
    
    The Op-ed title:
    
    Shamefully selfish retirees shouldn't be having children.
    
    The Enquirer title:
    
    "We'll keep our two headed baby." proud parents say! 
    

    My only complaint about the title is that it doesn't seem to capture
    the essence of the discussion. Lots of people have "elderly parental
    units", especially when they aren't exactly spring chickens themselves.
    The particular issue being discussed here is the decision of a
    post-menopausal woman to undergo elective fertility surgery in order to
    have a child. It seems to me that the title could capture some of that
    issue to differentiate this topic from a generic topic on elder care.

 I wasn't being serious, Di.

>               <<< Note 853.74 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

	good grief.  if you want to change it, have a blast.

   it's also so very nice to have the work
   appreciated, by the way.

    
    	Diane, you did a darned good job moving the replies to a new topic.
    
    	Now, about that title ...
    
    	8^)
    

	there - changed.  hope that's satisfactory.

    
    diane, the doers always take the criticism.
    

    
    	To what did the woman give birth?
    
    	It's not very clear, given the title.
    

    This entire discussion is crazy. Anyone who wants a baby after the age
    of 30 needs to have their head examined!  :)

     <<< Note 853.79 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "Are you married or happy?" >>>


>	there - changed.  hope that's satisfactory.

	Geez, now we can't discuss Tony Randall's situation!

	;-)

Jim

>    <<< Note 853.83 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Geez, now we can't discuss Tony Randall's situation!

	that is one of the reasons i made it fairly general to start
	with.  thanks - i'll change it again.

    
    di, the title is fine. good work, polly.

  yer too sweet, burger boy.  thanks.

    
    	What a suck-up you are, Battis.
    

 Senior Citizens would sound more nicer than oldsters, IMO..or, persons of
 age.



 Jim

    how about "Filthy old coots"?

    
    I'm pregnant for the first time at the age of 33, I couldn't image
    doing this when I am 30 years older. There is alot to consider, and
    what I will do that will be in the best interest of my child.
    
    Being 70 years old or older, to me, is not in the best interest of
    a child. And what happens if something happens to these people in a
    year or so, who takes care of the child?
    
    I know this was a personal decision for the parents to do, but not
    something I would have chosen.
    
    Mary

    Ralston
    
    GFY:
    
    I am a late-life baby and have also had one later-life baby myself. 
    Not 60, mind you but not even in my early 30's by any stretch of the
    imagination.  
    
    Now why is it that men are thinking that they have so little investment
    that it doesn't matter how old the sperm-donor is, but it does on the
    age of the woman?
    
    meg

    
    er, i'm makin' a guess that tommy be yokin'.
    

    There was a smiley. But, I don't want that to stop Meg from being
    offended. :)

    I just think it's unfair to ask the tax-payers to pay for the
    SS for a child until they're of age when it was a voluntary 
    conception... And I'd be equally disgusted with a man who
    fathered a child at 63 too (and for much the same reasons).
    
    A 63 year old woman + 20 years makes her 83 years old when she 
    gives her young'n a harsh lesson in death in dying... 
    
    A young adult will likely require some type of assistance until 
    their mid 20s even if they don't suffer the scar of the death
    of a parent.
    
    
    Sounds like the woman and her husband are being very selfish about 
    the whole thing thinking only of those first idllic years of 
    babyhood and childhood... When the child grows to teenager and 
    young adult, likely as not one or both parents will have abandoned
    the child through aging wearness or death...
    
    JMHO
    
    John Wisniewski
    
    
    
    
    

    the woman (and Tony) certainly have every right to conceive a child.
    it is their right, this is America.
    
    we have every right to question their judgement. it is our right, this
    is America.
    
    the simple fact that physical capability exists does not, in any way,
    make it a sound decision. 
    
    personally, i think it's wholly unfair to the child. it presents an
    opportunity of burden to taxpayers and family members, as well as the
    child. 

    >Now why is it that men are thinking that they have so little investment
    >that it doesn't matter how old the sperm-donor is, but it does on the
    >age of the woman?
    
     Well, if you are talking about the biology of the situation, it speaks
    for itself. If you are talking about something else, then you are
    making things up as you go along. Why not address arguments that have
    actually been forwarded instead of making up arguments simply to thrash
    them to the ground (like someone else we know.)

    
      Well, now that we have a proper tittle, I'll add my $0.02...
    
      So far as I know, she's free to bear a child, and Tony R. is free
     to father one.  Dumb, but hardly the record.
    
      As to her lying about her age, well it's fraud.  Call the lawyers.
     I'm sure "justice" will be served, if they ever select a jury...
    
      bb

    
    	"Fraud"?
    
    	I seriously doubt that you could consider that fraud.
    

No.  Women have a respected tradition of being fraudulent about their age.

    
    Exactly.  As men do about their penis size.
    

    
    Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing.
    

Yabbut a tape measure never lies.

    
    .101
    
    that's something debra would say. oph, i'm concerned.

    
    oh, it does if you don't start at 0.

    
      Age will be irrelevant with cloning.
    
      bb

    >Exactly.  As men do about their penis size.
    
     The diff is the proof is in the pudding, as it were.

    
    filthaaa!

    
    	oy!  sounds like an awful lot of spring fever going
    	around...
    
    

>    2.  Fertility treatments, particularly those that use donor eggs are
>    EXPENSIVE and most insurance companies don't cover these procedures. 
>    This couple obviously has money.

Some do.  F'rinstance, the Digital Medical Plan (and HMO Elect).

>     The fact that the woman had to lie to be accepted into the program is
>    an indication of how doctors viewed the reasonableness of her desire.
    
IVF programs limit their participants in order to have a reasonably good
record of success.

    She may have lied about her age, but she also passed her physical. 
    they have fairly rigerous criteria regarding the health and fitness of
    a person, beyond their age on how well they will tolerate pregancy and
    childbirth for women over the age of 45.  This woman obviously met that
    criteria.
    
    meg

    well, all i can say is thank goodness for that!

Take a look at http://www.ultranet.com/~grt/