TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 70 year old gives birth to twins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

70 year old gives birth to twins - Page 2

post #31 of 58
This thread has really veered off topic

1 wow, seems eveyone assumes that all people that got 'fertility' treatment, had IVF.

NO.

2 , seems everyone assumes that its always the Woman that is the infertile one.

NO.

3. it was just brought up, not covered by insurance, I can tell you, that It most certianly is.
post #32 of 58
Is it? It isn't here - but that depends on the kind of treatment you get. I don't think IVF is, but other forms are.

I think that it's pretty unfair to pronounce judgement on all men and women who have fertility problems. Sometimes they're actually just fine but need a little help-along.

I do have issues with couples who try IVF eight times and every single other treatment under the sun and end up spending years of their lives and going through worlds of misery over infertility problems. I do think that these people just really should accept that children, perhaps, are not for them - their own biological children that is.

But as I have never had any fertility issues that may be a harsh thing to say. And a very dear friend of mine has just done pretty much exactly that and is finally having a biological child through a surrogate mother - whom she and her husband fly to the US every couple of months to see because surrogacy is illegal in Australia. But they are a great example of the adoption issue. She is 37 and he is 41, so they are ineligible for adoption. Pretty unfair - they're both doctors, lovely, giving people - I hardly see that they would fail to provide a good environment for an adopted child.

But if you have endometriosis and you can't get pregnant, and you have some surgery to laser out the growths and then you can get pregnant, I hardly have an issue with this. And that is a form of fertility treatment.
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lore View Post
2 , seems everyone assumes that its always the Woman that is the infertile one.

NO.
I didn't say infertility is exclusively a female problem. I stated in my first post in this thread that a couple who is infertile be it the woman or a woman who has paired up with a man who is, should not be having fertility treatments to have a child, and that it's their fate to not have children because they can't have them naturally.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
She is 37 and he is 41, so they are ineligible for adoption. Pretty unfair - they're both doctors, lovely, giving people - I hardly see that they would fail to provide a good environment for an adopted child.
What about the 10's of thousands of orphaned children in the world? There are children in need of love around the world, not just in the US.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I didn't say infertility is exclusively a female problem. I stated in my first post in this thread that a couple who is infertile be it the woman or a woman who has paired up with a man who is, should not be having fertility treatments to have a child, and that it's their fate to not have children because they can't have them naturally.
I should have chosen my Mate more wisely. Silly me.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lore View Post
I should have chosen my Mate more wisely. Silly me.
There was a time when blood tests were required by law prior to marriage. Historically it was to check for Syphilis, but I also believe that they investigated fertility so that each partner was aware prior to marriage if they were fertile.

I remember in the late 1960's or early 1970's that my cousin and her fiance found out prior to marriage that her chances of having a baby were slim to none. As it turns out she ended up having 2 with him, unaided by fertility drugs (I don't even know if there was such a thing back then). But he knew right up front that there was a chance that they couldn't have children, and while he had hoped to have a child, he was fine if they didn't. He loved her and that was enough for him. He made a conscious choice to marry someone who may not have been able to produce a child.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have a fertility test prior to marriage because that way each person knows what they are in for and can make an informed decision as to whether to partner up with that person for life if they can't have or produce children. It would certainly save many couples the stress and heartache later on. And it might even save some marriages because when one person wants kids and the other can't have any, it's highly stressful and marriages have ended because of the stress, pressure and financial burdens that they undertake to try to conceive.

I understand that my views on fertility treatments are not popular, but then again I've never been one to go along with the flow just to be popular. And I don't seek to have my views changed, nor do I seek to change anyone else's.
post #37 of 58
& you are entitled to your opinion of course, clearly it is the name of the Forum Area.

The Topic was about the 70 year old Woman... I simply said it was out of line, when you took it WAY off topic stating that all those who had 'defective' systems should not bring forth offspring into this world.

With that, THAT became the topic of this thread... quite ridiculous really.

In short...

The origional Topic... 70 year old woman... getting any kind of treatment to produce children, certianly at the force of her husband, with it being the culture, the idea of it is absolutely appauling, Grandmas... Great-Grandmas, Just dont have Babies.

Really any off topic issues I feel should end.
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post

I understand that my views on fertility treatments are not popular, but then again I've never been one to go along with the flow just to be popular. And I don't seek to have my views changed, nor do I seek to change anyone else's.
So where do you draw the line? Should medical treatment be given to a high risk pregnant woman? Maybe she's not supossed to have the baby after all. What about a baby who is born with severe medical conditions? Should we just make him comfortable until he dies naturally? He obviously wasn't meant to live, right?

It is very difficult to not take this personally.

IMO, fertility treatments for a 70 year old are totally different than for someone in or at least close to child bearing age. At least the latter has a chance of being a good parent. It is highly unlikely that the 70 year old woman in the article will even be alive to be a parent at all.
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
What about the 10's of thousands of orphaned children in the world? There are children in need of love around the world, not just in the US.
Of course. I don't know what the laws are in the US but in Australia if you want to adopt an overseas baby you have to live in that child's country for a minimum of two years, and then further conditions apply. They really, really don't make it easy here, and that is a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
So where do you draw the line? Should medical treatment be given to a high risk pregnant woman? Maybe she's not supossed to have the baby after all. What about a baby who is born with severe medical conditions? Should we just make him comfortable until he dies naturally? He obviously wasn't meant to live, right?
Oh don't nitpick now. The fertility argument is very black-and-white. There are no extenuating circumstances to consider and certainly no parallel arguments to broach. If you can have children, you have them. If you can't, then you don't. Introducing grey areas such as antenatal complications or problems with birth and delivery, or issues after delivery is just petty
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post


Oh don't nitpick now. The fertility argument is very black-and-white. There are no extenuating circumstances to consider and certainly no parallel arguments to broach. If you can have children, you have them. If you can't, then you don't. Introducing grey areas such as antenatal complications or problems with birth and delivery, or issues after delivery is just petty
You crack me up!
post #41 of 58

This thread had gone too far off topic, so , please.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
So where do you draw the line? Should medical treatment be given to a high risk pregnant woman? Maybe she's not supossed to have the baby after all. What about a baby who is born with severe medical conditions? Should we just make him comfortable until he dies naturally? He obviously wasn't meant to live, right?
Again, completely irrelevant to what I said. None of those examples have anything to do with a "sterile" person seeking help via fertility drugs or invitro fertilization to get pregnant.

Quote:
It is very difficult to not take this personally.
Why would you take what I say personally? It's not about you in any way, shape, or form. It's my opinion on a topic, nothing more.

Quote:
IMO, fertility treatments for a 70 year old are totally different than for someone in or at least close to child bearing age. At least the latter has a chance of being a good parent. It is highly unlikely that the 70 year old woman in the article will even be alive to be a parent at all.
And that's where we differ. A woman who is 70 has undergone menopause making her infertile and unable to have children. If there are fertility treatments available to help women who have infertility issues, that want to become pregnant, then that service should be available to a woman no matter what her age. Is it fair to the babies born to women who will likely die of old age before the kid reaches their 1st to 5th birthday? No. Which is why I said it's completely selfish of her and him to have done what they did and the doctors who helped them need to be smacked around for having done so.

Also if that 70 year old didn't want to get pregnant, and by the look on her face in that picture that may very well have been the case, she was the one getting the fertility drugs and the one who ultimately did get pregnant, so she did have a say in it.
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post

This thread had gone too far off topic, so , please.

I don't understand how it's off topic? The topic is about a woman in her 70's who gave birth. Fertility treatments were mentioned in the article. Someone said that she shouldn't have had the option of fertility treatments at all because of her age and having undergone menopause which is the cause of her infertility. And that women become infertile after menopause for a reason.

There are other causes of infertility, but women are allowed to have fertility treatments for those conditions. So why not menopause too? If one group is allowed to have it, then all groups of infertile women should be allowed, regardless of the cause, even menopause.

So I don't see how that is off topic to the subject of this thread.
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I don't understand how it's off topic? The topic is about a woman in her 70's who gave birth. Fertility treatments were mentioned in the article. Someone said that she shouldn't have had the option of fertility treatments at all because of her age and having undergone menopause which is the cause of her infertility. And that women become infertile after menopause for a reason.

There are other causes of infertility, but women are allowed to have fertility treatments for those conditions. So why not menopause too? If one group is allowed to have it, then all groups of infertile women should be allowed, regardless of the cause, even menopause.

So I don't see how that is off topic to the subject of this thread.
My emphasis. The thread was started by somebody outraged at a woman of her age having children. The thread is not about infertility per se.
post #45 of 58
I PM'd you in response to the off-topic stuff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
Also if that 70 year old didn't want to get pregnant, and by the look on her face in that picture that may very well have been the case, she was the one getting the fertility drugs and the one who ultimately did get pregnant, so she did have a say in it.
I'm not sure if you intended that statement for me or not, but I did not make a judgement either way on that.
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
My emphasis. The thread was started by somebody outraged at a woman of her age having children. The thread is not about infertility per se.
I don't see it that way. She was able to have children with fertility treatments because she was infertile. The 2 go hand-in-hand so far as I can see.

Anyway, since this thread has pretty much been quashed because we can't discuss the infertility aspect of the situation and the medical intervention that she was given, I'm done with this thread.
post #47 of 58
Thread Starter 
Oh jees, I have sooo much to state on this topic... of infertility but its best off to change subject!
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwan View Post
Oh jees, I have sooo much to state on this topic... of infertility but its best off to change subject!
You could start a whole new thread. That would certainly liven things up here!
post #49 of 58
Why is everyone assuming that it wasn't the mother's choice? Personally, it doesn't make sense to me. But imagine if this mother of twins was on this board. I suspect it would be just as emotionally wounding for her to read that she obviously didn't have a say in the matter, is being selfish, will die soon anyway, wasn't meant to have a son, ect. ect. as it is emotionally wounding for members of this board to hear some of the same arguments. And it would be even worse because no-one is even defending this mother.

Personally, it doesn't sound advisable to me, but I think it beehoves us to be just as polite to this women as we are to women on this board who have conceived with fertility treatments.

I don't think large expenditures of resources are a good idea for any kind of fertility treatment. Going to a fertility doctor, getting a sperm count, and trying to figure out what's going on makes sense. Using lots of personal financial and economy-wide general resources to make children doesn't make sense. Even though there are countries with less than replacement birth rates, I still think that the earth as a whole better sustains a smaller number of people than it currently has. And the Earth's population as a whole is still growing!

I think that lots of fertile couples should decide to be child free. I think adoption should be made easier and cultural expectations changed to reduce the emotional "need" to have your own children. My thoughts are not "out of line"* any more than the general perception on this board that this 70 year old mother has made a mistake are "out of line."

*Of course, no one has called them out of line because this is my first post on this thread. But opinions with a similar end point - fewer fertility treatments are better - have been called out of line.
post #50 of 58
What I was wondering is - What if they DIDN'T have a boy after the fertility treatments? As far as I know, there still is not a way to CHOOSE what sex your child will be (although I've heard that scientists are trying to make that possible). If the twins were girls, then he would have lost all his property for two more girls he resented.

I'm sure their older daughters are not happy with this. They will probably end up caring for these twins in a few years, whether they want to or not. Granted, my half-sister is 21 years older than me (my dad was 45 when I was born), so she is of age to be my mother, but I think it would be even more awkward if my older siblings were in their 40-50s!

I didn't notice how old the older sisters are, but they could be approaching an age where they'll be running out of steam too and not want to care for a younger child, once the parents die.

Sounds like one big mess to me!
post #51 of 58
Actually, with in-vitro fertilization you can do two things; sperm-sorting where you separate the sperm (because XX sperm contain more DNA than XY sperm) and then use the ones you want and or you make the embryos and then steal a cell and see if its XY or XX, and implant the embryos you want.

In India, however, sexual selection is illegal. Sexual selection is such a big problem in India that ultrasounds for the purpose of identifying the child's sex (because of the possibility of aborting in the case of a female) are also illegal.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuja View Post
In India, however, sexual selection is illegal. Sexual selection is such a big problem in India that ultrasounds for the purpose of identifying the child's sex (because of the possibility of aborting in the case of a female) are also illegal.
But still being done.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuja View Post
Actually, with in-vitro fertilization you can do two things; sperm-sorting where you separate the sperm (because XX sperm contain more DNA than XY sperm) and then use the ones you want and or you make the embryos and then steal a cell and see if its XY or XX, and implant the embryos you want.

In India, however, sexual selection is illegal. Sexual selection is such a big problem in India that ultrasounds for the purpose of identifying the child's sex (because of the possibility of aborting in the case of a female) are also illegal.
Hmm, learn something new everyday. I had heard something about deciding the sex of the baby, but didn't know they had a way to do so yet.
post #54 of 58
I don't know I don't really think we have a right to judge people. Im sure these kids will turn out fine. Sure there parents may be dead before they are 10 but lots of people lose their parents early. If I was born to a 77 year old and I was asked would you prefer not to be born at all rather then having old parents I would have to say that I am thankful that I was given life. Sure it is a little strange but it is their choice. I don't know I just don't think it fair to judge these people like this.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
My emphasis. The thread was started by somebody outraged at a woman of her age having children. The thread is not about infertility per se.
Thats true however really this is a more broad topic if you look at it. To me it is really about someone who thinks that in certain conditions someone should be striped their right of having a baby. Yes this situation may be about a 70 year old women, but there are all kinds of situations that can be put into the same topic.
post #56 of 58
What? I am trying?
post #57 of 58
Well in Bible times people lived for hundreds of years and could have kids at 100 yrs old. And they did it without a doctor's help

However, this case is just selfish and wrong. So what if he didn't have any sons - he should accept what God has given him. The chances are not that great for these little boys - its a higher rate of death with boys then it is girls. And if they die, will the husband again force his 70 yr old wife to go thru it again to get another boy????

You wonder where peoples minds are at times!
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
Well in Bible times people lived for hundreds of years and could have kids at 100 yrs old. And they did it without a doctor's help

However, this case is just selfish and wrong. So what if he didn't have any sons - he should accept what God has given him. !
Looks like God gave him twins, one of those being a boy. God still gives life.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 70 year old gives birth to twins