TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should 60yr old women have children? (IVF)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should 60yr old women have children? (IVF) - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
My answer is absolutely NOT! Menopause was created for a reason! Don't mess with Mother Nature!

Absolutely and totally selfish!

I agree 100%.

I am very much against using reproductive technologies for such reasons and I actually don't like reproductive technologies in general- they take away the control of a woman over her own reproductive ability and put in the hands of society. They've created so much more problems than we can imagine, I'm talking about social problems and prejudice. Now, having children is a matter of resources, we are forcing poor people to use birth control and refusing welfare if they decide not to use have a depo injection (something I recently read about) and on the other hand you have all these mostly white upper class people who get to use all of these technologies to help them have more than they biologically can. This is very undermining to those poor people who are usually minorities and use welfare, to control their ability to reproduce. Anyways. I think it's wrong and I think IVF should never be used for any reason. If I ever wanted children, I would adopt even though as far as I know I could have my own- because I think there are too many children who are already here, born who need care, why in the world would I create more? So I can have someone with my genes? That's stupid IMO. And I think no one should need to have IVF...but that's if I was in charge lol.
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post

I agree 100%.
This is very undermining to those poor people who are usually minorities and use welfare, to control their ability to reproduce. Anyways. I think it's wrong and I think IVF should never be used for any reason.
I also disagree with IVF treatment in general.

However, as a formerly poor 'minority' I'll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding birth control as undermining poor minority populations. In this country, we all have a chance to work hard and be successful... minorities included. (The best form of birth control seems to be education, which again, we all have access to.)

The welfare system is grossly abused, and some women were having children simply to stay on welfare... both minority and non-minority. This isn't speculation, I've met some of them. I'm not sure how the welfare system has changed from the early 90's but if birth control is now a requirement, I'm all for it.

People might feel entitled to reproduce if they desire, but then they shouldn't feel like they're entitled to someone else's(my) money in order to sustain it.

No welfare, and no children here. By choice.

ETA: Sorry for the thread hijack!
post #33 of 41
Parents need to be able to raise their kids. To raise your kids, you have to be alive. I know it's a roll of the dice at whatever age, but it's a roll of different dice at different ages...if your odds of seeing your kids to age 25-30 (i.e. old enough to be firmly established, in this society) are negligible, you should not be making kids.

If she wants the experience of being a parent, though, she should be allowed to adopt an older child (not a baby--babies can get adopted by someone who'll be able to raise them the whole way), because even if she can only give an adopted kid maybe 5 years of feeling like somebody special rather than a statistic in a system, that would still be 5 years of a great blessing. Or she could mentor a teen mom and help raise that baby for as long as she has and get that family off to a better start.

Perspective: 25/F/no kids now/undecided on future kids. I think I could want them if I thought about it much, but the situation would have to really be right, and I don't know if I'll have my life together financially to my standards for that before my ovaries quit (I don't think any women in my gene pool have had a kid past 30) so I'm trying not to think about that. I'd rather adopt than go through major medical technology backflips, if it came to that, because when you adopt at least you know what you're getting. On the other hand, I might just stick with cats, because I think they're probably easier. Like, you can get their hormone-producing bits hacked out when they hit puberty...pretty sure you can't do that with teenagers.
post #34 of 41
I think welfare is a bad system- inefficient , etc. However, I think controlling someone's choices about how many kids they can have is wrong regardless of economic situation because it limits their freedom that they're given at birth as a human being, when others more fortunate are using technology to have even more than they biologically can. Not that I'm okay with abusing the welfare system...It's just that if we overlook the social implications that we're creating by limiting these people's choices we are in some trouble..
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I think welfare is a bad system- inefficient , etc. However, I think controlling someone's choices about how many kids they can have is wrong regardless of economic situation because it limits their freedom that they're given at birth as a human being, when others more fortunate are using technology to have even more than they biologically can. Not that I'm okay with abusing the welfare system...It's just that if we overlook the social implications that we're creating by limiting these people's choices we are in some trouble..
Just because we are "free" to have as many children as we want does not mean we should.

I believe it is morally wrong to have more children that you can care for.

No one is forced to use birth control in this country, sometimes I wish they were.

The highest birth rates in this country is not the rich Utopia, it is Hispanics.

There will never be a utopia, there will always be the "haves" and the "have nots" for a myriad of reasons, the biggest reason being that many "have nots" are just not willing to put forth the effort required to become a "have". They want it for free.

There is no free ride and there never will be.
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Just because we are "free" to have as many children as we want does not mean we should.

I believe it is morally wrong to have more children that you can care for.

No one is forced to use birth control in this country, sometimes I wish they were.

The highest birth rates in this country is not the rich Utopia, it is Hispanics.

There will never be a utopia, there will always be the "haves" and the "have nots" for a myriad of reasons, the biggest reason being that many "have nots" are just not willing to put forth the effort required to become a "have". They want it for free.

There is no free ride and there never will be.
Without getting too far into it I will just say that I do agree with you. My point was not to say that all poor people should continue having more and more children like they are right now. I just think we need to be asking ourselves why is it that they have so many children when they can't care for them and how we can educate them and make them more aware about childcare,etc rather than ostracizing them. I do believe they are being ostracized which is what is sad. Anyways I don't think welfare is the reason why they have so many children it could be in isolated cases but it's not the majority, simply because welfare doesn't even provide enough to survive comfortably anyway. But yea I don't mean to go sooo far off topic lol I'm always so guilty of doing that!
post #37 of 41
The number of children you are allowed is regulated in China and see how well that is working.

I just wonder who all those little Chinese boys are going to marry when they grow up since many of the little girls are murdered to make room for a male child.
post #38 of 41
I think in the case of many people there is a religious factor, their religion is against birth control. I find that sad.
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWitch View Post
We all have our personal experiences, and we form our opinions from them. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact it is good and honest.

BUT it's a different matter when we impose our experiences and our opinions on others as if it's the right thing for them, too. That is wrong because we absolutely do not know their situation unless we are the ones living it. Reading an article that a journalist wrote does not give us a complete picture of the people and their lives and circumstances. Who are we to judge what we do not know?




The problem here is, who gets to decide what age IVF is okay and what age it is not? Who do we want to have that kind of power?

If the IVF cutoff age is 50, does that mean a 49-year-old woman who is not in the best of health and who spent every penny she has for IVF gets to have a baby, while a healthy 51-year-old who is financially stable cannot? Again, if it's not the women who get to decide, who does get the power to decide for them?

Pregnancy is always risky, but it has to be the individual woman who decides if she is willing to take that risk for herself and her child(ren). No one else has the right to decide for her!





You said earlier that your mother was a "hands-off" parent, and you attribute that to her age. You are probably absolutely correct, I don't know your situation and hers, but I do know that there are many, many hands-off parents in any age group. Is it possible that's your mother's parenting style? Is it possible that would have been her parenting style if she had you 10 or 20 years earlier?





This is a flawed argument. If a person isn't "young enough and fit enough to get down on my hands and knees and play/bond/help my child grow" then the person isn't going to be able to do that with an adopted child, either.

I don't know if the parents in the article are going to be good parents. They might be terrible and the whole thing is a huge mistake and the children will suffer. But, maybe not. Maybe the kids will be happy and loved. We just don't know and can't pass judgment based on our own experiences.


I hesitate to pull up this card again, but it is very applicable here... My mother had me when she was in her late 20's, my parents were financially secure; in fact they were/are "pillars of the community." What a perfect setting to have a family, right? Wrong. My siblings and I were not only neglected, but we were emotionally abused, and violently and brutally physically abused. I have physical problems that are a direct result from the abuse.

Frankly, from where I am now, I would have loved to have old parents who neglected me. That would have been preferable to the experiences I had when I was a child. Like the times I was yanked out of my bed in the middle of the night and beaten up by an enraged mother who had been fighting with my father and had no other way to vent her hate and anger.

Really, age is not a very important factor in parenting.
!!!!!!! Good sense!
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post

I agree 100%.

I am very much against using reproductive technologies for such reasons and I actually don't like reproductive technologies in general- they take away the control of a woman over her own reproductive ability and put in the hands of society. They've created so much more problems than we can imagine, I'm talking about social problems and prejudice. Now, having children is a matter of resources, we are forcing poor people to use birth control and refusing welfare if they decide not to use have a depo injection (something I recently read about) and on the other hand you have all these mostly white upper class people who get to use all of these technologies to help them have more than they biologically can. This is very undermining to those poor people who are usually minorities and use welfare, to control their ability to reproduce. Anyways. I think it's wrong and I think IVF should never be used for any reason. If I ever wanted children, I would adopt even though as far as I know I could have my own- because I think there are too many children who are already here, born who need care, why in the world would I create more? So I can have someone with my genes? That's stupid IMO. And I think no one should need to have IVF...but that's if I was in charge lol.
Yep! We agree.

Though I can see mandatory sterilization for anyone who abuses a child and for anyone who has produced more than 2 children they are unwilling or unable to support.
post #41 of 41
The documentry is on now about "How old is too old"

This woman in the link below was in the documentry. She had the babies thinking she would live a ripe old age like her Mother did which was 101, but sadly she was diagnosed with cancer when the twins were just 6 months old and she's recently died.

http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/...el-carmen.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should 60yr old women have children? (IVF)