World's oldest new mom dies, leaves twin toddlers

news.yahoo ^

[MEGoody]

This is why God designed women to stop being able to bear children around age 50. That way, the kids can be grown before she kicks the budget.

[TNdandelion]

I find your opinion to be quite sad and unfortunate. I won’t argue that artificial reproduction methods aren’t ever used unethically, but there are plenty of loving, married couples who seek this treatment because they are infertile through no fault of their own. To suggest that their children were brought into this world any less loved because the parents didn’t have sex in the process is bizarre.

[altura]

studies have shown everything ... and I happen to know from personal experience that that particular study is a crock.

[mom4melody]

That way, the kids can be grown before she kicks the budget.

Kicks the “Budget”....

Bun intended?

[mom4melody]

“PUN” intended....

Sheesh. I really need to stop freeping at work.

[TNdandelion]

My husband's aunt had a child when her two grandchildren were in elementary school. There's about a 30yr age difference between her oldest child and youngest.

I had read that women who are able to "naturally" conceive later in life are supposed to be very healthy. I don't believe that was the case with this particular woman since she required medical intervention.

[TNdandelion]

I completely agree. Millions of women who have died from pregnancy and birth related complications are testament to the fact that there are no guarantees. Life isn’t always fair.

[rightly_dividing]

You are a very blessed person, and I commend you on raising 2 more children at your age. I am older than you by a few years, and full of health problems, so child raising is out of the question for my wife and I. But, my pastor is 73 and in great shape and full of energy. He and his wife of age 69 are raising 2 grands, age 14 and 8. They are doing a great job. I wish that I had his health and energy!

[MEGoody]

LOL Obviously, I was thinking of Obama when I typed that.

[Xenalyte]

Thank God! I was starting to think that at 40, I was probably over that. Now I have hope for the next 40!

[Redmonpmv]

Um. People? Not just Ozark...
Picasso was sposed to have been over 80 when he sired his last child. I am a big believer in equality— and if it’s okay for a 60 year old MAN to sire children, then it’s okay for a WOman, too. So, ya’ll need to get a grip and mind your own business, or focus on something really wrong. She doubtless had enough money to make sure HER kids didn’t wind up on Welfare. UN-like a lot of young snots popping out babies like they were Pez candies; and valuing them just as much once they get here. Bet our tax money doesn’t ever have to get spent supporting HER kids. Well, haha, she’s in Spain, so that is rather moot, but you get my point.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"To suggest that their children were brought into this world any less loved because the parents didn’t have sex in the process is bizarre."

I would truly be bizarre if I had said that, but I didn't. My husband and I didn' have sex to have our second son, who was adopted from Russia, but we don't love him less: that's not the point.

Nor is point that that it is somhow "wrong" to have fertility treatments, i.e. treatments to restore or strengthen the ability to have children through marital intercourse. I don't know anybody who think that's objectionable. Anyone who has problems achieving or carrying a pregnancy would be well served to seek therapeuic intervention from a group that uses ethical and scientifically valid metods to restore normal fertility, such as NaProTechnology -- good group, that.

It is not at all bizarre to note that the human good of secure identity--- on the species, genetic, familial, and personal level --- is safeguarded when a child comes into existence as a result of marital sexual union; and that other choices (e.g. non-marital, non-sexual, non-union) undermine that security.

I's not a question of how much you love the child. It's a question of whether you think human sexual intercourse is inherently meaningful. Not just instrumentally efficient, but meaningful: pertaining to the child as a person and not as a product.

[TNdandelion]

I would truly be bizarre if I had said that, but I didn't. My husband and I didn' have sex to have our second son, who was adopted from Russia, but we don't love him less: that's not the point. It is not at all bizarre to note that the human good of secure identity--- on the species, genetic, familial, and personal level --- is safeguarded when a child comes into existence as a result of marital sexual union; and that other choices (e.g. non-marital, non-sexual, non-union) undermine that security. I's not a question of how much you love the child. It's a question of whether you think human sexual intercourse is inherently meaningful. Not just instrumentally efficient, but meaningful: pertaining to the child as a person and not as a product.

I applaud you for adopting a child. But I'm confused because you say that children conceived out of wedlock or aside from "meaningful sexual intercourse" present a threat to human identity and security (ie species, genetics, family, etc)? Obviously, I don't agree with you on that but using your logic, why is an adopted child any different? Those married couples who opt for invitro because their natural reproductive organs have failed or were damaged, I don't believe they view their children as a product anymore than you view your own child as such. For them, in vitro is a tool that replaces a body part that has failed.

You wrote: I am convinced that "artificial reproduction" --- whether it involves in-vitro, hormonal manipulation of post-menopausal females, or even "just" no-sex insemination --- is just as wrong-headed as artificial contraception. I don't care if it's done to animals. All this stuff may be a legitimate part of veterinary medicine. But human person find an essential meaning in natural sexual relations--- and I say "essential" because if the meaning isn't there, it's not just absent, it's positively wrong. This whole set-up demeans the child from the first moment of his existence, making him not a gift of personal love, but an experiment and a lab product.

You have said that if a child is conceived "outside" the bounds of normal, marital sex, they are lacking in something. (meaning? love? identity? security? not sure since you've backtracked).

Unfortunately for some couples, conception through sexual intercourse isn't possible because their reproductive organs aren't cooperating. I am sure that those couples would prefer not to have the invasive procedures done if they could conceive any other way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Obviously, I don't agree with you your logic, why is an adopted child any different?"

You’re quite right: it indeed wouldn't be any different, IF we had arranged for this child to be conceived for the express purpose of being placed for adoption.

To begin with, we need to analyze the moral question in terms of ends and means.

The end of getting a child may be entirely innocent, even laudable.

But that end does not justify any imaginable means. Just to cite some obvious ones, you would agree, I presume, it wouldn’t justify rape, or prostitution, or concubinage, or infant-abduction, or cloning.

So even if the “end” of getting a child is praiseworthy, the means have to be looked at independently, to see if they are in keeping with the full truth of sex and marriage, and the dignity of the child as a person.

For instance, if we had decided to pay somebody to get pregnant so we could subsequently adopt the child, this would be getting a child (a good end) through an intentionally planned commercial transaction in which his mother sells him for money (a bad means).

Worldwide, this is regarded as an abuse and a crime. International adoptions were actually shut down for a period of time in Guatemala, for example, because women were being paid to get pregnant and then deliver their newborns to shady adoption agencies catering to European and American couples who were willing to put up big bucks and not ask questions.

In contrast, if a couple adopt a child who --- not by their arranging it so, but by whatever happenstance --- lacks the care and providence of his own father and mother, they are responding to his need without in any way having caused it.

Similarly, it’s wrong to beget batches of offspring and then freeze them for future implantation, adoption, sale, or experimental jiggery-pokery. But if this frozen embryo already exists, and the two existing options are either (1) adopt him and have him implanted in your womb, or (2) dump him down the sink, then adopting him is a praiseworthy thing because you are responding to his desolate situation without having in any way caused it.

Getting back to the related question you brought up: it’s necessary to make a distinction between fertility treatment, properly defined, and artificial reproductive technology.

Fertility treatment--- meaning treating the underlying cause of your infertility and curing it so you can have children via sexual intercourse--- is a good thing.

In contrast, artificial reproduction does not address the cause of infertility, nor does it cure it. It doesn’t make it possible for you to have children via sexual intercourse. Thus it doesn’t heal fertile sex: it takes the place of fertile sex. Thus it can't be unequivocally called a fertility therapy.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sad. RIP.

[RichInOC]

Okay, apparently she underestimated exactly how large a handful twin 3-year-old boys could be.

[JoeProBono]

[TNdandelion]

I'm not going to split hairs over how YOU define fertility treatments when the average person uses a much broader application, as I have done.

I do not agree with your views regarding marital sex, contraception, "fertility treatments" or the nature and/or victim status of children conceived through in vitro. We can certainly agree that there are moral and ethical considerations with that tool that are not always respected. However, more people and physicians are becoming aware of these issues and are using them more conservatively.

As sad as these case may be, high multiple births, custody battles over frozen embryos and even the embryonic stem cell debate have given people an opportunity to think about the downside of using this tool carelessly.

[altura]

Sorry, Ms.Don, but I have to disagree.

There are legitimate reasons why women resort to help in conceiving and legitimate reasons why some are older when they want to have a baby.

You are generalizing. There is a possibility for abuse in everything. Rape can result in ‘natural’ childbirth but that doesn’t make it desirable.

I’m glad there is help for women who want to conceive past 40.

This example is way beyond the norm and proves nothing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I never disputed that there were legitimate reasons for an over-40 woman to want a baby. Of course that's true. And if such a woman and/or her husband need therapeutic intervention to actually heal their infertility --- to help their lovemaking to result in a baby ---- than I'll all gung-ho for it. Healing sex is a good use for science.

My larger point, though, is that sexual love is the only way to make a baby which truly honors his status a person and gift, and not as product and property. In the wake of the Roe vs Wade (1973) and Davis vs Davis decisions (the frozen embryo case, 1989) the law has already blown the status of "person" to smithereens.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/dem/dem_07frozenembryos.html

Artifical reproduction makes this breakdown of human status inevitable by making the child a product, an object, in fact and in law. But we must not accept it. If we do, within our lifetimes we will see a day when the law cannot distinguish a human being from an animal, a machine, or a Cabbage Patch doll.

.

.

P.S. It's Mrs. Don-o.