So now risk of having a disabled child is the criterion? She didn't have a disabled child -- she had a set of non-disabled twins. And since she was using donor eggs, she had a much lower risk of having a disabled child than a woman in her late 30s or early 40s (e.g. Sarah Palin). Should we also criticize women who allow themselves to get pregnant the natural way in their 40s, because "her risk of having disabled children is substantially higher"?
I'm just looking for some consistency here, and not finding any.
How does the use of donor eggs give her an advantage over a naturally-conceived mother 35-45?
She had to LIE to the doctors.
There’s your clue, right there.
If a woman in her 30s (hell, even her 20s) was told she had a significantly higher chance of a troubled pregnancy or disabled children, I’d say the same thing.
Was Sara Palin advised against pregnancy by her doctor?
Cuz, when you have to lie about your age to the doctor, you probably already know the answer.
If a healthy woman can naturally conceive, I think nature’s already given the go-ahead.
Just sayin’.