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’.
The use of donor eggs give a huge advantage over natural conception in mothers over 35, when it comes to the risk of the child being born with a genetically based disability (which is by far the most common kind, apart from babies born to drug or alcohol abusing mothers). Donor eggs are always from women in their 20s, and the statistical incidence of Down Syndrome is far, far lower from these eggs.
When Sarah Palin got pregnant at 43, her statistical risk of the baby having Down Syndrome was about 1 in 60. For this 66 year old woman using donor eggs from a woman even in her very late 20s (like 29), the risk was less than 1 in 1000. So if statistical risk of having a disabled baby is a legitimate argument against a woman choosing to have a baby, then we should be criticizing any woman beyond her mid-30s having a baby unless she’s using donor eggs.