I don’t know that anybody here’s said that an intentional pregnancy for a woman with cancer is “heroic”.
Nutjob lady went out of her way, including LYING to the fertility clinic about her age, to get pregnant.
Her risk of having disabled children was substantially higher at her age but, dammit, she wanted children.
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.
Only if she were using her own eggs, which I seriously doubt she was.