Posted on 12/13/2007 8:10:33 PM PST by djf
This is very sad. Though I thought it wasn’t right for her to try to get pregnant at her age, I wouldn’t have wished ill for her.
That’s what I was wondering, dj.
Wow!
A sane, rational, not-condemning post!
Thank you.
Certainly doctors don’t know everything.
But I would be willing to bet that they have learned as much if not more about biochemistry and molecular biology in the last ten years than the entire previous history of medicine combined.
I hope she beats her cancer too. However the young single moms can get out of their situations. I know of plenty who have...As for a 66 yr old woman getting pregnant I think it is beyond selfish. She is just too old & the chance of her being able to be parent who can do the things a young child needs aren't there . My daughter is 8 yrs old & I don't have the energy I need all the time. I do however have older siblings who are wonderful with playing outside games with her. I just can't see a woman at 66 yrs old being able to go play games etc without possibly hurting herself. Or what about dementia? That can happen too... Do the children deserve that? I really think that at 66 yrs old you ought to be as you put it mature enough & not so selfish to have children at such a "mature age". The chances of her living to see these children grow up just aren't there IMHO. And furthermore why should she count on other people to raise her children? Some parent!
While the single mothers who as you so put it deserve "ire" are young and can change their lives. Shaking my head here..I hope she does have plenty of money because I don't think she has any common sense. Nor do I think you have any common sense to say people focus your ire & opinions on young, single,poor mothers...Really shaking my head now at YOU!
Pandy ... there is a HUGE difference between 41 and 66. You have absolutely no reason to believe that you would not be around to see your youngest graduate, maybe get married and have children of her own. At 66, this lady had very little expectation of that even in the greatest of health. Not to even mention the not being married thing ...
Thanks I sure plan to be there. You have a freepmail..~Pandy~
Well, personally, I don’t think 66 is all that old. But when you think of all the things her ten year old kids will want to do, she’ll be 76. Then, she’ll be 84 for their graduation from HS. Most mothers there will be around 40 - 50.
I saw her on TV today, and she is not ageing too well (IMHO). Either she doesn’t know about good moisturizers, or her genes have given her a skin type that wrinkles massively at a younger age than most.
Exactly! Well put as usual yorkie! Thats just what I am talking about. Plus the fact she lied to the doctors ...Why didn’t she do this in her late 40’s or in her 50’s? It just seems selfish to me & not at all fair to the children. I have grandchildren & I love children but when the little ones go home I am tired & happy they can go home. I love them dearly with all my heart but I don’t think I could have another child & I will be 50 next year...big sigh!
50?
I think I felt more beautiful at 50 than any years since.
You will LOVE being 50!
I too feel that 66 is relatively young and, quite frankly, every year I live I raise the bar for what is considered a senior citizen in my own mind. Funny how things like that go.
Well I better love it since I can’t change it lmao! As long as I age gracefully I will be happy.
LOL! You’re a woman (I hope) after my own heart!!!
I think she had a fatal case of stupid, before the cancer took over...
Yes, ma’am. ;-)
I believe that everyone has the right to decide if and when they choose to bear children. I hope this woman will fight and win her battle with cancer and that she and her children will live a long and happy life.
LOL! Well, on the net, you never know. I have heard there are some blond guys that aren’t too (uh, well, YOU know!) Big smile and hug, here.
I know what you mean. My oldest son was born when I was 18 and we've had lots of fun together. It's been nice to be able to do so much (especially physically) with the kids. The downside is/was that the kids leave the nest earlier in your life and sometimes it was hard to relate to some parents.
I think this kind of thing is inevitable as people live longer. I also believe we have allowed the monster of reproductive freedom to crawl too far outside of its cave. Anytime a “freedom” or “right” requires artificial propping up I think we should take pause. (We can be assured that someday not to far in the future that two men or two women or anyone for that matter, fertile or not, will be able to have their genetic material mated without the parts to produce viable embryos.)
That said, women stop having the capability to have babies for a reason even though men interestingly enough do not have this limit though male fertility does decrease with age. It is sad that so many women have been sold a bill of goods in that they can “have it all”. It can be said that the most dysfunctional thing an organism can do is refuse to reproduce. It is dysfunctional by definition because it means certain death to all that that organism is.
I know that many times women who refuse to reproduce believe themselves more intelligent for it but that seems to run contrary to the result of their actions. What do they have to show for it at the end of their lives? The poorest grandmother is richer still than the richest of they.
It is interesting to look on to how desperate some women are to resurrect their fertility when they are confronted with the finality of their decisions to let their bloom die. The real travesty is that the modern birth control industry may be directly responsible for the rise of irrational feminism and the misery of millions of women who can not relate to the men most likely to make them happy because of hormonal disruption. So I feel great pity for women who want to have children and can’t.
We live in a society with no faith. Pregnancy is not a disease though it is treated as such. Children are a natural part of the human life cycle. The faithless idea that we should control everything to serve our selfishness is what is producing so much disarray in the natural order of what being a human being means. It is natural for a mature human being to progress to the point where they care for children and put their children’s needs first.
But faithlessness is not new. Abraham and Sarah were faithless. God told them he was going to give them a baby and they did not believe him. Sarah then gave Abraham Hagar to have a baby with and look at what such a small amount of faithlessness has wrought. Sarah then went on to have Isaac at a ripe old age of 90. Today that one act of faithlessness has grown to impact the world.
http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/proverbs/art14.html
There is no question that elevated estrogen levels are a cancer risk. That is why a first pregnancy ending in abortion increases your risk of breast cancer, for example. (Also a first pregnancy ending in miscarriage). Certain hormone levels rise, but the others who counteract them don’t come, so they increase the risk of cancer.
Obviously I am not a doctor! Duh, but you can’t mess around with peoples’ hormones and not affect them negatively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.