Posted on 09/10/2014 10:31:43 AM PDT by shove_it
Edited on 09/10/2014 10:36:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Tracey Kahn is a successful publicist. She is single, lives in a beautiful apartment in Manhattan, has a 2-year-old daughter, and is pregnant with again. She is 51.
"I feel great, and I'm so excited, and so is my family," Kahn says.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxny.com ...
Sadly you are right, most don’t. What a shame that is.
I was 46 when my youngest son was born. He’s now 26 and I am 72. The worst that happened to me was people who asked how old my “ grandson” was.
A repeat: a baby is not an animal. But IVF treats him or her like an animal.
Is it not true that the IVF lab/clinic would consider it their "ethical" responsibility to discard any human zygote they found to be affected by some sort of defect, before implantation?
And is it not true that IVF produces offspring which are regarded by law as property rather than as persons? (If you have any doubts, take a good hard look at the "Davis vs Davis" Maryville TN embryo case (LINK)
Is it not true that, as a result, human embryos can legally be bought, sold, bequeathed to somebody as part of an estate, manipulated with intentionally lethal results, given away, regarded as a tortuous offense in a wrongful birth case, stored like a dubious package at the back of the freezer, or discarded?
Like an animal. Like frogs' eggs.
I was 45 when my youngest was born. She’s now 2-1/2. I’ve been complimented on my “grandchildren” since I was in my mid-30s ;-). I don’t care.
52 when she gives birth and 70 when the little one leaves for college? I hope she understands what she has signed up for.
So, elevated risk to the mother, yeah. All of the gynecological cancers are hormone-sensitive.
And as for the babies? Elevated risk as well. There's FIVE TIMES the risk of complications for the babies.
Why doesn't she adopt?
Why doesn't she get MARRIED, for heaven's sake? That is the FIRST responsibility of a person who wants to be a parent.
One of the most persistent fantasies of these detached-from-reality mothers: that kids don't need a father.
You notice that it’s always how “they feel.” To hell with what the kids have to put up with growing up w/o a father and having a mother that’s a career worker. She will be over 70 (if she makes it that far) before her children are on their own. But then again, they’re probably substantially “on their own” when they pop out.
I was a grandmother at 42 and now have 2 great granddaughters who are 5 and 6 and I am 70. Love those little ones and am so thankful that I can still get down on the floor with them. They are a blessing.
My parents were in their 40s when I was born. I lost them too early. My father went in 1997 when I was in my early thirties.
I’m not saying that will be the case with you. I hope and pray not, and I wish you many more years of life with your family.
56?! Wow, that’s the oldest natural pregnancy I’ve ever heard of! Did she make the newspapers?
“What’s in Mommy’s tummy?”
“A baby.”
Send that toddler off for re-indoctrination. Doesn’t she know it’s a fetus?
51 and pregnant is wonderful.....51 and pregnant and single, with another child alreaady is pathetic....no moral values at all.
twenty years from now, 70 will be the new 54....it's amazing, but it's happening before our eyes....I have friends well into their 80's who play golf every day!!!
It’s going to be awesome too when you come to the realization that you probably won’t see your kid graduate high school. College. Have kids. And that’s being generous and assuming really good health.
getting down on the floor is the easy part, it's returning to the upright position that usually presents the problem!!!!
Nah, I am ok with that part, too.
I really don't give a crap about her. She's clearly a mentally ill whacko who bought into the whole progressive mindset.
I feel for the kids who may very well end up motherless at a young age and were always fatherless.
That is criminally selfish, IMO.
56 is the age of the oldest verified natural conception and birth. We looked it up once.
You know (apropos of several posts above) it’s very easy to suggest that it’s better never to have been born than to be born to older parents. It’s very easy to suggest it’s better not to exist than to live with a handicap. However, it’s never the nonexistence of the person saying it that’s being proposed ... it’s somebody else who is theorized out of existence. If you see what I mean.
On the face of it, I have not problem with the age part of it. What concerns me is this woman’s marital status coupled age. What it appears to me like, is that this is all about her, and nothing about the circumstances for the child.
What happens if she croaks off at 58? There’s no dad around.
I realize these types of things take place by accident, but to set the kids up like this on purpose. It’s very annoying.
I’m older. Who knows, I might find a woman with kids and settle down again. I’d make sure she was financially set up so she and the kids were okay, and then she would be there for the kids.
Maybe I’m off base on this, but every once in a while I see some of the idiotic things women say and do related to their new “freedoms”, that grate me something fierce.
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.