ForumGarden

Acct.

Of course the loss of libertys upset me..

I'm on a Govermnent/Federal issued plan - Medicare.



I agree with BRUV

The fact one could purchase a child !!!- as a child I thought everything could be returned to the store/ Sears, so - I would tell my mother to take me back, this isn't working out for me...

No - This lady shopped around until enough money spoke to one DR...

this decision at her age -just is not fair to the child from the start..

And why in the world would a woman at 50 - 60 or older want to carry & deliver a child at this stage in her life.. are you kidding me..!!!!!

no offense to any one - but I just think there's more to life than - -

The ABC's and can I borrow the car keys.....

Patsy

Hmmm thinking.............



No one has come up with an actual age group in which they would be comfortable banning a woman from having a baby yet .

for those of you who have written that she is too old, care to give an age when child birth is unacceptable?

fuzzywuzzy;1218531 wrote: Hmmm thinking.............



No one has come up with an actual age group in which they would be comfortable banning a woman from having a baby yet .

for those of you who have written that she is too old, care to give an age when child birth is unacceptable?


Nature has the final say in who could or should bear children.

If I had to arbitrarily define who could recieve treatment to bear children I might upset too many people.........hell why not ?

Single women, women in single sex relationships, women acting as surrogates for men or women couples.

I don't think you can demand women of a certain age cease from wanting children, but you don't have to strive to fulfil their dreams beyond the time nature kicks in and tells them its past their time.

fuzzywuzzy;1218531 wrote: Hmmm thinking.............





No one has come up with an actual age group in which they would be comfortable banning a woman from having a baby yet .



for those of you who have written that she is too old, care to give an age when child birth is unacceptable?
See posts #28 & #34.

So basically I'm being told by people that I'm not allowed or should be restricted to having children at the age of forty . So I can foster all the kids I want because society sees me as a fit human being to do so but some think I should be restricted as to having my own flesh and blood?

Wow that's really sick, we have people who stampede the world telling women what they should and should not do with their bodies and now to see this is amazing to me.

Well in my world babies are born to families not just one solitary individual, I'm finding this discussion very disturbing considering the babies born around the world born to older parents and mothers. Is this the sad inhumane, robotic, economical and capitalistic society of the western world we are seeing here?

Roll on feminism ......................................if you are still alive ................sadly I think not.

Bruv;1218538 wrote: Nature has the final say in who could or should bear children.

If I had to arbitrarily define who could recieve treatment to bear children I might upset too many people.........hell why not ?

Single women, women in single sex relationships, women acting as surrogates for men or women couples.

I don't think you can demand women of a certain age cease from wanting children, but you don't have to strive to fulfil their dreams beyond the time nature kicks in and tells them its past their time.


Agreed Until you have an unfortunate woman who at the age of 20 is already experiencing menopause....................then a drug or medical breakthrough comes along in which that young woman can use to bare her own . Then what?

Surrogacy has been happening since the dawn of time ....................so has adoption btw, do we restrict adoption because it's a form of surrogacy?

fuzzywuzzy;1218531 wrote: Hmmm thinking.............





No one has come up with an actual age group in which they would be comfortable banning a woman from having a baby yet .



for those of you who have written that she is too old, care to give an age when child birth is unacceptable?
Ban?? You mean pull an arbitrary number out of the air and make a law? I'm far more comfortable letting the medical people responsible for the procedure also being responsible for deciding whether to proceed.

I remember the interveiw in which the man who invented IVF said he wished he had never thought of it. in his opinion it was for young women between the ages of 18 and 30 . He explained why and it suited me (medical and ethical reasons) he was sad to see an industry based on money show it's ugly head. It was originally supposed to be covered by medicare.

Nomad;1218474 wrote: Forgive me for being unaware of all the details of the new plan. I dont know how you know all the details when theyre still throwing ideas around. My understanding at one point was if you recieved benefits through your employer nothing would change. Hes not trying to put Blue Cross Blue Shield out of business merely filling in the gaps that too many are falling through.

Could you provide some link to the idea you have that we will have no choices and benefits will be dictated to us as well as mandatory ?
New Thread

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/healt ... ost1218569

Is it okay for mothers to be surrogates for their daughters or sons children?

flopstock;1218584 wrote: Is it okay for mothers to be surrogates for their daughters or sons children?


Id like to see someone tell you you cant have a child if thats what you wished for.

Im guessing that would register a 9.0 on the Richter scale.

Ask yourself - would you want your PARENT to be 67 yrs. old

as they walk you to your first day at school..??

I want, I want - what about what that child has to go thru..?

In this scenario, it sounds as if this woman replaced her mother with a child

(children)..? sold everything for this procedure - very selfish decision..

get a puppy

Patsy

Nomad;1218617 wrote: Id like to see someone tell you you cant have a child if thats what you wished for.

Im guessing that would register a 9.0 on the Richter scale.
It's not called the Richter scale any more. It's the Local Magnitude Scale....... tut

cars;1218089 wrote: That's a tricky subject, considering the happiness of the young children involved that may likely loose their mother! I have mixed feelings on this myself! It's every woman's right to bare chidren if she so desires. But "age" would kinda be a major factor I would think! Especially if she has already had children.


I agree with you cars. IMO there should be an age restriction for bearing children - possibly 55. When you consider that the most difficult time of a child's life is in their teens, this would make the mother a pensioner who would have to deal with the teenage problems, not very good for either of them I think ! It's really simple common sense IMO.

55, eh? What would be the punishment for breaking such a law?

Accountable;1218744 wrote: 55, eh? What would be the punishment for breaking such a law?


Sorry Ac, I meant to say for IVF. I don't think that you could stop women having babies naturally at any age.

G#Gill;1218757 wrote: Sorry Ac, I meant to say for IVF. I don't think that you could stop women having babies naturally at any age.You don't think a doctor has the wisdom to make such a determination? Such a decision needs the wisdom only a politician possesses?

Patsy Warnick;1218653 wrote: Ask yourself - would you want your PARENT to be 67 yrs. old

as they walk you to your first day at school..??



I want, I want - what about what that child has to go thru..?



In this scenario, it sounds as if this woman replaced her mother with a child

(children)..? sold everything for this procedure - very selfish decision..



get a puppy

Patsy


Actually it would have been worse then that Patsy, as the woman in the OP was "69" when she died, and her kidlets were only "2 years old. Which meant she would have been around "73" when those kidlets had their first day of school!

Accountable;1218744 wrote: 55, eh? What would be the punishment for breaking such a law?


yeah:-2



Forced abortions? Then sew them shut? Perhaps we could line up for hysterectomies when we are 54?



btw, is it really possible I've spelled that word right the first time? I've checked it twice already...

Nomad;1218617 wrote: Id like to see someone tell you you cant have a child if thats what you wished for.

Im guessing that would register a 9.0 on the Richter scale.


My daughter always corrects folks who refer to me as her grandmother... cracks me up because you can hear the 'you moron' implied..:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl



And as for the rest of you, I'm more then happy to stomp anyones ass who feels I'm not fit to be a mother at any age that god(or some other anonymous third party:sneaky:) drops the little nugget into my canal.



Men become fathers at all ages and the cat calls start up..



Give me a break! People are having children every day that have no business having children... old ladies are WAY down my list of the idiots who need to be stopped first.:rolleyes:

flopstock;1218804 wrote: yeah:-2



Forced abortions? Then sew them shut? Perhaps we could line up for hysterectomies when we are 54?



btw, is it really possible I've spelled that word right the first time? I've checked it twice already...


Play fair!! The men better be beside us having a sterilisation and whilst they're there if we have to be stitched then they can be too! :rolleyes::D

flopstock;1218811 wrote: My daughter always corrects folks who refer to me as her grandmother... cracks me up because you can hear the 'you moron' implied..:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl



And as for the rest of you, I'm more then happy to stomp anyones ass who feels I'm not fit to be a mother at any age that god(or some other anonymous third party:sneaky:) drops the little nugget into my canal.



Men become fathers at all ages and the cat calls start up..

Give me a break! People are having children every day that have no business having children... old ladies are WAY down my list of the idiots who need to be stopped first. :rolleyes:


:yh_clap:yh_clap

fuzzywuzzy;1218550 wrote: Agreed Until you have an unfortunate woman who at the age of 20 is already experiencing menopause....................then a drug or medical breakthrough comes along in which that young woman can use to bare her own . Then what?

Surrogacy has been happening since the dawn of time ....................so has adoption btw, do we restrict adoption because it's a form of surrogacy?


A 20 year old would be a medical condition, not nature telling you it's too late.

Oh Bruv. tut tut Menopause is not "a medical condition" it's a natural occurance and it can happen at any age naturally. Look it up.



Someone ask before what would be the punishment for having a child outside the recomended age group. Well it would be the same as the bad old days when they forcibly took children away from there 'young' mothers. ............Brand them "unfit" and you can do anything to a woman.



I like to see someone tell the guy on telly last night that he was on his last legs. He's 81 and just won water aerobics instructor of the year . He's fitter than me . Plus in Australia they have just raised the retirement age to 67. So women now have to work until they are 65 but aren't allowed to do anything else?

In war time, thousands of children were shipped off as evacuee's to people much older than natural mothers out of nessessity. Also during the wars millions of children worldwide were brought up by aging grandparents after their parents were killed or injured.

That's a point, we'd have to stop all grandparents from taking on custody of grandchildren and if grandchildren go to visit grandparents should there be a supervision order taken out on the said grandparents?

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with IVF, but a lot of kids are brought up practically from birth by grandparents right now. Those of us who are in such a position probably gaze aghast at someone actually choosing to take on such a responsibility at a time when they could be taking things a bit easier..

It has heaps to do with IVF. If we are saying that a woman can't get pregnant from IVF treatment because of age then we have to look at other instances in which women of a certain age group come into the custody of babies, to back up our notions of 'age group' .

Is anyone aware that foster children (babies ) are mostly given to older foster parents usually grandparents.

fuzzywuzzy;1218871 wrote: It has heaps to do with IVF. If we are saying that a woman can't get pregnant from IVF treatment because of age then we have to look at other instances in which women of a certain age group come into the custody of babies, to back up our notions of 'age group' .



Is anyone aware that foster children (babies ) are mostly given to older foster parents usually grandparents.
During the many posts posted, it seems the OP has been somehow distored from a old woman causing a sad orphan senerio, into a woman's right's saga! The OP was about "OLD" age! And in this case the woman was "67" when she gave birth, which definitely has to have a bearing on the matter. Mother nature normally takes the guess work out of the age factor naturally by seemingly inhibiting older women from conceiving. This woman messed with mother nature. Doctor's have said that the older a woman is when she is having a baby increases the risks of serious birth defects of that baby. So. . . . .



And as for the foster home babies, I have a friend who went throught the foster care system. He said he felt like a "ping pong ball" growing up in foster care. 2 years in one home, 1 year in another, 2 years in another, and so forth. He also mentioned the "older" folks were way less tolerant of his short commings. (But in the end, he did survive!)

I was in foster care from age 13.

Accountable;1218910 wrote: I was in foster care from age 13.
And look how you turned out! :p:D

Cars - thank you - this has taken several avenues.

Aussie Pam - I stated, why would a woman want to carry & deliver children

at such a older age..? I guess I really don't understand that portion of this scenario.? Many other options - foster ?

This particular story - the woman lived with her Mother, after the Mother's death she than sold her home for IVF.. irrational behavior - that seems so desperate.

I myself would get Lg Diamond Earrings.:-3

Age cut off - In time the Medical Prof. or Gov't will sanction guidlines/ deadlines.!!

We have age restrictions on nearly everything else with our Freedoms &

Options in life.

Patsy

cars;1218903 wrote: During the many posts posted, it seems the OP has been somehow distored from a old woman causing a sad orphan senerio, into a woman's right's saga! The OP was about "OLD" age! And in this case the woman was "67" when she gave birth, which definitely has to have a bearing on the matter. Mother nature normally takes the guess work out of the age factor naturally by seemingly inhibiting older women from conceiving. This woman messed with mother nature. Doctor's have said that the older a woman is when she is having a baby increases the risks of serious birth defects of that baby. So. . . . .



And as for the foster home babies, I have a friend who went throught the foster care system. He said he felt like a "ping pong ball" growing up in foster care. 2 years in one home, 1 year in another, 2 years in another, and so forth. He also mentioned the "older" folks were way less tolerant of his short commings. (But in the end, he did survive!)


but it is abouts rights. would you actually turn around to a woman 'you' feel too old and tell her she has no right to give birth..................it seems the blokes around here seem to know a hell of a lot about women and their body condition at certain ages. WOW!!!! Is it surprising to you guys that some women never actually reach menopause? So what do you say to those women ?

It seems the overwhelming theme here is to tar every woman with the same brush, a very paternalistic condition of some societies. It also seems that people here seem to put all the care and emotional stability of a child down to only the mother....................I could die tommorow and my children would never end up in foster care. We need to change this perception that it's the mothers fault for everything that happens in a childs life .................including IVF or any other way a child comes to a family

Patsy Warnick;1218927 wrote: Cars - thank you - this has taken several avenues.

Aussie Pam - I stated, why would a woman want to carry & deliver children

at such a older age..? I guess I really don't understand that portion of this scenario.? Many other options - foster ?

This particular story - the woman lived with her Mother, after the Mother's death she than sold her home for IVF.. irrational behavior - that seems so desperate.

I myself would get Lg Diamond Earrings.:-3

Age cut off - In time the Medical Prof. or Gov't will sanction guidlines/ deadlines.!!

We have age restrictions on nearly everything else with our Freedoms &

Options in life.

Patsy


do we tell a woman of twenty who doesn't have the stability of home ownership and maybe still working fulltime not to use IVF? Do we tell a woman of 30 who's husband might be cheating on her and about to leave her she can't use IVF? do we tell a fit woman of 50 who is financially self suffient she can't use IVF? do we tell a woman of 60 settled, mature, has seen the world and knows enough about it to pass on wisdom to her child - She can't use IVF?

Fact is no one can get into anothers head and make a decision for them .

I'd like to see a law passed that men over the droopy age of 50 should be sterilised because their sperm is depleted enough to cause defects in children. they should never be allowed to have sex again or donate their sperm for IVF

It's just a matter of time - some one will tell you / us WOMEN

our limits - age restrictions on IVF.

Freedom to drive - only at a certain age

Freedom to drink - only at a certain age

Freedom to Vote - only at a certain age

Freedoms to reproduce with the High-Tec advancements - will be defined and

regulated, probably as a Medical Group/Corp regulations.

Medical Corporations decide most everything now regarding our bodies.

I find this womans decision selfish - and Why would a women want to at this age / stage in her life. Foster - adopt - go travel - volunteer - open a Day Care.

go enjoy life

Raising a child isn't a easy job. ooh & coo over the cuddly cute bundle, then the skipping out of school - drugs - jail - then Parent doubles up

on Blood Pressure meds at the age of this woman.

should've gotten the puppy.

You can still burn your Bra

Patsy

This thread seems to go round in circles. But then that's what my blonde brain does too. I did start off devil's advocating the civil rights thing, the liberty thing, the gender equity issues - but also admitted to Cars that it is my own personal, non-politically-correct view that if I was in charge of setting medical ethics for IVF and related procedures I would restrict these to married women of normal healthy child bearing age, which I set low down at 40. This is because of my own moral baggage, if you like, which holds oldfashioned views of the optimal family setup, and places a high priority on the needs of a child. (Having said that, many dysfunctional 'families' sometimes seem to function quite well, including my own.)

This single woman had her treatment in the United States but was resident at the time of her death in Spain, where she apparently has an extended family including cousins in their thirties who are expected to take care of the orphaned twins. They won't end up in foster homes or being supported somehow at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Is anyone seriously trying to get some law passed about the age of a mother whose pregnancy occurs naturally? You'd have to sterilise all women at whatever the lawmakers decide is a fair time. And just to be sure, to be sure maybe neuter the men too.

If you want to be even more sure, you'd need to outlaw selfishness and stupidity.

I note, for Christian fundamentalists amongst us, in Genesis 16, God tells Abraham that he will become a father, though he is 99 years old. His younger wife, Sarah, is 90. God not only seems OK with this, but in fact has arranged it.

Why don't we just pass an FG resolution posthumously condemning the irresponsible behaviour of this woman, and the clinic that treated her, mentally send our good wishes to the children and their carers - and leave it at that.

AussiePam;1219013 wrote: This thread seems to go round in circles. But then that's what my blonde brain does too. I did start off devil's advocating the civil rights thing, the liberty thing, the gender equity issues - but also admitted to Cars that it is my own personal, non-politically-correct view that if I was in charge of setting medical ethics for IVF and related procedures I would restrict these to married women of normal healthy child bearing age, which I set low down at 40. This is because of my own moral baggage, if you like, which holds oldfashioned views of the optimal family setup, and places a high priority on the needs of a child. (Having said that, many dysfunctional 'families' sometimes seem to function quite well, including my own.)



This single woman had her treatment in the United States but was resident at the time of her death in Spain, where she apparently has an extended family including cousins in their thirties who are expected to take care of the orphaned twins. They won't end up in foster homes or being supported somehow at the expense of the American taxpayer.



Is anyone seriously trying to get some law passed about the age of a mother whose pregnancy occurs naturally? You'd have to sterilise all women at whatever the lawmakers decide is a fair time. And just to be sure, to be sure maybe neuter the men too.



If you want to be even more sure, you'd need to outlaw selfishness and stupidity.



I note, for Christian fundamentalists amongst us, in Genesis 16, God tells Abraham that he will become a father, though he is 99 years old. His younger wife, Sarah, is 90. God not only seems OK with this, but in fact has arranged it.



Why don't we just pass an FG resolution posthumously condemning the irresponsible behaviour of this woman, and the clinic that treated her, mentally send our good wishes to the children and their carers - and leave it at that.
AMEN!



(bet they don't)

cars;1218076 wrote:

[ SIZE=3][ B]So do fertility clinics have a responsibility over their patients to assure information accuracy?


Unsure about a "responsibility over" (?) , but they should certainly try to ensure that information they ask for is accurate.



cars;1218076 wrote: Should/could there be an pregnancy "age" limit set, so as to try to protect the unborn children from becoming orphans?


No. That's silly.

AussiePam;1219013 wrote: Why don't we just pass an FG resolution posthumously condemning the irresponsible behaviour of this woman, and the clinic that treated her, mentally send our good wishes to the children and their carers - and leave it at that.




But there are many women who doctors call irresponsible for having children,,,,,,,,,,,,,,my niece included................she has three girls .............she just gave birth last thursday to a boy, 'Xavier'. She's a nurse ( should have known better?)and under the preserpence here, she's irresponsible, because it could of killed her . But she and baby are doing fine..........seriously, who is to decide? And how many older mums do we not hear from because good news is no news?

fuzzywuzzy;1219083 wrote: But there are many women who doctors call irresponsible for having children,,,,,,,,,,,,,,my niece included................she has three girls .............she just gave birth last thursday to a boy, 'Xavier'. She's a nurse ( should have known better?)and under the preserpence here, she's irresponsible, because it could of killed her . But she and baby are doing fine..........seriously, who is to decide? And how many older mums do we not hear from because good news is no news?
Thank goodness she made it through & lived. Delighted for her, best wishes go out to her & her happy family!

However, in her perseverence to possibly give her 3 daughters a brother, from what you said, she put herself at great risk of leaving her existing 3 daughters without a mother. As you said, "she should have known better"!

No i was doing the " should have known better" from you guys. Another words , she shouldnt by your accounts and reasoning ,...........got pregnant.

with all due respect .......**** you !!!!!!

Nice!

fuzzywuzzy;1218930 wrote: It seems the overwhelming theme here is to tar every woman with the same brush, Does it look anything like the brush you're tarring us blokes with?? :p

WOW - so much for having your own opinion .... I'll stay in the Arcade

Jesus FUZZ - you can always come back with another name again.

I'll be looking for ya..:yh_rotfl

What a rude reply to all..

Patsy