this auld wan that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[jane]

eh who's to say you're more competant when you're younger?

The point I am making is that we've contravened nature in every other regard with medicine (because if we hadn't most of us here would be scarred from smallpox, limp from polio or dead from multifarious diseases by now) so what's actually really wrong with having a child after the limit imposed by menopause?

Exactly. I see the concerns, but I also see the underlying issue that 'society' (in whatever way we choose to define it) still sees a woman's womb as a sort of public domain, and that a woman's choices about her body aren't entirely her own. In the last few years, since more people our age have been having babies, I've definitely heard a lot of them talking about how other people make it their business, even total strangers. I even heard a couple of women talking in a lunch place a few weeks ago about how one of them, when waitressing, refused to put parmesean cheese on a woman's salad because she noticed she was pregnant. Ok, unpasteurised cheese is on the 'risk' list of foods, but that's not anyone's business, especially not a stranger, and I should have butted in and told the bitch to get off her high horse because, duh, of course it was none of my beeswax, but neither was telling a woman what to do just because she's up the duff! Imagine the outrage if someone randomly went around robbing cakes off of overweight people, or making them run laps, or nicking the butter off someone's plate because they have high cholesterol! But no, somehow, people think they have a right to impose their will on a woman because she's pregnant, or tell her when she can and cannot give birth.

Of course her age is an issue, but I would hesitate to impose any restriction on a woman's choice to give birth, whether it has to do with abortion, or with wanting to give birth at an age or at any other time deemed less than ideal by the wider public.

I mean, plenty of people have kids when they can't afford them, or when they're too young, or who have a history of serious illness. This is a woman who is extremely healthy, who wants nothing more than to give care and attention to a child, and is willing to do anything to have the opportunity to do so. While I still don't like to judge women one way or the other, all concerns aside, that child is 100% wanted, and that's a start millions of kids on the earth don't get.

Clearly, she's prepared for it, and she's ready for it, and it's not like she wouldn't have thought long and hard about the effects of her age, but it doesn't make it onto the news when a 62-year old man becomes a dad. In fact, people often have the opposite response, with either explicit or implicit applause for the guy's virility.

There have been occasional incidents where women have given birth naturally in their late 50s or into their 60s, so how is this all that different, except that she went to tremendous trouble to do it, and is extremely committed to being a mom?

Where was I? Oh yeah, still reeling from the fact that you're not supposed to have smelly cheese when you're pregnant. If I ever am up the duff, I'm screwed. Stinky cheese comprises about 75% of my diet.

 

[jane]

if we have to start justifying our off-the-cuff remarks around here, i'm gonna leave.

ummm...i dunno, it's just a feeling i get...how healthy will the baby be? how healthy will mom be afterwards?

taboos sometimes exist for a reason. it's taboo to inbreed because of developmental risk to the baby. i get the same feeling here.

If there's a scientific/medical reason for it, it's not really a 'taboo'. But that's semantics, anyway. Really, though, if it's such a problem, how come there's no taboo on old men being dads, then? How come they don't go around castrating men when they hit 45, 'just in case'?

Plenty of risks are involved with pregnancy. There's no reason she can't carry a healthy child, and given how careful the doctor involved will be, and how careful she will be, chances are, she'll have a much healthier pregnancy and much healthier baby than a lot of younger women will.

What's wrong with someone asking you to explain your off-the-cuff remark?

 

[Lord Damian]

If there's a scientific/medical reason for it, it's not really a 'taboo'. But that's semantics, anyway. Really, though, if it's such a problem, how come there's no taboo on old men being dads, then? How come they don't go around castrating men when they hit 45, 'just in case'?

Plenty of risks are involved with pregnancy. There's no reason she can't carry a healthy child, and given how careful the doctor involved will be, and how careful she will be, chances are, she'll have a much healthier pregnancy and much healthier baby than a lot of younger women will.

What's wrong with someone asking you to explain your off-the-cuff remark?

i was just kidding about the whole having to explain part. the boy mark is right. ya just can't do sarcasm effectively on the internet.

i don't see where they're calling for the old lady's ovaries to be ripped out...if i'm missing that, then it explains why i'm missing your correlation to old fellers being castrated.

for the record, old dudes getting someone pregnant pretty much = the weird factor of old ladies getting preggers. that's just me, mind.

PS - just so we're clear, i don't see anything wrong with it really, it just seems weird. she's obviously entitled to do whatever the hell she feels like doing, i wouldn't vote against her having babies. it's kinda like being gay. i couldn't see myself NOT thinking screwing another fella up the bum would be kinda weird, but if it ain't hurting anyone, i'm not going to vote to take your right to do that away from you. the key is "is it hurting someone ?" - if they're confident the kids gonna be 100% ok, then that's awesome, more power to her (like i said before). doesn't mean i can't think it's a bit weird. i like weird though, don't get me wrong. weird is wonderful.

 

[pete]

This is a woman who is extremely healthy, who wants nothing more than to give care and attention to a child, and is willing to do anything to have the opportunity to do so.

Apparently she first went to this doc when she was 60. Obviously we don't know the details, but it seems like she left it fierce late for someone who's "willing to do anything" to have a sprog.

it doesn't make it onto the news when a 62-year old man becomes a dad. In fact, people often have the opposite response, with either explicit or implicit applause for the guy's virility.

But that's the very reason it gets onto the news - The 62 year old man isn't usually knocking up a 62 year old woman. (See: Rod Stewart etc.) In these situations, it's pretty safe to assume that one of the parents will at least be around to see the kid hit puberty.

 

[P. Littbarski]

so who is next on the "must prevent from having babies" list people ?

what about messed up junkies who are gonna get smacked out of their heads + drink whilst pregnant and who allready have 3 kids by 3 different fathers getting pregnant...should they be stopped from having babies ?

what about the convicted paedo (like yer woman French who was convicted recently) who has been to prison and has been reformed and is now in a loving relationship...can she be prevented from having kids in future ?

what about people who have serious cancer or another terminal disease and want to give birth before they die...should they be prevented from having children while they still can.

where do you draw the line ?

 

[JohnnyRaz]

ok, is that not a kneejerk reaction immediately saying 'she's too old'? what if this becomes the norm in the way that plastic surgery has?

is plastic surgery being the norm a particularly good thing?

 

[egg_]

should they be prevented from having children ... where do you draw the line ?

Has anyone here suggested that anyone be prevented from having children?

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

heres a normal 62 year old womans womb

and yet, here is hers

 

[egg_]

'society' (in whatever way we choose to define it) still sees a woman's womb as a sort of public domain, and that a woman's choices about her body aren't entirely her own

That's what a "society" is all about, Jane, as opposed to a collection of individuals - nobody's choices about anything are entirely their own. A barman won't serve you if you're falling down drunk, and you'll meet disapproval from your neighbours if you pile up rubbish in your front yard, or shout at your wife in public

 

[glen]

God I wouldn't ride her.

 

[ICUH8N]

so did someone "smash the granny off her" ?

 

[glen]

"Not tonight dear, my hips are at me again."

 

[P. Littbarski]

Has anyone here suggested that anyone be prevented from having children?

not as such...but by inference it can be assumed that people have a major problem with this and therefore don't think it should be allowed . I got into a discussion about this last night with some people I thought were generally liberal and was very suprised at how vehemently they argued that this is wrong and should not be allowed.

If this 'outrage' at the treatment gathers momentum and generates enough public interest as more women/couples undergo this procedure over the forseeable future, who is to say that legislation will not be drawn up to prevent women of a certain age (ie. after their menopause) undergoing fertility treatment. It is not unreasonable to make the assumption that if it came to a referendum or a vote that people opposed to this would vote No.

This topic belongs in the same realm as the discussion about stem cell research, cloning etc. insofar as the aforementioned types of research/procedures are what some people would believe to be 'unnatural' and going against nature.

 

[glen]

A friend of mine was letting her mate have a hold of her new baby and the mate says "Do I suit babies y'think?".

 

[Bellatrix]

I'm have no problem with older women wanting to have babies.

My grandma would make a great ma.

 

[jane]

That's what a "society" is all about, Jane, as opposed to a collection of individuals - nobody's choices about anything are entirely their own. A barman won't serve you if you're falling down drunk, and you'll meet disapproval from your neighbours if you pile up rubbish in your front yard, or shout at your wife in public

Yes, you meet 'disapproval' if you do things that are definitely damaging to OTHERS, or indicate that you are hurting someone else (i.e., your wife, piling your rubbish up is bad for your neighbourhood), but who is to say when and how people breed?

Just because when a man fathers a child at an advanced age, the wife is often quite young (and, by the way, no one has talked about the father's age at all in this case, which indicates again that it's only a problem if a woman does it, and also, people just assume he's her age or older, never even asking if he's younger, as clearly, no one would want to stick it in an aul one), doesn't mean it's an entirely different situtation.

Until fairly recently, a huge proportion of women died in childbirth, but no one went around saying women shouldn't have babies if they're just going to go and die and leave someone else to raise them. In fact, while those kids were sometimes raised by their fathers, they were often farmed out to someone else. Now, I wouldn't rest my whole argument on this, mainly because I am loath to use 'it happened in the past, therefore it is valid', since all societies change, but I do think the fact that this woman's womb has been -- like all wombs -- made everyone else's business is the issue here, not whether or not an aul wan should be 'allowed' to have a babba. Families have been redefined, and that's a good thing. Why not extend the definition a bit more? Why not leave people to develop their own definition? Sure, that kid might grow up well pissed off that he or she was brought into the world in this way, but the situation is comparatively better for this child than for millions of others born every year.

It is about women's bodies. If it were about babies, then people would be just as concerned about cocks, which they're not. If a man is still pumping fresh crude into his 70s, people think he's a god. It is never even discussed that he won't be around to see his kid grow up, as if it doesn't matter at all. When actually, it does. And at least in this situation, the issues have been thought out really thoroughly, and the baby is not just a trophy of some old dude's virility, but a child who is very wanted.

The point is, though, whether you like the concept or not, it's none of anyone else's business. It's between the parents, their doctor, and whoever else they choose to include. Not us, not the media, not the government.

So fine, society is about a corporate body composed of individuals, but there is still, within that, some level of autonomy, and there should be. Society's collective decisions should not extend to my womb, or the womb of a woman twice my age. Those are not anyone else's decisions to make.

 

[MDR]

I think the main issue is whether she can have a healthy pregnancy and give birth to a healthy baby. Once there is no risk to the baby's health I don't think there is an issue. While it's not ideal for people to be so much older than their kids (for energy reasons if nothing else) there is nothing to stop 60 or 70 year old men becoming fathers so women shouldn't be stopped from becoming mothers on the basis of their age alone, provided there is no risk to the baby in them doing so.

That said there is somewhat of a double standard when it comes to adoption where parents over a certain age are less likely to be given the all clear.

 

[jane]

I think the main issue is whether she can have a healthy pregnancy and give birth to a healthy baby.
That said there is somewhat of a double standard when it comes to adoption where parents over a certain age are less likely to be given the all clear.

Exactly. And that's between the parents and their doctor. Not the government, the media, or us, sitting around on message boards, thinking it's our business to decide whether a woman has societal approval for motherhood.

 

[MDR]

Exactly. I see the concerns, but I also see the underlying issue that 'society' (in whatever way we choose to define it) still sees a woman's womb as a sort of public domain, and that a woman's choices about her body aren't entirely her own.

I agree with you to a point. I think the father is entitled to a say about what becomes of the child in the womb.

 

[jane]

I agree with you to a point. I think the father is entitled to a say about what becomes of the child in the womb.

Yes, but only if he is defined as 'potential father'. I mean, I know someone who got knocked up by a dude, and the dude said he wanted nothing to do with the child, then said he'd hunt her down and press charges against her for murder (he was nuts, by the way) if she had an abortion because he was totally anti-abortion. Then he moved to Texas. If there were legal protection on his behalf, she could be forced to pop the sprog and raise it, even though he didn't need to be around. Yes, that's an extreme case, but it's not uncommon.

Lucky for her, she had a miscarriage about a week before she was going to have an abortion. How sad that a miscarriage would be seen as a 'lucky break'.

Sorry, but actually, that whole situation really depends on context.

Ideally, yes, that would be the best way, but not all relationships are ideal. The best way to deal with this is not to have any legislation that controls or attempts to control a woman's womb. The reason this is the best way is that it means each couple can deal with things in their own way. Giving men legal control over a woman's womb in ANY WAY is a very, very dangerous road to go down. VERY dangerous. Doesn't return control to the woman or the man, just leaves it as everyone else's decision but the woman's.

Removing ALL legislation from reproductive systems is the absolutely only way to even move an inch toward there being equality in reproductive decisionmaking. Thus, if men want to have a say in whether they have babies or not, they would be wisest to join up with pro-choice campaigns because pro-choice campaigns are not about pro-abortion, they're about ensuring that wombs are not controlled by the state, and that all reproductive decisions can be made within their very specific contexts, rather than by blanket legislation on 'morality'.

If a dude wants a baby so bad, perhaps he should try adopting or fostering one that someone else didn't want.