We just had a 55 year old grandmother here give birth to triplets, for her daughter.

It is not going to get better, just worse.  man is always going to try to break records, and this is just one of them.

I thought that this one was having them for her daughter also, implanted with the daughter's eggs. I certainly hope so.

I think there is a reason that our bodies STOP producing eggs after a certain age. Don't you?
There comes a time when one should stop trying to fool mother nature. I understand that there are women in the world that want babies. But there are also pleanty of women in the world who have babies and do not want them. That is the beauty of adoption.

I am right with you on this one Dharmagrl.

It's the woman's choice though. Sure, it's unethical, and it's wrong, but as long as it's happening her body, nobody has a right to tell her what to do with it. To tell her she can't have a child would be like telling any other woman that they can't have a child and then force an abortion on her.

Sure, it's unethical, and it's wrong, but as long as it's happening her body, nobody has a right to tell her what to do with it.

I thoroughly disagree. It's not just her body, it affects others, beginning with the twin children. They are not, or at least will not be a part of her body, they will be real people, placed in an unbelievably difficult situation, before they even have time to mature enough to cope with it.

Furthermore, one is not allowed to do unethical things in the name of bodily freedoms. Can you use that same body to kill or steal? As to if it "only hurts yourself," If you walked down the street on a daily basis punching yourself in the nose, it might not hurt others, but it wouldn't be long before the men in the little white coats and the butterfly nets and Thorazine came by to stop you.

I thoroughly disagree. It's not just her body, it affects others, beginning with the twin children. They are not, or at least will not be a part of her body, they will be real people, placed in an unbelievably difficult situation, before they even have time to mature enough to cope with it.

So, the government should have the right to force an abortion, but not prevent one?

Furthermore, one is not allowed to do unethical things in the name of bodily freedoms. Can you use that same body to kill or steal? As to if it "only hurts yourself," If you walked down the street on a daily basis punching yourself in the nose, it might not hurt others, but it wouldn't be long before the men in the little white coats and the butterfly nets and Thorazine came by to stop you.

Stealing from oneself? I don't see how that's possible. As for trying to hurt oneself, that's to protect the life of the person. Unless this woman was in serious danger (more danger than a woman receiving an abortion would be), I don't see that as a valid reason for forbidding her from having control of her own body. Also, in that case, somebody really has some mental problems. One might say that this woman has mental problems too, but unless they can prove she's clinically insane, it's simply that they don't like what she's doing, just like some people don't like how women have abortions, but that doesn't mean women who have abortions are clinically insane, even though some people would suggest they are.

It is not going to get better, just worse.

That's what I'm afraid of....what's next, women having babies in their eighties?

I thought that this one was having them for her daughter also, implanted with the daughter's eggs. I certainly hope so.

Nope, this one's having them for herself.  She's at an age where some of her peers are moving into assisted living facilities and are using canes and walkers to get around...how in the hell she thinks she's going to be able to keep up with twin toddlers I do not know. 

I think there is a reason that our bodies STOP producing eggs after a certain age. Don't you?

Yes, I absolutely do.  Sometimes mother nature really does know best.....sometimes we fool with things that we ought not to be fooling with.

It's not just her body, it affects others, beginning with the twin children. They are not, or at least will not be a part of her body, they will be real people, placed in an unbelievably difficult situation, before they even have time to mature enough to cope with it.

And that is exactly my concern.

having control of her own body

Ah, but she wasn't alone in the 'control'.  Her own body had tried to shut down it's baby making facility years ago...she was taking artificial hormones to keep it going. 

 

Ah, but she wasn't alone in the 'control'.  Her own body had tried to shut down it's baby making facility years ago...she was taking artificial hormones to keep it going.

Isn't that the case with abortion? Abortion requires many things outside the woman's body to cause the abortion. It usually doesn't just happen naturally.

Reply #8 By: messybuu - 1/3/2005 7:38:47 PM Ah, but she wasn't alone in the 'control'. Her own body had tried to shut down it's baby making facility years ago...she was taking artificial hormones to keep it going. Isn't that the case with abortion? Abortion requires many things outside the woman's body to cause the abortion.

Yes, it is.  I see your point, and to a certain degree, agree with you.  However, abortion is terminating life...sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes for medical or socio-economic reasons.  This woman is creating life, for herself.  She's not being an incubator for someone else, she's not blessing anyone else with this gift of life.... she's perverting the natural course of things so she can have children.  I can't say that she's thought of the impact having an elderly mother is going to have on the babies, I don't know the full reasons behind her decision....but I can say that on the surface her reasons seem to be incredibly selfish.

I dunno if that made any sense at all; I'm slightly befuddled right now (pain meds for my back)....

Oiks...

Dharma, my wife and I met when we were both 39. Once we decided we were going to get married, we made a decision then not to have children. There are a number of reasons for this, one in particular being that we had no idea how long it might take to conceive and neither of us liked the thought of being 'Autumn' parents. I couldn't imagine being 55 and trying to keep up with a 4 year old, for instance.

I also see social welfare implications where children are being primary carers for their elderly parents, for instance. What sort of life is this for a child? I agree with you, there is a point when someone should say 'this is too old'.

It's not just her body, it affects others, beginning with the twin children

with that logic, you could concivably argue that the drug addicted teen on welfare is affecting the lives of others by getting pregnant and you could follow that chain of logic to the idea that she shouldn't have kids and then to forced abortion or sterilization....

I dont' think having kids at such a late age is a good idea, but we can't judge something as right or wrong based on how it affects others. it's validity has to stand on it's own....

Even sadder, she had her child six weeks early (today) - a girl, her twin was still born and the third feotus died at 9weeks. It;s all over the news this morning

There is a 69 year old great-grandma giving birth to twins here... she had a tubal 30 years ago and it came undone. It was a big surprise to her and to her ex-husband/the father.