babble: Women can extend fertility

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » feminism » Women can extend fertility

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Women can extend fertility

fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 30 May 2005 10:07 AM

Sauce for the goose... Have a look CTV

Women can now have children way later in life. More choice for women, more crap from the Xian reich.

I particularly like this:

Medical ethicist Dr. Margaret Somerville of McGill said: "I don't think it's just a matter of an adult saying, 'when would I like to have children.' It's also a matter of what about children who are brought up by much older parents."

Brought up by older parents, plural. Nevermind that men can sire children well into their dotage.. . .

From: away | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 May 2005 10:24 AM

Margaret Somerville is in severe need of competing voices as the person the lazy Canadian msm fall back on whenever they need a "medical ethicist" to quote.

She is certainly tendentious. I don't think of her as the "Christian Reich," quite, but she is a moralizer (ie: tedious) and a pretty conservative one too.

That said: am I glad I can't get pregnant any more? Let me put it this way:

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 30 May 2005 10:33 AM

How about Arthur Schafer? I've definitely seen him a few times on CBC television news.

My question about this is not how fertile the frozen eggs are, but whether there's an increased risk of birth defects parallel to what would be seen if the eggs stayed in the ovaries.

Ethics-wise, and all vagaries and misfortunes of life aside, life expectancy has risen to the point where women contemplating this kind of procedure are entirely likely to live until their kids reach the age of majority, so what's the problem? I doubt you'll find many, say, 95-year-olds clamouring for another run at child-rearing!

From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 30 May 2005 10:34 AM

I didn't mean Somerville herself, tedious though she is, but what the Xians will make of this. You know, how feminists treat babies like fashion accessories and not like the gift of god that they are.

About actually having one myself, I'm with you, skdadl . As an aside for women fearing aging, one of the best things about it is no more BC to worry/fuss about.

From: away | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 30 May 2005 10:46 AM

I don't think the fears of older parents are just a matter of doddering elders. My parents were middle-aged (remember, the baby-boom included a lot of folks who had put off procreating during the Depression and War) and there was always a big gap, lack of communication. That isn't a hard and fast rule of course but it can be a problem, especially for older first-time parents.

I thought I was pregnant a couple of years ago but fortunately it was a false alarm. I most definitely would have had an abortion (for reasons of age as well as no great desire to have a human baby) and I know the non-dad, who already has a now 25-year-old son, would certainly not be interested in "extended fertility".

That said, Somerville can stuff it. She is a meddling busybody who interferes in other people's lives in the name of ethics, attempting to deny people the right to assisted suicide when they no longer wish to continue suffering. Screw her.

From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged

brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 30 May 2005 10:48 AM

I think it's a great thing when older people decide to have kids (though I do have my reservations about various artificial means, won't go into that now). For one thing, it gives a great sense of history and continuity to children as they grow up. My mum, my grandmum and my great-great-grandmum all had kids in their early 40s (my granny only got started at 38) and it really feels neat to have that closer connection with history. She was born in the late 1880s and that thought always amazed me from the time I could get my mind around it (though of course, she died in 1974 when I was 5, and that was not so cool...)
My dad is a WWII vet, so when I was growing up, I was the only kid whose dad had been there and saw that. He had a pretty unusual perspective on things from that point of view, to say the least.

From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 30 May 2005 02:26 PM

Besides, what's so terrible about the many, many families (in a variety of cultures) where the grandmother raises the kids while the mother works?

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 30 May 2005 02:38 PM

Yeah, what happened to 'it takes a village. . .'? The researchers are touting the treatment especially for younger women facing some kind of potentially infertility-inducing disease or treatment, like radiation or chemotherapy. These women could bank their eggs and have children later, when they're well. But of course, the anti-feminists, anti-choicers are going to focus on selfish women who want it all, yadayada. I know a couple of men who fathered children in their late 40's and early 50's and nobody thinks they are selfish etc. Both of them are having a ball with their little kids and one of them who also had children much younger says he wishes he'd had the time then that he has now for his kids.

From: away | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 30 May 2005 03:36 PM

Hmm I feel like Im in that boat.
Im 42 and mrs bacchus wants to have another run at the babymaking and shes 35.

From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 May 2005 04:36 PM

We had Ms T when I was 35 and the blond guy was 41. So far, so good.

From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 30 May 2005 04:40 PM

I'll pass that along to Mrs Bacchus and maybe she will stop asking "are you sure? are you sure?"

From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 31 May 2005 12:48 AM

My grandmother married a widower at 38, had her babies at 40, 43 and 45, all perfect. And, in those days, there was a lot less medical help available. She raised them, and four step-children, in difficult circumstances, helped raise three of her grandchildren and babysat two great-grandchildren.
Such stamina is not given to all - but neither is it highly unusual.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 May 2005 05:33 AM

My mama had me when she was 39. With white hair and blue eyes, they thought I was the baby Jesus. My dark-haired siblings were always the naughty ones.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

alisea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4222

posted 31 May 2005 10:12 AM

I had my two when I was 37 and 39. In a perfect world, I would have preferred to have been about 5 years younger.

* I didn't have the energy that I had earlier, and they were both v. difficult babies. Broken that went on for months (Kate didn't sleep for longer than 45 minutes at a stretch until she was 11 months old) was harder to deal with at 40 than it would have been at, say, 33.

* They're both going through puberty and I'm at the height of menopause. The hormone fogs around here can be .. interesting.

* I simply don't have the flexibility/agility at 50 for things like soccer or street hockey that I did even 5 years ago. I'm still in decent shape in terms of strength and endurance, but I don't *want* to learn to rollerblade anymore.

I would absolutely, utterly NOT want to be pregnant any later than I was :-)

From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 31 May 2005 11:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by alisea:
* I didn't have the energy that I had earlier, and they were both v. difficult babies. Broken that went on for months (Kate didn't sleep for longer than 45 minutes at a stretch until she was 11 months old) was harder to deal with at 40 than it would have been at, say, 33.

If it's any consolation, I had a baby like that when I was 28 and it was the hardest stretch of my life so far. There's something about not getting more than 2 or 3 hours of sleep for months on end that does you in, no matter how old you are. I don't think I'll ever fully recover.

From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: