There’s been a significant amount of commentary and outrage from many corners concerning the death of the 69 year old Mom who had twin boys just three years ago through IVF.
I think it could be an interesting story to watch as even CNN is doing stories about whether we allow this kind of thing to continue. CNN reports:
The average American woman can live long enough to celebrate her 80th birthday, so if a woman is able to become pregnant using in vitro fertilization with a donor egg at 56, she could still watch her child grow into an adult. But just because it’s possible, does that mean she should?
Some feel that having children after 45 is unfair because the parents might not live to see the kids become adults. The death of 69-year-old Maria del Carmen Bousada of Spain, who used in vitro fertilization with a donor egg to have twin boys at 66, has the fertility treatment community bracing for a backlash. It could rival the fallout from octuplet mom Nadya Suleman — and it seems to have already started.
In a national online survey about fertility conducted in May by Johnson & Johnson’s Babycenter.com, 7 out of 10 moms who responded wanted tougher regulation laws for IVF treatments, and half of the 1,095 respondents thought it was bad for the children if a parent conceived past 45.
It will be interesting to see as this debate continues whether the “reproductive rights” community makes a big stink about any legislation that might curb the legality of 60 year old’s having children. Because I’m not sure that the “reproductive rights” folks care all that much about reproductive rights as much as they care about abortion on demand. For example, note the complete silence from the “choice” community concerning Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren’s comments concerning mass sterilizations and limiting the number of babies that people can have.
It’ll be interesting to watch. Any law made concerning this could have an effect later on the government’s right to make laws concerning “privacy.”
I actually don’t think that in the end any legislation will pass, but it would be interesting in that if it becomes illegal for 50 year old’s to create life it would certainly affect a 16 year old’s ability to end a life?
But leaving legislation out of the question entirely, a woman somewhere at some point is going to ask for IVF and a doctor is going to refuse and there’s going to be a lawsuit and some judge somewhere is going to have to decide whether the conscience of the doctor is allowed to play a role in this decision or must the scientist do the woman’s bidding.
And with the conscience clause of doctors and pharmacists relating to birth control and abortion under attack now by the current administration, this discussion of IVF will greatly affect the larger discussion as well.
July 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The MSM is just jumping on this bandwagon for money. If they cared about the "natural lifespan & fertility of mothers" they wouldn't be all for IVF in the first place. Once they opened that barn door, they can't close it…who are they to say?
I find it humorous that this is one of the arguments that moral ethicists made about IVF back when Louise Brown was concieved…once you start down a path, it might become a slippery slope…NOW they want to put restrictions on what they argued was a woman's "right".
I am currently expecting and will be 45 when I deliver…my mother was 43 when she died. How does anyone know how long someone will live? If someone "knew" that my mom would die young, would they have prevented her from having me…since it wouldn't be "fair" to me…LOL. I know several children born naturally to fifty year old mothers. Lord in Heaven help us if the government starts telling us how old we are allowed to be to have children Naturally!
PAX
July 20, 2009 at 2:06 pm
"Lord in Heaven help us if the government starts telling us how old we are allowed to be to have children Naturally!"
I think the word Naturally is the key. That's why God invented menopause…if you're post-menopausal, then IVF should be out. Simple, scientific and "fair."
July 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Will the feminists be supportive of advanced years IVF because men in their 60's can still impregnate a woman via natural means? Are they going to demand forced vasectomies for guys over the age of 50 just to make it "fair"?
July 20, 2009 at 6:05 pm
IVF is wrong. Being older doesn't make it any more wrong, in my opinion. No one knows when they will die. A woman in her 40's with 3 year old twins died in my office (as in she went down like a felled log in a corridor and never responded despite CPR starting within a minute) about 5 years ago. Children have traditionally been raised by aunts, and by older siblings, or by godparents. A sad thing to have happen, to lose a parent, but then, this world isn't ideal and never will be.
Susan Peterson
July 20, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Meg,
If God "invented" menopause, then how can you also end it by saying it's "scientific". In other words, IVF is scientific, ergo God invented it as well.
Women in their 20's experience menopause. Should they also forfeit children b/c you think IVF is an abomination or in Eulogos's words, "wrong"?
As for that on-line survey, I'd be curious to know what percentage of those who voted about stronger regs when it comes to artificial reproductive therapies ever had to use ART.
It is not for anyone to judge what should be considered a considered a social norm and then try to apply a law to that. And then to try to apply that norm by rewarding those who can get pregnant naturally and punish those who cannot is tantamount to genocide.
July 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm
"Women in their 20's experience menopause. Should they also forfeit children b/c you think IVF is an abomination or in Eulogos's words, "wrong"?"
Yes. IVF is wrong. I can't have children except by adoption, btw. So much for your straw 22-year-old. 🙂
"(R)ewarding those who can get pregnant naturally and punish those who cannot is tantamount to genocide."
Um, no, it's not. Genocide is killing a whole generation of people. No one is planning to kill 45-year-old pregnant women. Nor infertile women.
But IVF often leads to "selective" abortion – that's killing. Oh, and we're missing several thousand people in their 40s who were aborted. How's that for genocide?
BTW, Meg can't judge what should be considered a considered (sic) social norm, then how can YOU judge whether what she saying is judging a social norm? What gives anyone the right to judge what a social norm is or isn't? 🙂
July 21, 2009 at 12:01 am
Meg didn't make a lick of sense.
July 21, 2009 at 12:04 am
Whoops. I mean DD didn't make a lick of sense. Meg was indeed lucid.
July 21, 2009 at 1:17 am
Strange. DD made perfect sense to me. Meg just sounded intolerant.
July 21, 2009 at 3:40 am
For your uninformed information MissJean, IVF does NOT offten lead to selective abortions. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you run off at the mouth.
Rebel
July 21, 2009 at 6:46 pm
IVF does NOT offten lead to selective abortions.
Right, the correct term is "selective reduction," not "selective abortion," and we don't know how often it occurs since neither the CDC nor the industry itself reports on how often it happens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501730.html
July 21, 2009 at 8:32 pm
IVF is like abortion in that they both stand on the absolute right of a woman to do as she chooses with her body.
It's hard to see it as a good thing for society for 15 year-olds and 55 year-olds to be having babies, but such is life.
Maybe this is why Paul said it was best to be single and only get married if you can't handle the lust.
July 30, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Thanks for the "uninformed information", MadWoman! At least you taught me the newest way of telling an ideological opponent "shut up" – although it is a bit cumbersome to keep typing, "Maybe you should get your facts straight before you run off at the mouth."
DCS, semantics is everything to people who want to obscure the truth. It's easier to say "reduce by two" than to say "abort two of your three children".