Ivf

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Prolu2007,

I used the word care for you may have read that as "be there" but one can be there for their child and not physically be present. I am sorry for any confusion, so to clarifly I was and am referring to financially "being there".

 

Now I am not 67 by no means nor would I personally want a child at 67 for some of the reasons stated above. I would like to be able to play sports and other games with my child before I get too old. But also being younger and a father I have already planed to be there for my child if something was to happen to me prior to her growing independent. That is what responsible parents do. Someone can not say who will or who will not be a good parent based on age. I have seen very bad younger and older parents. The way I see things is that for someone to step in and pass rules and laws limiting other people rights and freedoms by prohibiting them from following a path they chose is not right, proper, ethical or legitimate.

 

As for worrying about these older couples and their offspring growing up with out one parent or the other I am not sure that is a huge deal. Just look around and see how many children are growing up in households with only one parent (for various reasons). Now I have not seen any studies saying one way or the other if this is has a detrimental effect or not. (I do have two few friends that grew up without dads and one of my bothers-in-law is/has raised his two kids alone and they all are doing well).

 

But personally I am more worried about young kids having children more then I am of some older couples, who most likely (due to the cost of these types of medical intervention) have been successful in their endeavors (typical stereo-type older highly successful business woman).

[LJP07]

I'm not actaully saying the persons age will make them a bad or good mother, I didn't suggest such a thing. The underlying fact is that an old mother will not be able to deal with a child due to what's fair for that child. It doesn't matter what's legal, it matters what's right.

 

The child wants to grow up with a mother that can give him/her what most mothers can, how can old people expect to do thisse, that's not right but you support that, true or false?

[Zythryn]

Prolu, I think you are making an unspoken assumption which is leading to misunderstanding.

What is it exactly that an older parent can't give a son or daughter that a younger parent can, and how is it unfair?

 

Earlier I thought you meant the older parent would not live long enough to raise the child. However your last post seems to imply something else??

 

I appreciate you clarifying your position for me.

[Michaelangelica]

But personally I am more worried about young kids having children more then I am of some older couples, who most likely (due to the cost of these types of medical intervention) have been successful in their endeavors (typical stereo-type older highly successful business woman).

I think everybody should have kids when they are young and stupid. The younger and stupider the better.

 

As you get older you realise what you are getting yourself in for and would not wisely vote for:-

poverty, A bigger car, house, garden; insomnia, Please, I beg you go to sleep!; reading the same book 1,000 times, school fees, busing children to sport at 6am on a Sunday; watching dumb games like Net-ball; swimming lessons, ballet lessons, music lessons, rushing in an ambulance to hospital, P&F/C meetings, Pets: horse kittens mice, ducks, baby geese, leeches, more kittens dogs (yes leeches) BRACES!!! OMG (I am coming back as a rich dentist), thousands of essential stuffed toys and games, (that have to be taken on holidays etc) asthma, trying to catch the horse (again); boyfriends, sex, more boyfriends; waiting up till they get home, dieting, exams, university traumas. etc etc

Then they leave home.

(Coming back occasionally to eat the contents of your frig; drink your booze and leave your "spare" room and "garage" (no room for 'car')full of excess furniture.)

 

Then you are alone,

have nothing to whinge about, have a tiny car, smaller house and garden, are 30 years older, your garden looks great; you have read out the library, and you just long to live long enough to have grandchildren (as these days kids don't start work till 25)

[LJP07]

Prolu, I think you are making an unspoken assumption which is leading to misunderstanding.

What is it exactly that an older parent can't give a son or daughter that a younger parent can, and how is it unfair?

 

Earlier I thought you meant the older parent would not live long enough to raise the child. However your last post seems to imply something else??

 

I appreciate you clarifying your position for me.

 

It's not that the older person cannot give the child what they need to live. It's the risks associated with getting pregnant at that age. I have mentioned them twice:

 

1. The high-risk of genetic disease even after birth and during life.

2. Risk of mother dying at young age especially at 67.

 

As stated before " The child wants to see it's mother growing up not dying "

 

Vagabond suggested I implied that the mother can't look after the child which I never stated, that's what the post your referring to. The mother can look after the child excellently however, it's before that actually happens, I'm referring to the time of conception where the mother and father decide to have sex knowing the risks at their age, this and IVF have the same if not more risks for IVF.

 

The mother also has risks of miscarraige and all these risks which are mentioned for the health of the child and the health of the mother are one reason alone and a reason so effective that mothers that age should not have sex or IVF ( At least not unprotected sex ).

 

Prolu2007

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Prolu:

"The child wants to grow up with a mother that can give him/her what most mothers can, how can old people expect to do thisse, that's not right but you support that, true or false?"

 

and as you stated twice " The child wants to see it's mother growing up not dying "

 

So if the mother does not die then you have no problems with the situation? Perhaps you can expand on what they mother would not be able to provide (would this be a case by case situation). The life span of the new mother seems to be you major underlining condition to the premise of them not having children?

 

As for what I support: people have the right to do as they please up to the point that it interferes with someone else’s rights and or liberties. As long as the mother is alive then you can not say one way or the other what she can or can not do (provide) for her child.

 

My original thoughts on this subject were under the same assumption that Zythryn pointed out. I believe that you thought (please correct me I am wrong - but you stated twice already) that the child will watch the mother die at an early age and miss out something that all other children are getting and that this is detrimental to the child.

 

I am suggesting that you (or anyone for that matter) are unable to make that call. If a woman has a child at say 60 she could easily be around for that child for the next 25-30 years. This would make the child 25 to 30 years old. As for watching the mother die. I hope that I am around long enough to out live my parents (I know they want the something) and for all hope I hope that my children have to bury me and not the other way around.

 

As I stated earlier personally no I would not want a 2 year old when I am 50 but that is me and my personal decision . If you feel that you do not want children late in life that is also fine but may not be true for all.

 

You bring up the genetic and potential debilitating issues. Yes there are major concerns which I addressed in my previous post. This could then lead into the area of not letting other types of people procreate (those carrying disease genes which would be passed on to children). Older women have an increased chance of having issues. That is a chance. Someone with say (keep it simple) hemophilia, is going to pass on that trait (one copy of a damaged gene - (depending on the type)) to their child. So should this person not be allowed to procreate or is your major concern still the life span of the mother?

 

 

Ok, I rambled enough plus I am sure you dont want to read more (I personally like shorter posts)....

[LJP07]

Prolu:

So if the mother does not die then you have no problems with the situation? Perhaps you can expand on what they mother would not be able to provide (would this be a case by case situation). The life span of the new mother seems to be you major underlining condition to the premise of them not having children?

 

Again, you misinterpret my argument.

 

I'm always referring to risks. Risk, Risk, Risk. If there is a high chance ( 90% ), that when you walk across a certian path you will die, would you cross it, 9 out of ten times something will happen according to statistics.

 

The same goes for IVF and older people having children, they have a high risk. The mother has a risk of death at her age as well, and it would be an unfortunate situation for the child to grow up without his/her mother.

 

I have never said the mother would not be able to provide, again a misinterpretation. I said that the mother could look after her child immensely well but all I am referring to is the high risk of everything occurring, and those risks which can cause pain and anguish if anything did happen to her child as a result of her naivity wouldn't even be fair on the mother and her child.

 

The risks associated with IVF and older births far outweighs the great side of it. There are both good and bad sides but overall, with the risks I stated in this and previous posts, surely you can understand that it cannot be acceptable, actually no, it should be acceptable but the mothers should have a bit of thought put into the risks.

 

This is my opinion as to why mothers should reconsider or at least double-consider information like mine and make an informed decision, hopefully the right one , if in most cases the risks outweigh the good side. Having a baby and letting it grow up is great, but before that actually happens we need to understand the risks as to why it should be considered unfair in cases.

 

Hopefully this makes it clear to Zythryn and Vagabond as to what I mean as misinterpretations are more common in these posts that of any other total thread count in this forum.

[Zythryn]

Again, you misinterpret my argument.

 

We simply ask for help so that we can understand accurately what your argument is.

 

I'm always referring to risks. Risk, Risk, Risk. If there is a high chance ( 90% ), that when you walk across a certian path you will die, would you cross it, 9 out of ten times something will happen according to statistics.

The same goes for IVF and older people having children, they have a high risk. The mother has a risk of death at her age as well, and it would be an unfortunate situation for the child to grow up without his/her mother.

 

The average 65 year old woman will live another 18-19 years. While I agree it is awful for any child to lose a parent at any age, at what age do you feel it critically impairs the child?

 

I have heard that genetic disorders are more common when the parents are older. However, it is not that much higher. This is simply a guess, but I would guess that a woman that smokes and drinks liquor during pregnancy puts the child at a greater risk of complications than giving birth at an older age does.

 

I agree with you that the risks are higher. However I don't think that is a reason to not allow people to have children when they want to. I do think it is important that people be aware of these risks so they can make a well informed decision.

 

The risks associated with IVF and older births far outweighs the great side of it.

 

Many would disagree with you. Perhaps some numbers would help. How much do the risks increase? Do you have any percentages of complications by age of mother and father?

I am not familiar with any studies indicating IVF itself increases risk of complications. I would welcome any details.

 

Again, I am not saying that there is no increase in risk, just that the joy of raising a child far outweigh the increased risk of older age at birth.

 

 

This is my opinion as to why mothers should reconsider or at least double-consider information like mine and make an informed decision,

 

This is always good advise for any parent.

 

... hopefully the right one...

 

Meaning the decision you would make??

 

Hopefully this makes it clear to Zythryn and Vagabond as to what I mean

 

1. Increase chance of genetic complication/disorders.

2. Increased chance the mother would die before the child reaches maturity.

 

If I am still incorrect, or missed any, please state the other risks involved.

 

This is a great topic I appreciate your input and everyone elses:)

[LJP07]

The average 65 year old woman will live another 18-19 years. While I agree it is awful for any child to lose a parent at any age, at what age do you feel it critically impairs the child?

 

Like your question to me, have you any statistics to support that claim. That claim doesn't involve smoking or ther minor disease though? :phones: I would have though the average above that would be 15 years, making the child 15. I believe people should consider this fact and the mother should live to the age where the child wouldn't normally become dependent, say 22 after college. That from 80 leaves 58, but because of risk of dying earlier due to disease or natural problem which normally strikes, reduce this by 10 and the age becomes 48 which is a more respectable age and safer and more responsible age, because the child will see it's mother growing up hopefully for the duration of his/her childhood and into college.

[Zythryn]

I sure do, sorry I didn't post the link to the source.

Life expectancy: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#027

Actually, if I am reading the charts correctly, a 65 year old white woman in 2003 has a life expectancy of 19.8 years.

 

Your selection of the age of 22 for maturity is interesting. Using that age, I can see your point being more reasonable.

 

However, I would think an age closer to 18 more reasonable for an age at which the child will be more self sufficient. The loss of a mother at any age is a disaster, however I don't think it is harmful to the developement of the child at age 19.

 

Even using the age of 22 though, that would give an age at birth for the mother at about 60 (pure extrapolation).

 

Regarding disease and similar factors. These numbers are for the public at large, they are averages. I am sure a 4 pack a day smoking mother would have a lower expected life expectancy. Similar, I am guessing a mom who is a park ranger (no smoking, lots of exercise) would have a longer life expectancy.

 

Again, who decides what age is acceptable and as I have answered your question regarding numbers, do you have any? :phones: