NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841574/?GT1=9951

After having to go to an in-vitro fertilization clinic to have children, the latest 60 year old mom is chastising the world about not adapting to a world that is living longer. People may be living longer, but that doesn't make their old, degenerating bodies capable of keeping up with childrens or able to cope with the stress on the body and mind that is required to take care of babies. 4

She is trying to point out 40 and 50 year old women having children. My aunt wasn't able to get pregnant until she was in her 40s, but that doesn't mean women should be trying to get pregnant at 60 using artificial means. 40 and 50 are 10 and 20 years younger than 60.

She wants to be a role model for older people. No, fuck no. Old people don't need to be encouraged to be stupid fools. The worst part is when I was watching this this morning, it was either this lady or some other old lady who had become pregnant and they asked her husband what he thought and the lady was like "I wanted to adopt, getting pregnant was his idea." No, bad, bad fucking dumbass.

Oh, shut up. If they want a child and are ready to pay for it, then you should mind your own bloody business 'cause theirs is none of yours.

Older women have easier birth though. Due to their huge wizard's sleev like fanjitas.

You speak from experience?

I'd be more worried about teenage pregnancies than old ones...

Hopefully the mother will live to see her kid graduate from high school. Hopefully she will continue to be healthy to take care of the child and that she won't break a hip or something. Hopefully the child won't be taking care of her when it should be the other way around.

No, but I have seen a video of a bald bloke managing to get half his head into this pensioner's front bottom. If a grown man's head can go up a baby should have no trouble coming down.

Too much information.

She's giving her older kids someone to raise if/when she kicks it and the kids are too young to take care of themselves.

Remember, a 60 year old today is nothing like a 60 year old 0f 30 years ago. Probably a former pot-smoking hippie.

I think having a child, especially through artificial means at 60, is completely unfair to the child for obvious reasons.

Also, babies born from older women have a much higher chance of getting Down's Syndrome.

No, but I have seen a video of a bald bloke managing to get half his head into this pensioner's front bottom. If a grown man's head can go up a baby should have no trouble coming down.

Because videos on the Internet are representative of the anatomy of everyone resembling the person depicted. That's why every middle-aged, white man easily goatses his ass.

Oh, shut up. If they want a child and are ready to pay for it, then you should mind your own bloody business 'cause theirs is none of yours.
The post-birth problems are in lieu of the medical problems with having a child at that age, to both mother and child. And she isn't getting pregnant naturally and is encouraging other people to do the same. Bad.

I'm more concerned about the study showing that children of men over 40 are more likely to have some degree of autism.

The post-birth problems are in lieu of the medical problems with having a child at that age,

"In lieu of" means "instead of". So, "the post-birth problems are in stead of the medical problems with having a child at that age"? What is that supposed to mean?

to both mother and child. And she isn't getting pregnant naturally

I didn't survive childhood naturally. You're not conversing with me naturally. So, who gives a fuck?

and is encouraging other people to do the same. Bad.

She has the same right to encourage them as you have to childishly call them names. She, however, has nothing to be ashamed about.

Because videos on the Internet are representative of the anatomy of everyone resembling the person depicted. That's why every middle-aged, white man easily goatses his ass.

You'll have to excuse Bob, he's had a traumatic childhood. :cool:

I say its not a good thing. At the age of 60 she has no garantees that she will be there to raise her children. In fact, there is no grantee period, but a much higher chance that she won't at her age. Maybe she's one of those people that few the women's role as nothing but popping out more kids like many irish catholics (its true don't get angry). Very very not good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841574/?GT1=9951

After having to go to an in-vitro fertilization clinic to have children, the latest 60 year old mom is chastising the world about not adapting to a world that is living longer. People may be living longer, but that doesn't make their old, degenerating bodies capable of keeping up with childrens or able to cope with the stress on the body and mind that is required to take care of babies. 4

In my country, a 60 year old woman today is more likely to be physically capable of keeping up with a small child than a 30 year old woman would have been two hundred years ago.

I think the woman has a good point. People aren't just living longer, they are remaining healthy and fit longer as well. Improved medical care, sanitation, and health information all contribute to this.

Besides which, I don't think physical ability should be used to determine who is and is not "allowed" to have kids. A good friend of mine is paralyzed from the waist down, and is expecting Son #2 this summer.


She is trying to point out 40 and 50 year old women having children. My aunt wasn't able to get pregnant until she was in her 40s, but that doesn't mean women should be trying to get pregnant at 60 using artificial means. 40 and 50 are 10 and 20 years younger than 60.

Why not? Women who are older may be able to better provide for their children.

People tend to mellow with age, which is VERY helpful with young kids. My parents had me (first child) at age 30, and my brother ten years later, and both them agree they were much less hot-tempered and likely to over-react when they had aged a bit.

People who have been in relationships longer are also more likely to be able to provide stable homes for kids. They're more likely to have solid infrastructure of family and friends available to help out. They're more likely to have a stable career with good benefits. All of which are beneficial when you're dealing with a young kid.


She wants to be a role model for older people. No, fuck no. Old people don't need to be encouraged to be stupid fools.

"Old" is relative. :D Besides, you haven't yet provided a single reason why being old automatically makes a person "foolish" for having a child.

SOME older people may be less able to deal with rearing children than younger individuals would be. Some older people are more able to do so.


The worst part is when I was watching this this morning, it was either this lady or some other old lady who had become pregnant and they asked her husband what he thought and the lady was like "I wanted to adopt, getting pregnant was his idea." No, bad, bad fucking dumbass.
Why? Were they stupid for wanting to adopt a child? Or just stupid for having a biological child?

"In lieu of" means "instead of".
I felt like using the word lieu, so there.

I didn't survive childhood naturally. You're not conversing with me naturally. So, who gives a fuck?
Were you conceived by in-vitro fertilization of a woman not capable of producing children because of her age?

Come now Fass, I expect better of you than dismissing arguments because they make your position look worse. You know, arguments like how older age women who conceive have an increasing chance of having children with mental disabilities because of their age? Seems like something one shouldn't encourage.

Nonsense, my dad is 53 and I don't have any degree of autism.

How old was he when you were born? Besides I didn't say children of men over forty are guaranteed to have some degree of autism, did I? No, is the answer. I didn't.

I think having a child, especially through artificial means at 60, is completely unfair to the child for obvious reasons.

A good friend of mine was reared by his grandparents. I believe they were in their late 50s when he was born. Was that also "unfair to the child"?

Folks, keep in mind:

Grandparents have been rearing their grandkids for a long, long time. Our modern vision of The Family (Mom + Dad + 2.5 kids) is actually a very new notion. It's absolutely not even remotely new or unusual in any way for older people to be primary care givers to young children. They've been doing it for countless generations. And look! Humanity is still here!

She has the same right to encourage them as you have to childishly call them names. She, however, has nothing to be ashamed about.

While normally I'm rooting for you, Fass, I must insist that in this subject you stafu.

If he has as much right as she does, then why bother telling him to mind his own business unless you believe she has more of a right?

Hopefully the mother will live to see her kid graduate from high school. Hopefully she will continue to be healthy to take care of the child and that she won't break a hip or something. Hopefully the child won't be taking care of her when it should be the other way around.

Well shell be almost 80 when they do so...:headbang: cheez when they are 30 shell be 90!!!

While normally I'm rooting for you, Fass, I must insist that in this subject you stafu.

If he has as much right as she does, then why bother telling him to mind his own business unless you believe she has more of a right?
IMO, everybody has "the right" to say stupid things. Doesn't mean they shouldn't feel embarrassed when they say something stupid.

If somebody wants to, for instance, claim that my grandmother was a stupid fool for being primary care giver to my two cousins for most of their childhood, then that's their right. They can say that if they like.

Personally, I think they should be ashamed of themselves for saying it, because they're being supremely ignorant, arrogant, and insulting.

In my country, a 60 year old woman today is more likely to be physically capable of keeping up with a small child than a 30 year old woman would have been two hundred years ago.
Which is irrelevant. She will be older than my maternal grandmother (who is in her early 70s) when her kids graduate high school. Her body is still degenerating.

I think the woman has a good point. People aren't just living longer, they are remaining healthy and fit longer as well. Improved medical care, sanitation, and health information all contribute to this.
And medical science and fact have points - older women have a higher chance of giving birth to children with disabilities like Down's Syndrome and do not have the stamina to keep up with children, much less deal with the problems of raising a newborn.

Besides which, I don't think physical ability should be used to determine who is and is not "allowed" to have kids.
What if their physical ability prevents them from being able to take care of the kid sufficiently? Is she going to be putting the kids off on her other kids like they are the grandparents?

A good friend of mine is paralyzed from the waist down, and is expecting Son #2 this summer.
Will she be able to take care of the kid by herself, or without hiring some one?


Why not? Women who are older may be able to better provide for their children.
On what? Their pension from the secretarial job they held back in the 60s and 70s? And that doesn't make them better able to take care of their children. Or make it safer for them to have kids or mean they should be trying to have kids artificially.

"Old" is relative. :D Besides, you haven't yet provided a single reason why being old automatically makes a person "foolish" for having a child.
Let's see. To have a child, she had to have it artificially. She is not naturally able to conceive. There is strike one.
Her age made her children more susceptible to mental disabilities. Strike Two.
How many people in their 60s are running around on the playground or in the yard with their grandkids? Or keep a newborn? Strike three.

Why? Were they stupid for wanting to adopt a child? Or just stupid for having a biological child?
Stupid for deciding to risk having a biological child over adopting some poor kid who could have used a good home.

Grandparents have been rearing their grandkids for a long, long time. Our modern vision of The Family (Mom + Dad + 2.5 kids) is actually a very new notion. It's absolutely not even remotely new or unusual in any way for older people to be primary care givers to young children. They've been doing it for countless generations. And look! Humanity is still here!
And you already made the point that grandparents of long ago would be fairly young. Your move.

I felt like using the word lieu, so there.

Next time you do that with words, you should first learn what they mean.

Were you conceived by in-vitro fertilization of a woman not capable of producing children because of her age?

I was born prematurely to a woman who had fallen ill with pre-eclampsia, thus making her obviously unfit to bear a child. Had anyone cared about what was "natural", I would have died. Fortunately they didn't. I suffered several pneumonias before the age of five and had anyone cared about the "natural", they would have killed me. Fortunately, nobody did. Because, you see, we humans have this thing called "a brain". It allows us to think of all sorts of measures that make it possible for us to do, for us, completely unnatural things, like not die in childhood, live beyond 30-40, fly, converse intercontinentally via globally networked electronic devices....

Come now Fass, I expect better of you than dismissing arguments because they make your position look worse.

Nothing by you so far has made my argument look worse as you've so far not posted anything that amounts to an argument on your part. "Unnatural!" is not an argument, especially not made by someone on the very unnatural Internet which he as a hypocrite seems to have no moral qualms about using.

You know, arguments like how older age women who conceive have an increasing chance of having children with mental disabilities because of their age? Seems like something one shouldn't encourage.

You seem to think it's your risk to take, or that you should get to dictate to people whether or not they get to take that risk. Rid yourself of that notion as it is utterly laughable.

Stupid for deciding to risk having a biological child over adopting some poor kid who could have used a good home.

Bingo.

IMO, everybody has "the right" to say stupid things. Doesn't mean they shouldn't feel embarrassed when they say something stupid.

If somebody wants to, for instance, claim that my grandmother was a stupid fool for being primary care giver to my two cousins for most of their childhood, then that's their right. They can say that if they like.

Personally, I think they should be ashamed of themselves for saying it, because they're being supremely ignorant, arrogant, and insulting.

I keep seeing "my grandma raised me"/"my friend" etc etc, but that's grandma. If grandma fails to raise you, i.e. if she has a health problem or something happens to her and the kid is seven years old, the kid goes back to mom usually, until the grandma's better.

In this case, however, the grandma IS mom. There's really no fallback caregiver other than the state, and eventually a foster home.

If somebody wants to, for instance, claim that my grandmother was a stupid fool for being primary care giver to my two cousins for most of their childhood, then that's their right. They can say that if they like.

Personally, I think they should be ashamed of themselves for saying it, because they're being supremely ignorant, arrogant, and insulting.

Did they go on tv and encourage other women to do it too? And in addition, have their own kids at that age instead of just raising some one else's kids?

I was born prematurely to a woman who had fallen ill with pre-eclampsia, thus making her obviously unfit to bear a child.
Ehhhhh, irrelevant. Answer the question.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, that was extremely irrelevant. Were you conceived before she had fallen ill with a disease that made her unfit to bear children but she decided she wanted to have a child anyway?


Nothing by you so far has made my argument look worse as you've so far not posted anything that amounts to an argument on your part. "Unnatural!" is not an argument,
Only if you ignore what I say then replace if with what you think I said. And then make stupid arguments, as exemplified by half the shit you are saying.


You seem to think it's your risk to take, or that you should get to dictate to people whether or not they get to take that risk. Rid yourself of that notion as it is utterly laughable.
So women should be allowed to decide that risks are worth taking for some one else because that some one else is the child they want? Selfish and foolish. Doubly foolish to encourage other women to do it.

This really does have to be one of the bottom stories of the day. So what if a sixty year old wants kids. She's undoubtedly better off financially than the multitudes of teenagers that have babies. She's undoubtedly smarter, too, and better able to plan ahead.

She's also undoubtedly in the extreme minority of sixty year olds, who are probably very happy to be grandparents and not parents again. So if she is an activist for late middle aged women, I doubt that there will be a wave of sixty year old women clogging the OB wards.

While normally I'm rooting for you, Fass, I must insist that in this subject you stafu.

If he has as much right as she does, then why bother telling him to mind his own business unless you believe she has more of a right?

I don't deny his right to act in an infantile fashion, but his position is immediately weakened by it. The difference between what he says, though, and what she says is that she seeks not to restrict anyone's freedom or to make or preclude them from doing anything. He, however, does. So while both of them have the right to say what they want, what they are saying is in no way equally worth. She is more right than he is since she will not be getting into anyone's business that doesn't want her there, while he is sticking his nose into that of others.

This really does have to be one of the bottom stories of the day. So what if a sixty year old wants kids. She's undoubtedly better off financially than the multitudes of teenagers that have babies. She's undoubtedly smarter, too, and better able to plan ahead.
Which neither makes it safe nor smart.

She's also undoubtedly in the extreme minority of sixty year olds, who are probably very happy to be grandparents and not parents again. So if she is an activist for late middle aged women, I doubt that there will be a wave of sixty year old women clogging the OB wards.
Which again fails to void my point.

I love how Fass is defending a woman's right to possibly endanger the life of some one because she selfishly wants a biological child.

Which neither makes it safe nor smart.


Which again fails to void my point.

Say what you want, there are a lot worse things happening to newborns out there than to become the child of this woman.

Say what you want, there are a lot worse things happening to newborns out there than to become the child of this woman.
Too bad that isn't what this thread is about huh?
Neither is this thread about the child born to her, it is about her encouraging other people to do what she did.

Ehhhhh, irrelevant. Answer the question.

Your question is pointless since I've already explained to you that I don't give a fuck about the "natural".

EDIT: As a matter of fact, that was extremely irrelevant. Were you conceived before she had fallen ill with a disease that made her unfit to bear children but she decided she wanted to have a child anyway?

She had had pre-eclampsia before and she knew of the risk, but she also knew that her doctors wouldn't be the sort of idiots who care about "the natural" so she knew they would use those medical brains of theirs to help her. So she had me. So they helped her. So, I don't give a fuck about the "natural". My very existence is unnatural, and guess what, nature boy? It's probably better than yours, which is probably also based on such unnatural things as medicine.

Only if you ignore what I say then replace if with what you think I said. And then make stupid arguments, as exemplified by half the shit you are saying.

You're not making an argument. "Unnatural" is not an argument.

So women should be allowed to decide that risks are worth taking for some one else because that some one else is the child they want? Selfish and foolish. Doubly foolish to encourage other women to do it.

Every woman takes a risk when she gets pregnant. I take a risk crossing the street. You know what we have in common? They're our risks. Not yours. So, you know where to go with your concern about them.

Too bad that isn't what this thread is about huh?
Neither is this thread about the child born to her, it is about her encouraging other people to do what she did.
Again, So what? Do you think this is going to be a common practice?

the_pantless_hero hit right on it. Its not fair to the child. In this case it was a unaviodable descision which led up to the result. There was no catastrophe, no accident, nothing of the such. She went out of her way in what i believe is selfishness to have a child. Her choice? yes, and bad one. And to you who tell society to butt out because its not our buissness, well yes it is. Society sets morales and standards for whats best. In the end we'll be paying for "mom"s medical expenses, the childs welfare, and if need be, his or her foster home. You see one persons stupid choice leads to a chain of events which are not nessecary in a 100% avoidable situation. Many childern grow up without parents due to numerous reasons, but to force that upon a child when you can avoid it? is that really fair? Im my eyes that is along the same lines as abandoning a child. Its not a matter of she is able. Yes, its is completely possiable but it wont be the best life for the child. No matter how healthy you are older people have decreased stamita, they require longer rests from physical activity. If the child is in danger will she be able to run and protect the child? Stop being ignorant and arguing on facts of possibilty, yes, we know it can be done. Stop being selffish and think on the effect this will have on the childs development. He'll have no grandparents, his caregiver will undoubtably beable to keep up. It's not fair, plain and simple. Don't make this an argument over freedoms, its about ethics and morales.

If she paid for it it's her funeral, I guess. What makes me angry is that people can get fertility treatment on the NHS. What a staggering waste of money.
I don't see why people who can't naturally have children don't just adopt them. I'm quite happy for someone who could say "I cannot love a child who doesn't have my genes" just to go without.

Meh. I've got problems with in vitro fertilization in general. If you really want a child - to take care of a child - and can't conceive, I'd say adoption is a better choice than spending insane amounts of money on in vitro.

That said, if this woman can't take care of the child, there is a problem. Otherwise, it's just a little weird, that's all.

Meh. I've got problems with in vitro fertilization in general. If you really want a child - to take care of a child - and can't conceive, I'd say adoption is a better choice than spending insane amounts of money on in vitro.

That said, if this woman can't take care of the child, there is a problem. Otherwise, it's just a little weird, that's all.
I doubt in vitro fertilization is cheap. Besides, would some poor person get all this attention without any mention of their financial status?

Your question is pointless since I've already explained to you that I don't give a fuck about the "natural".

Then you purposefully ignore the point and are no longer worth arguing with.

I love how Fass is defending a woman's right to possibly endanger the life of some one because she selfishly wants a biological child.

Yeah, how dare she endanger the life that she is causing? It might die! Like everyone else does! Oh, noes! Better it never live!

Then you purposefully ignore the point and are no longer worth arguing with.

There is no point to make, unless you immediately turn off your computer, reinfect yourself with every bacterium you've ever received antibiotics for and vow to have nothing do with anything "unnatural" ever again. So, shall we hope this is the last of you on the net? We shan't be holding our breath, because for some reason making use of "unnatural" things is OK for you, but not for this woman. That reason is: "shameless hypocrisy".

I do think it is a foolish thing to do (I don't care if it's not my business fass), I don't see how you could argue that it isn't.

I doubt in vitro fertilization is cheap. Besides, would some poor person get all this attention without any mention of their financial status?

Of course it isn't cheap. That was my point. It is very, very, very expensive. You could probably put a kid through college instead of having in vitro.

Of course it isn't cheap. That was my point. It is very, very, very expensive. You could probably put a kid through college instead of having in vitro.
But we all get to choose how to spend our money. I think that's a good thing.

Of course it isn't cheap. That was my point. It is very, very, very expensive. You could probably put a kid through college instead of having in vitro.

I had heard that it's pretty dangerous as well and that doctors often don't inform their patients fully of the risks. At least this is what I recently heard on some interview on NPR.

But we all get to choose how to spend our money. I think that's a good thing.

I do too. But I think people who are willing to spend that kind of money on in vitro when there are plenty of children out there who already need homes are likely very selfish people - and thus unlikely to be be good parents. Having a child - to them - is obviously not about the child, but about them.


I had heard that it's pretty dangerous as well and that doctors often don't inform their patients fully of the risks. At least this is what I recently heard on some interview on NPR.

Egg collection can be dangerous and the fertility drugs and such certainly can be as well. From what I understand, the process isn't horribly dangerous as far as medical procedures go, but there certainly are risks. I would have to wonder, though, if the patients themselves tend to downplay the risks they are informed of because of how much they want it to work.

There is no point to make, unless you immediately turn off your computer, reinfect yourself with every bacterium you've ever received antibiotics for and vow to have nothing do with anything "unnatural" ever again. So, shall we hope this is the last of you on the net? We shan't be holding our breath, because for some reason making use of "unnatural" things is OK for you, but not for this woman. That reason is: "shameless hypocrisy".

If you want to insist on being stupid, you can go do it in another topic.

I do too. But I think people who are willing to spend that kind of money on in vitro when there are plenty of children out there who already need homes are likely very selfish people - and thus unlikely to be be good parents. Having a child - to them - is obviously not about the child, but about them.

I don't know. I had some friends that couldn't conceive normally and they went the in vitro route. I don't think you could have ever told the difference between the way they cared about their twins and the way normally conceived twins from another family were loved... Bottom line is that there are good parents, mediocre parents, and bad parents. I doubt the method of conception has as much to do with what kind of parent one becomes as does other influences.

So put your class envy aside and just wish the mother and children well.

If you want to insist on being stupid, you can go do it in another topic.
That's right, you've already cornered the market on stupid in this one...

Egg collection can be dangerous and the fertility drugs and such certainly can be as well. From what I understand, the process isn't horribly dangerous as far as medical procedures go, but there certainly are risks. I would have to wonder, though, if the patients themselves tend to downplay the risks they are informed of because of how much they want it to work.


SOrry I should have given more information. THey were specifically talkign about couples who wanted twins. Somethign about implanting several eggs in hopes that enough will catch on and then they end up with triplets and quintuplets (often being born prematurely wit lots of health issues or simply dead and dying.)

Also, they did mention that many doctors do inform the patients of the risks and they ignore it yes because they wants twins sooo bad.

That's right, you've already cornered the market on stupid in this one...
And you can go hijack a different thread as well.

If you want to insist on being stupid, you can go do it in another topic.

Lashing out - the typical response of the sanctimonious when they can't defend what they do when they at the same time attack others for doing it. Have fun in your unnatural world - it must be so difficult for you to constantly and willingly betray your "principles" that way.

I don't know. I had some friends that couldn't conceive normally and they went the in vitro route. I don't think you could have ever told the difference between the way they cared about their twins and the way normally conceived twins from another family were loved... Bottom line is that there are good parents, mediocre parents, and bad parents. I doubt the method of conception has as much to do with what kind of parent one becomes as does other influences.

So put your class envy aside and just wish the mother and children well.
Again, missing the point. Were your friends in their upper 50s or 60s where conceiving a child increases the chance of disabilities and complications?

Fass, I told you. If you refuse to do anything but listen to yourself, stop trolling.

That's right, you've already cornered the market on stupid in this one...

Alright, who are you and what have you done with Myrmidonisia? He would never give the semblance of even partially siding with me.

You're creeping me out, here.

Fass, I told you. If you refuse to do anything but listen to yourself, stop trolling.

Stop acting like child and calling people names, and stop using the computer already because it's unnatural.

Stop acting like child and calling people names, and stop using the computer already because it's unnatural.

My argument has nothing to do with naturalness. What language do I have to translate that into to make you stop being an asshat?

SOrry I should have given more information. THey were specifically talkign about couples who wanted twins. Somethign about implanting several eggs in hopes that enough will catch on and then they end up with triplets and quintuplets (often being born prematurely wit lots of health issues or simply dead and dying.)

Also, they did mention that many doctors do inform the patients of the risks and they ignore it yes because they wants twins sooo bad.

Wow, I'd never heard of couples actively trying to have tiwns through in vitro. Especially in the earlier years, multiple births were a common thing with the procedure, but that has happened less frequently as the methods improved and less embryos have been used in implantation.


I don't know. I had some friends that couldn't conceive normally and they went the in vitro route. I don't think you could have ever told the difference between the way they cared about their twins and the way normally conceived twins from another family were loved... Bottom line is that there are good parents, mediocre parents, and bad parents. I doubt the method of conception has as much to do with what kind of parent one becomes as does other influences.

It isn't a matter of "method of conception". It's a matter of people wanting their own biological child no matter how much it costs. A parent who has to share DNA with a child to love that child is doing it for themselves - not because they want to give a good home to a child.

So put your class envy aside and just wish the mother and children well.

WTF?

Alright, who are you and what have you done with Myrmidonisia? He would never give the semblance of even partially siding with me.

You're creeping me out, here.

I just couldn't resist the target of opportunity. Sorry if I scared you. I'm sure things will be back to normal soon.

I've got to side with dempublicants here, IMO ivf is selfish when there are already plently of children who need homes.

It isn't a matter of "method of conception". It's a matter of people wanting their own biological child no matter how much it costs. A parent who has to share DNA with a child to love that child is doing it for themselves - not because they want to give a good home to a child.

Especially when they decided to do that over adopting or because they were too old to have kids (and already have kids).

It isn't a matter of "method of conception". It's a matter of people wanting their own biological child no matter how much it costs. A parent who has to share DNA with a child to love that child is doing it for themselves - not because they want to give a good home to a child.



WTF?

WTF??? Read the first paragraph, then remember that you think people who spend money on themselves always do it selfishly. That's what class envy is all about.

WTF??? Read the first paragraph, then remember that you think people who spend money on themselves always do it selfishly. That's what class envy is all about.

Of course, there is no way that wanting to have a child could be selfish. Everyone is happy and right and is looking out for everyone else's best interests in libertarian world.

WTF??? Read the first paragraph, then remember that you think people who spend money on themselves always do it selfishly. That's what class envy is all about.

Spending money for the benefit of yourself rather then on the benefit of others is inherently selfish. I'm not saying theres anything wrong with it usually, but when it is at the expense of a child, it can get a little messy.

It isn't a matter of "method of conception". It's a matter of people wanting their own biological child no matter how much it costs. A parent who has to share DNA with a child to love that child is doing it for themselves - not because they want to give a good home to a child.

It is possible to want both things and neither of them is wrong. Selfish? Who gives a fuck! By your logic, as long as there are parentless children out there anyone who chooses to have a child of their own instead of through adoption is selfish. Anyone who decides not to have children, and therefore not to adopt, and instead live their own lives are selfish.

Alas, what selfish **** am I, for not wanting to adopt one of those starving third world babies and instead choose to pursue other goals in life? I could be adopting them and being oh, so selfless! :rolleyes:

Of course, there is no way that wanting to have a child could be selfish. Everyone is happy and right and is looking out for everyone else's best interests in libertarian world.

Of course it's selfish. Everything we do is selfish. It's the idea that because we pay to conceive, rather than pay to adopt, we have done something less honorable that bothers me.

It is possible to want both things and neither of them is wrong. Selfish? Who gives a fuck! By your logic, as long as there are parentless children out there anyone who chooses to have a child of their own instead of through adoption is selfish. Anyone who decides not to have children, and therefore not to adopt, and instead live their own lives are selfish.

Alas, what selfish **** am I, for not wanting to adopt one of those starving third world babies and instead choose to pursue other goals in life? I could be adopting them and being oh, so selfless! :rolleyes:

Saint Fass... I never thought the day would come.

Saint Fass... I never thought the day would come.

Hold me.

But seriously, it's such BS logic.

Saint Fass... I never thought the day would come.
One person who jumps logic like a hurdler commending some one else forsaking logic. Go figure.

chastising the world about not adapting to a world that is living longer.

Hmm... surely people living longer means we need to reproduce less to avoid overpopulation? Maybe that was a bit too mathematically complicated for her...

It is possible to want both things and neither of them is wrong. Selfish? Who gives a fuck!

Children who need a home?

By your logic, as long as there are parentless children out there anyone who chooses to have a child of their own instead of through adoption is selfish.

You don't have to spend any money to have a baby of your own. The point Dempublicants was trying to make is the fact that there is a good chance that she wont be a good parent, as the fact they chose to spend the money on ivf over adoption shows that she wants the baby for her own sake and not for the childs sake.

Oh, for fuck's sake it's not a crime to not have a bunch of kids.

Oh, for fuck's sake it's not a crime to not have a bunch of kids.

Thats why nobody is discussing the legalities of the situation.

Thats why nobody is discussing the legalities of the situation.

Although perhaps we should be talking about the concept of a figure of speech.

EDIT: Actually, wasn't it a crime in Romania under some dictator?

Although perhaps we should be talking about the concept of a figure of speech.

Nah, i'd rather just be pedantic.

Oh, for fuck's sake it's not a crime to not have a bunch of kids.

1900. World Population = 1 650 000 000
2007. World Population = 6 700 000 000

WTF??? Read the first paragraph, then remember that you think people who spend money on themselves always do it selfishly.

I think what again? I don't remember saying anything like that.

What I did say is that it is not a good idea for a person who wants to be a parent to spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars simply so that they can have a baby that happens to share some of their genes when that money could instead be used to raise a child - one that they could much more cheaply and easily adopt. As I pointed out, you could put a child through college with the kind of money you have to spend on in vitro and many couples are willing to spend all of their savings to do so.

I also pointed out that a parent who needs to have a biological relation to a child to love that child is unlikely to be a good parent.

None of that even suggests that "people who spend money on themselves always do it selfishly."

That's what class envy is all about.

No, class envy is about envying those who can have what you cannot. I'm actually in the prime demographic for in vitro fertilization. I still think it is most often a bad choice in the scheme of things.

By your logic, as long as there are parentless children out there anyone who chooses to have a child of their own instead of through adoption is selfish.

Not at all. But there is a difference between having a child of your own and paying 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars (or expecting others to pay it) jus so that you can have a biologically related child.

Anyone who decides not to have children, and therefore not to adopt, and instead live their own lives are selfish.

Eh? We're talking about people who want to be parents here, not people who don't. Someone who does not want to have a child at all would be a pretty crappy parent.

In order to be a good parent, one must put the needs of the child before their own - and especially before their wants. A person who cannot or who does not wish to do this should not be a parent in the first place.

Children who need a home?

Oh, what a selfish **** am I not to give it to them? I could certainly afford to raise at least two Africans, one Chinese and an Eastern-European. How selfless it would be of me to save them!

You don't have to spend any money to have a baby of your own.

Have you ever had a child? Do you know the cost of prenatal medicine?

The point Dempublicants was trying to make is the fact that there is a good chance that she wont be a good parent,

Which is a BS claim because he has no idea what he's talking about as he has no freaking clue about the parental suitability of anyone who chooses IVF because IVF has nothing to do with that.

as the fact they chose to spend the money on ivf over adoption shows that she wants the baby for her own sake and not for the childs sake.

So fucking what? Newsflash to you idealists out there: most people have babies for their own sakes and not for the baby's sake! Can someone please cry me a fucking river over it? That has no bearing whatsoever on their parenting skills and ability to care for the child, and to claim that they would be bad parents because of it... well, it is judgemental douchebaggery of the highest order, and it suprises me that Dempublicents engages in it, because it is so reminiscent of the type of right-wing assholery that claims gay people would be bad parents because they "do it for their own sake and not for the child's."

Utter poppycock!

Oh, for fuck's sake it's not a crime to not have a bunch of kids.

Of course not.

Where did this comment come from?

Not at all. But there is a difference between having a child of your own and paying 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars (or expecting others to pay it) jus so that you can have a biologically related child.

I see no difference. Wanting a biological child has no bearing on one's parenting suitability. Being unfortunate as to have to spend money to get what you want has no bearing on your suitability as a parent.

Eh? We're talking about people who want to be parents here, not people who don't. Someone who does not want to have a child at all would be a pretty crappy parent.

Nonsense. I know many people who grew up with parents that didn't want them but had them anyway and somehow don't complain that their parents were bad. My parents wanted me and they still sucked! Your logic drawn to its conclusion brands anyone who doesn't adopt selfish, since it is cheaper to adopt an already healthy, born baby than it is to pay for all the prenatal care and not to mention the birth itself! And heaven forbid if it's complicated - then it'll cost astronomical amounts! How selfish to incur or risk to incur all these costs when you could just buy a baby much cheaper?

In order to be a good parent, one must put the needs of the child before their own - and especially before their wants. A person who cannot or who does not wish to do this should not be a parent in the first place.

And nothing about wanting a biological child negates one's ability to do that.

Of course not.

Where did this comment come from?

Never mind. I misinterpreted her.

Also, does anyone else find this line to be a little strange:

The boys, who tipped the scales at 4 pounds, 11 ounces

As far as I know, those are fairly small babies, correct? So why are they calling them scale-tipping? Maybe they're tipping it the wrong direction?

Which is a BS claim because he has no idea what he's talking about as he has no freaking clue about the parental suitability of anyone who chooses IVF because IVF has nothing to do with that.

Ahem. She.

And I am just as entitled to my opinion on what makes a good parent as anyone else.

So fucking what? Newsflash to you idealists out there: most people have babies for their own sakes and not for the baby's sake!

Newsflash to you! Many - maybe even most - parents aren't great parents.

Can someone please cry me a fucking river over it? That has no bearing whatsoever on their parenting skills and ability to care for the child, and to claim that they would be bad parents because of it...

You don't think the fact that a person needs to have a biological relation to a child to care for that child has bearing on their ability to care for a child?

Meanwhile, I didn't claim that they would be bad parents because of it. I said that I think it is more likely, given the fact that parenting itself takes a huge degree of selflessness.

well, it is judgemental douchebaggery of the highest order, and it suprises me that Dempublicents engages in it, because it is so reminiscent of the type of right-wing assholery that claims gay people would be bad parents because they "do it for their own sake and not for the child's."

It's only reminiscent of that if you aren't listening. I'm not claiming that some unrelated trait is going to make someone less of a parent. I'm pointing out that selfishness - especially in its extreme - will make someone less of a parent. This is directly related to parenting, as selfishness gets in the way of good parenting. A good parent must be prepared to put their child before themselves in all things.

I see no difference.

Interesting.

Wanting a biological child has no bearing on one's parenting suitability.

No, it doesn't. Many people, including myself, want a biological child. That isn't the issue I have with in vitro. The issue I have is the length that someone will go to in order to get that want, and the implication that they could not or would not love a child that didn't carry their genes.


Also, does anyone else find this line to be a little strange:
[quote=Quote
The boys, who tipped the scales at 4 pounds, 11 ounces
As far as I know, those are fairly small babies, correct? So why are they calling them scale-tipping? Maybe they're tipping it the wrong direction?[/quote]

Sometimes "tipping the scales" is used simply to denote weight, rather than making a comment on that weight.

From what I understand, though, that would be a pretty good weight for twins - who usually weigh less than babies from single births.

And I am just as entitled to my opinion on what makes a good parent as anyone else.

Sure you are. Doesn't make your opinion less infirm, though.

Newsflash to you! Many - maybe even most - parents aren't great parents.

And who the bloody devil are you to be the judge of that?

You don't think the fact that a person needs to have a biological relation to a child to care for that child has bearing on their ability to care for a child?

No, because it is irrelevant seeing as their "selfishness" (:rolleyes:) in this matter will never be of consequence in other matters that pertain to the child. You might as well claim that, say, people selfish in bed will be bad parents! Being "selfish" in one matter doesn't mean you are in others, especially not those that matter to child rearing, which by the way is not some of sort of Mother Theresa-act where you give up your entire personality for the sake of the child. In fact, indulging the child in everything and never being selfish about anything makes you at least as bad a parent as those that are selfish about everything.

Meanwhile, I didn't claim that they would be bad parents because of it. I said that I think it is more likely, given the fact that parenting itself takes a huge degree of selflessness.

Sounds like a claim you should be able to prove. We're waiting. Do you have anything to support your claim the people who have IVF are "worse" parents than people who adopt?

It's only reminiscent of that if you aren't listening. I'm not claiming that some unrelated trait is going to make someone less of a parent.

Umm, that's exactly what you are doing.

I'm pointing out that selfishness - especially in its extreme - will make someone less of a parent. This is directly related to parenting, as selfishness gets in the way of good parenting. A good parent must be prepared to put their child before themselves in all things.

And one's ability to do so is in no way impeded by wanting a biological child.

No, it doesn't. Many people, including myself, want a biological child. That isn't the issue I have with in vitro. The issue I have is the length that someone will go to in order to get that want, and the implication that they could not or would not love a child that didn't carry their genes.

The implication is no one's but yours and your judgement says more about you than it does about these people.

And so what if they could theoretically not equally love a child that doesn't have their genes? The child they have with IVF will have their genes, and so will not suffer any consequences of this inability - pay attention, because there is where your argument just completely unravelled - and, in fact, an adopted child would. So, you still prefer them to adopt? Or should they not get the child they could love and care for maximally?

So you don't think that extreme selfishness will get in the way of good parenting?

This is not extreme selfishness. I don't buy that's it's selfishness at all. And even if it were selfish, it would be selfishness in only one matter, and you haven't an iota of evidence that supports your baseless claim that it would affect a situation that has to do with childrearing.

A human being.

Precisely, and thus in no position to judge at all.

It won't? Are childbearing and childrearing so far removed from one another?

Yes, since if they weren't, your oh, so precious adoptions would be doomed to failure since they involve no childbearing whatsoever.

You are fond of strawmen today, aren't you? Where did I suggest that a parent should indulge their child in everything? Oh, wait, I didn't. I said that the parent must be prepared to put the needs of their child before their own - and definitely before their own wants.

You have implied that unless they are "selfless" they wouldn't be able to do that. Now you're squirming and are allowing a degree of selfishness, but it just apparently has to be selfishness you agree with. What is lacking so far, though, is anything that links a want of biological children to inability to put children before oneself once you have the child. Well, apart from your prejudice that is, but I think it's clear I don't put much worth in that by now.

No, it isn't. Selfishness is not unrelated to parenting.

So, a person who is selfish in bed will be a bad parent? What does wanting your dick sucked more than you reciprocate it have to do with one's willingness to put your child first?

Don't be silly. Selfishness in matters unrelated to parenting is unrelated to parenting and only selfishness in matters related to parenting is related to parenting. Childbearing is not one of the latter.

No, but it is impeded by wanting a biological child, no matter what the costs.

Again, where is your proof? It should be easily tested.

The implication is only mine, eh? Why else would people spend so much money just to achieve it if it isn't necessary to them?

The implication that this necessity has any bearing on their parental suitability is only yours.
A person who cannot love a child for who that child is, instead of for who they want that child to be, should not be a parent at all. I see little difference between needing a child to share your genes to love them and needing a child to be blonde and blue-eyed, or needing that child to be highly intelligent, or needing that child to be good at sports.

If a person could not love a child that is not biologically their own, I would prefer that they never have or raise children in the first place.

Oh, look, an entire paragraph that ignores that your entire argument falls since the child begotten through IVF will be maximally loved and cared for. And, no, your willingness to be judgemental when you can prove none of your claims doesn't negate that.

Oh, shut up. If they want a child and are ready to pay for it, then you should mind your own bloody business 'cause theirs is none of yours.

I agreed with Fass.

Precisely, and thus in no position to judge at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Wow, an overused cliche. I'm impressed...

It would have been better with a picture, though.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh, I'm in position to judge you. Cute attempt at an ad hominem tu quoque, though. Too bad you failed.

Oh, I'm in position to judge you. Cute attempt at an ad hominem tu quoque, though. Too bad you failed.
That totally proves you arn't a hypocrite. :rolleyes:
And that Myrmidonisia can't create an intelligent reply, which we already knew.

Oh, shut up. If they want a child and are ready to pay for it, then you should mind your own bloody business 'cause theirs is none of yours.

Well, actually, her 29 year old daughter and 30-something son are less than thrilled -- apparently their mother's health was not stellar to begin with, and the daughter told the NY Daily News that they think it's a bad idea, mostly because when their mother is no longer able to take care of the children, guess who that job will fall to?

People may be living longer, but that doesn't make their old, degenerating bodies capable of keeping up with childrens or able to cope with the stress on the body and mind that is required to take care of babies.
Back in NZ, the guy who owns the gym I used to go to had stomach cancer about 7 years ago, and was given only a few months to live.
Obviously he's still around today. He weighs 85 kgs. He can bench press 160kg, squat 180kg and deadlift 220kg. Last year he took up outrigger canoeing for the first time ever and competed at the NZ champs. He also started training for triathlons with the view to compete later this year.
Oh, and he's 70.

old, degenerating body indeed.



Only thing I dislike about people getting pregnant this lat in life is that the kid is going to go through the pain of losing their parents very early on in life. They're also won't have any link to their past, via their grandparents which is sad.

It isn't a matter of "method of conception". It's a matter of people wanting their own biological child no matter how much it costs. A parent who has to share DNA with a child to love that child is doing it for themselves - not because they want to give a good home to a child.

See, now THIS I agree with.

I think it's pure BS to say that the "really old mom" is an ignorant fool for wanting to be a mom at her age. I think that's a crap line of argument that doesn't hold water.

However, a GOOD line of argument would be something along the lines of, "It's not terribly bright to spend huge amounts of money to put your body through a whole lot of additional stress in order to create a biological child, when there are already far too many people on the planet as it is and you could instead adopt one of the countless children who already need homes."

Personally, I don't particularly like any fertility treatments. I don't like any artificial medical intervention that results in more humans being born, because we're already several billion over budget.

This thread fails simply because I’ve been staring at its title for nearly a day now, and I still don’t fully get the syntax.

When the child is 2-3 years old and has high levels of energy and is running around like any toddler how will she cope?
Will she even make it to 78 to see the child's graduation? She is being irresponsible.

Oh, shut up. If they want a child and are ready to pay for it, then you should mind your own bloody business 'cause theirs is none of yours.

if they would rather pay huge sums of money to artificially have a child when they are not naturally capable of doing so than adopt a child that needs parents, I can see that being worth criticizing.

When the child is 2-3 years old and has high levels of energy and is running around like any toddler how will she cope?

If physical fitness is a requirement for parenting, then you'd better be prepared to say the same thing about any and all younger parents who aren't in peak physical shape.

You'd also better be prepared to demonstrate that the mental maturity and benefits of additional years of experience are less valuable assets to a parent than the ability to run around.

If physical fitness is a requirement for parenting, then you'd better be prepared to say the same thing about any and all younger parents who aren't in peak physical shape.

You'd also better be prepared to demonstrate that the mental maturity and benefits of additional years of experience are less valuable assets to a parent than the ability to run around.

My mother-in-law told me recently that, while she loves all of her sons, she enjoyed parenting her youngest son more. Her older sons - especially the oldest - were born at a time when they weren't really struggling, but didn't have much free time or money either. Her youngest was born when they were older and more established - both in good jobs with good benefits and pay. She pointed out that she was less able to run around and play with him - that she had less energy for it - but she loves the fact that she was able to pay to send him to better schools, a good college, etc. She wasn't as physically active, but she was able to spend more quality time with him than her younger sons. She took great pleasure in helping to pay for our recent wedding - something she was not able to do for her oldest son.

60 seems a bit over-the-top on the scale, but I have definitely told that being older has its advantages in child-rearing.