The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: bijou on June 14, 2010, 11:29:36 AM
-
The world's oldest mother is dying from the rigours of giving birth at the age of 70.
News about Rajo Devi Lohan, who is too weak to recover from complications after her IVF pregnancy, came as a 66-year-old became the oldest woman to have triplets.
Experts fear Bhateri Devi could suffer the same fate as Rajo.
Both women received IVF treatment at the same controversial clinic in India after suffering the stigma of being unable to bear children throughout their married lives.
Rajo, now 72, gave birth to her daughter Naveen 18 months ago but is confined to bed and so frail she cannot lift the little girl. ...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286412/Worlds-oldest-mother-Rajo-Devi-Lohan-reveals-dying.html#ixzz0qqUZoi3O
-
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286412/Worlds-oldest-mother-Rajo-Devi-Lohan-reveals-dying.html#ixzz0qqUZoi3O
This brings a tear to my eye, these woman that give up their own lives to have children after 40-50 years of living a life with no children. The joy they must have felt at that advanced age to feel life moving and kicking around with in them. The excitement to hold their child just born to them.
God bless these woman that finally get their life dream, God bless the children they produce knowing they had been wanted for half a century.
-
This brings a tear to my eye, these woman that give up their own lives to have children after 40-50 years of living a life with no children. The joy they must have felt at that advanced age to feel life moving and kicking around with in them. The excitement to hold their child just born to them.
God bless these woman that finally get their life dream, God bless the children they produce knowing they had been wanted for half a century.
Sad for the kids to lose their mothers so young...and kinda selfish for the mothers to deliberately have children they won't see grow up...
-
This brings a tear to my eye, these woman that give up their own lives to have children after 40-50 years of living a life with no children. The joy they must have felt at that advanced age to feel life moving and kicking around with in them. The excitement to hold their child just born to them.
God bless these woman that finally get their life dream, God bless the children they produce knowing they had been wanted for half a century.
WTF??? 9 months of joy for a kid to grow up w/o a mom...
Sure... makes great sense. Who cares about the kid once it's born... :mental:
-
This brings a tear to my eye, these woman that give up their own lives to have children after 40-50 years of living a life with no children. The joy they must have felt at that advanced age to feel life moving and kicking around with in them. The excitement to hold their child just born to them.
God bless these woman that finally get their life dream, God bless the children they produce knowing they had been wanted for half a century.
These sweet little children will also grow up without a mother.
-
Sad for the kids to lose their mothers so young...and kinda selfish for the mothers to deliberately have children they won't see grow up...
Do you advocate Abortions for woman in their late 40's?
What about the high fives given to men that impregnate women when in their 80's, they may leave a child without a father within 6 months.
\Give me a break, a mother can die from any number of things besides age.
-
Do you advocate Abortions for woman in their late 40's?
What about the high fives given to men that impregnate women when in their 80's, they may leave a child without a father within 6 months.
\Give me a break, a mother can die from any number of things besides age.
moral relativism, much?
-
Both women received IVF treatment at the same controversial clinic
Vesta, does this sound good? What part of Mother Nature said NO diden't these people understand? :thatsright:
-
Vesta, does this sound good? What part of Mother Nature said NO diden't these people understand? :thatsright:
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
-
moral relativism, much?
Sorry BKG it is just what I had to go through to be ALLOWED to give birth to my son that tees me off. Doctors with dire warnings that if I did not abort the baby both of my kidneys would shut down. Then both sides of the family going nuts as to my selfishness to my other 2 children in putting the unborn child ahead of them.
But but, if I died who would raise my 2 or 3 children some asked.
HA, as I look back on that time I delivered a healthy baby and my kidney problems went away I wonder if God was testing me. 18 months later I delivered a beautiful little girl with no health problems for her or me.
As the 4 kids grew there was many a time I could have died, allot of near misses from auto accidents, times when I needed surgery as I was stabbed in the belly with a fork by a deranged patient I cared for. I worked some very dangerous jobs back then as did their fathers. Everyday hazards like when for some reason one set of grandparents gave my preteen boys a chemistry set for Xmas.
This child that the mother has wanted for 50 years when their mom passes will never for one moment think they were not wanted and needed by their mother.
So do you know any woman at 48 years old or older that have wanted a child and become pregnant that refuse to think that by the time their child is grown to be an adult they if they survive will be close to 70.
I rejoice for this woman and her child, her story and pictures should be placed outside abortion clinics as a message that mothers must ptotect their children with their very lives the born and the unborn. The unborn are not rabbits, they are humane.
-
Vesta, does this sound good? What part of Mother Nature said NO diden't these people understand? :thatsright:
Though Mother Nature said NO.....science says YES.
Vesta's right...these women wanted children for 50+ years....and most men above the age of 55 are given a :hi5: for getting their sweet young thing pregnant.
That's a rather blatant double standard, don't you think?
People thought "WOW, the old guy's still got it!" when Tony Randall, Larry King, Hugh Hefner had kids when they were in their 70's. Obviously Tony Randall didn't see his kids grow up, neither will Larry King....Hugh Hefner - who knows :uhsure:.
I have more of an issue with the fact that this was done in India to women that were "poverty-stricken"!!
This was further down in the article....
Mrs Devi's delighted husband Deva Singh, 64, brushed aside potential risks, saying: 'She has fulfilled my dream of having a child and gave my family an heir.
'She was my first wife and after she failed to conceive a child, I married twice but again I did not have any child from my other wives. I am very happy and I will provide all the best facilities to my children in the coming years.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286412/Worlds-oldest-mother-Rajo-Devi-Lohan-reveals-dying.html#ixzz0qw3kC8K4
This raises the question...to me, at least.....perhaps the husband was sterile. In a male driven society, as India is, I bet it was real easy to convince the husband to try an "experiment" on his barren wife. He would be a father...raising his self esteem and getting :hi5:'s from his similarly aged buddies. :whatever:
What better a specimen to experiment with - to determine just how old can that womb be to function?...than an old poverty-stricken woman that everyone will point fingers at the woman for being so callous to have a child at her age....who cares if she dies?
The doctors' were doing her a favor out of the kindness of their hearts...she was so desperate to have a child... :bawl:
I know women who have never been able to bear a child. Younger than me...older than me. Would they have done almost anything to have a child? Yes. Would they do it in their late 60's? Highly doubtful.
A woman who desperately wants a child...wants that child to be with that child, watch it grow, thrive, and have a wonderful life....just as a majority of us mothers do. We can't control what life throws at us - life-threatening illness, accidents that result in death....but I don't think there are too many women who "desperately" want a child, do it just for the experience of giving birth, in their late 60's only to shorten their own life and leave that child without a mother.
A woman wants a child to be a mother. The fact that we have to be pregant to have that child is a detail that most of us just tolerate out of necessity to get to the end result of having a child...not just for the joy of being pregnant all by itself. After finding out what being pregnant was like, for the second one, if I could have cloned myself and let the clone be pregnant instead of me, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
Sadly, in all of this....is a little child, three in the case of the other mother....who will grow up most likely with no parents. Hopefully there are extended families in place who will care for the children as if they were their own.
-
Though Mother Nature said NO.....science says YES.
Vesta's right...these women wanted children for 50+ years....and most men above the age of 55 are given a :hi5: for getting their sweet young thing pregnant.
That's a rather blatant double standard, don't you think?
People thought "WOW, the old guy's still got it!" when Tony Randall, Larry King, Hugh Hefner had kids when they were in their 70's. Obviously Tony Randall didn't see his kids grow up, neither will Larry King....Hugh Hefner - who knows :uhsure:.
I have more of an issue with the fact that this was done in India to women that were "poverty-stricken"!!
This was further down in the article....
This raises the question...to me, at least.....perhaps the husband was sterile. In a male driven society, as India is, I bet it was real easy to convince the husband to try an "experiment" on his barren wife. He would be a father...raising his self esteem and getting :hi5:'s from his similarly aged buddies. :whatever:
What better a specimen to experiment with - to determine just how old can that womb be to function?...than an old poverty-stricken woman that everyone will point fingers at the woman for being so callous to have a child at her age....who cares if she dies?
The doctors' were doing her a favor out of the kindness of their hearts...she was so desperate to have a child... :bawl:
I know women who have never been able to bear a child. Younger than me...older than me. Would they have done almost anything to have a child? Yes. Would they do it in their late 60's? Highly doubtful.
A woman who desperately wants a child...wants that child to be with that child, watch it grow, thrive, and have a wonderful life....just as a majority of us mothers do. We can't control what life throws at us - life-threatening illness, accidents that result in death....but I don't think there are too many women who "desperately" want a child, do it just for the experience of giving birth, in their late 60's only to shorten their own life and leave that child without a mother.
A woman wants a child to be a mother. The fact that we have to be pregnant to have that child is a detail that most of us just tolerate out of necessity to get to the end result of having a child...not just for the joy of being pregnant all by itself. After finding out what being pregnant was like, for the second one, if I could have cloned myself and let the clone be pregnant instead of me, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
Sadly, in all of this....is a little child, three in the case of the other mother....who will grow up most likely with no parents. Hopefully there are extended families in place who will care for the children as if they were their own.
:bow: :bow: :bow: Good going girl.
I do not know how to put this but at one time I met a woman that at the age of 25 made her living as a seregate mother--she rented out her womb for a price.
I was then and still am surprised to hear from her that she had all ready had 2 children by IVF of a fertilised egg from a husbands and wife's and for some reason the female could not bring the baby to term.
This woman enjoyed being pregnant and made sure the baby was born healthy.
As she explained it to me, the cost to adopt in this country is out of sight--the lawyers, social services and the fact an adoptive parent had to prove they were fit parents was on top of all the paper work, out of the reach of a normal couple--back 20 years ago. Not to mention that after 5 years or so no matter what the parents signed the child could be taken away. Liberal courts.
She worked with doctors that charged $10,000 for the implation of the fertile egg, she charged for rent of her womb $30,000 and all costs for medical treatment for her and child. As I said this was 20 years ago. To adopt a child of a stranger at that time was $60,000 after all was said and done. To hire a human incubator cost much less and no worry as to strangers arriving to take the child away. Liberal courts that make us :banghead:
She was an artist who made pottery on the side, she knew she would have to take a 5-10 year break in the incubating business, and she was salting her money away for that time.
She felt she was doing a huge service to the family's who wished to carry on the family line, Mother Nature said No but she came in with science to say yes.
Trailer for room or rent---hers was a womb for rent.
BTW don't put India down, yes they have their poor as all country's do, but there is great wealth there and they are going gunge ho into science and educating their females. Check out the phone book in any major American city and you will find under doctor hundreds of practicing female doctors from India that speak 3-4 languages and can pass out tests in this country to become board certified heart surgeons and brain surgeons.
To judge India on the big citys would be akin to judging all of America on down town Detroit.
-
BTW don't put India down, yes they have their poor as all country's do, but there is great wealth there and they are going gunge ho into science and educating their females. Check out the phone book in any major American city and you will find under doctor hundreds of practicing female doctors from India that speak 3-4 languages and can pass out tests in this country to become board certified heart surgeons and brain surgeons.
To judge India on the big citys would be akin to judging all of America on down town Detroit.
I'm not putting India itself down.
I have issue with the doctors who took a 70yo impoverished woman and planted a fetus in her.
The article says that the couple are "poverty-stricken" and took out loans to get the money to pay for the implantation.
Even India isn't going to give a "poverty-sticken" 70 year old couple that kind of money...the lenders would have no hope of getting repaid.
I still would venture a guess that the woman was a science experiment.
-------
added....(M's son and daughter in law tried invitro 6 or 7 years ago. It was $10,000 a try, not counting all the testing, daily hormone shots, ect. They tried 3 times and then she wouldn't do it again.)
-
Sorry BKG it is just what I had to go through to be ALLOWED to give birth to my son that tees me off. Doctors with dire warnings that if I did not abort the baby both of my kidneys would shut down. Then both sides of the family going nuts as to my selfishness to my other 2 children in putting the unborn child ahead of them.
Advised and Allowed are not the same - please do not use them as synonyms. No one can force you to not have a kid.
If you don't see what this woman did as the ultimate in selfishness, then I won't attempt to change your mind. I want to be as good looking as an Italian soccer player - doesn't mean I'm going to make someone else's life hell to make it happen.
I can't have kids. BFD. God has a way of making decisions more intelligent than we can.
Deb - my issue is not with people who want kids. It's with people who want to be pregnant and don't thinks twice about the kid post-pregnancy. I don't care if you're a 60 year old man or a 60 year old woman - have some decency and consideration for the child. No high-five's from me.
-
There is a huge difference between refusing to murder a child after he or she has been conceived...and making the decision to use medical technology to deliberately begin a pregnancy when there is a very good chance you'll orphan that child. God knew what He was doing when He gave us a limited time period in which to have kids.
In fact, it may be a bad idea to have children in any way except God's way...
http://www.slate.com/id/2256212/pagenum/all/#p2
The results are surprising. While adoption is often the center of controversy, it turns out that sperm donation raises a host of different but equally complex—and sometimes troubling—issues. Two-thirds of adult donor offspring agree with the statement "My sperm donor is half of who I am." Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them, they wonder if they are related. About two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins.
Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems.
As a group, the donor offspring in our study are suffering more than those who were adopted: hurting more, feeling more confused, and feeling more isolated from their families. (And our study found that the adoptees on average are struggling more than those raised by their biological parents.) The donor offspring are more likely than the adopted to have struggled with addiction and delinquency and, similar to the adopted, a significant number have confronted depression or other mental illness. Nearly half of donor offspring, and more than half of adoptees, agree, "It is better to adopt than to use donated sperm or eggs to have a child."
We've spent the last few decades - to my knowledge - making our children suffer through everything from divorce to same-sex parents to IVF or sperm donor births. When are ADULTS going to stop viewing children as playthings and start being responsible?
-
There is a huge difference between refusing to murder a child after he or she has been conceived...and making the decision to use medical technology to deliberately begin a pregnancy when there is a very good chance you'll orphan that child. God knew what He was doing when He gave us a limited time period in which to have kids.
In fact, it may be a bad idea to have children in any way except God's way...
http://www.slate.com/id/2256212/pagenum/all/#p2
We've spent the last few decades - to my knowledge - making our children suffer through everything from divorce to same-sex parents to IVF or sperm donor births. When are ADULTS going to stop viewing children as playthings and start being responsible?
Not all IVF is done with donor sperm.
In the case of M's son and daugher in law....it was done, because she had extreme endometriosis. It was not only preventing her eggs from moving through the fallopian tubes, but not all of her eggs were healthy enough to impregnate.
The OB was harvesting her own eggs, picking out the healthiest and using her husband's sperm. She was getting daily hormone shots to "convince" her uterus to accept the fertilized egg. She had several surgeries to remove the scar tissue. The odds were great, that it would work the first time. It didn't. Nor the second or third. At that point, she was just not willing to try again and the endometriosis won.
I think the article you cited, was regarding use of donor sperm only.
I don't believe the article regarding the women in India said anything about the sperm being donated. However, considering the age of the women, I would think the eggs would definitely have been donated.
-
Not all IVF is done with donor sperm.
In the case of M's son and daugher in law....it was done, because she had extreme endometriosis. It was not only preventing her eggs from moving through the fallopian tubes, but not all of her eggs were healthy enough to impregnate.
The OB was harvesting her own eggs, picking out the healthiest and using her husband's sperm. She was getting daily hormone shots to "convince" her uterus to accept the fertilized egg. She had several surgeries to remove the scar tissue. The odds were great, that it would work the first time. It didn't. Nor the second or third. At that point, she was just not willing to try again and the endometriosis won.
I think the article you cited, was regarding use of donor sperm only.
I don't believe the article regarding the women in India said anything about the sperm being donated. However, considering the age of the women, I would think the eggs would definitely have been donated.
[/quote]
IVF was something my husband and I were considering for a while. Thankfully, I was able to conceive naturally (well with the help of some fertility meds). However, I would never consider it after a certain age. I was thinking I would never be able to have children, and that thought scared me, but it was something I would have accepted. I am not sure what the cut off age is for me, but definitely not in the 60's or 70's would I ever think it was the right time to bring a child into this world. And mainly for the reason we are discussing here. There are other reasons I guess, but I'd hate to know I basically purposefully orphaned children. The kids are here now. I hope somehow this elderly woman can figure this out.
-
Not all IVF is done with donor sperm.
In the case of M's son and daugher in law....it was done, because she had extreme endometriosis. It was not only preventing her eggs from moving through the fallopian tubes, but not all of her eggs were healthy enough to impregnate.
The OB was harvesting her own eggs, picking out the healthiest and using her husband's sperm. She was getting daily hormone shots to "convince" her uterus to accept the fertilized egg. She had several surgeries to remove the scar tissue. The odds were great, that it would work the first time. It didn't. Nor the second or third. At that point, she was just not willing to try again and the endometriosis won.
I think the article you cited, was regarding use of donor sperm only.
I don't believe the article regarding the women in India said anything about the sperm being donated. However, considering the age of the women, I would think the eggs would definitely have been donated.
No, of course IVF is not always done with donor sperm...or donor eggs. In fact, with a younger couple, I see no problem with IVF...at least, as long as they don't deliberately kill any embryos. My point was that an ancient couple (by childbearing years) should not go to these lengths to produce a child they will likely orphan...and all parents owe to it their children to do their BEST for the CHILD. It is not best for the child to be:
1) murdered
2) born to parents that will almost certainly die while the child is young {though a natural conception does not condone murder for that reason}
3) born to or adopted by same sex or singles because the adult wants a child rather than the adult wants to do what is best for a child.
Seriously, we are totally screwing up our kids...and many of us are doing it due to our own selfishness. Children are real people, and adults should not treat them like something we put on our Christmas wishlist!
-
IVF was something my husband and I were considering for a while. Thankfully, I was able to conceive naturally (well with the help of some fertility meds). However, I would never consider it after a certain age. I was thinking I would never be able to have children, and that thought scared me, but it was something I would have accepted. I am not sure what the cut off age is for me, but definitely not in the 60's or 70's would I ever think it was the right time to bring a child into this world. And mainly for the reason we are discussing here. There are other reasons I guess, but I'd hate to know I basically purposefully orphaned children. The kids are here now. I hope somehow this elderly woman can figure this out.
My mother was 33 a month after I was born. She was killed in a car accident 4 days after I turned 13, a month before she would have turned 46.
My little brother's mother was 46 when he was born. She had 4 children from 18 to 26 at that time. She died of a heart attack when he a couple of months before he turned 25...she had just turned 72. Our dad was 47 when he was born, and 79 when he died.
Which one of us would have expected to have their mother longer?
-
My mother was 33 a month after I was born. She was killed in a car accident 4 days after I turned 13, a month before she would have turned 46.
My little brother's mother was 46 when he was born. She had 4 children from 18 to 26 at that time. She died of a heart attack when he a couple of months before he turned 25...she had just turned 72. Our dad was 47 when he was born, and 79 when he died.
Which one of us would have expected to have their mother longer?
I gotcha. You never know when your time will come. However, you can almost safely assume at 70 you will leave a child behind. I never would've thought my great-grandmother would outlive my brother, but so it goes.
-
My mother was 33 a month after I was born. She was killed in a car accident 4 days after I turned 13, a month before she would have turned 46.
My little brother's mother was 46 when he was born. She had 4 children from 18 to 26 at that time. She died of a heart attack when he a couple of months before he turned 25...she had just turned 72. Our dad was 47 when he was born, and 79 when he died.
Which one of us would have expected to have their mother longer?
Don't take it personally - it's not personal.
My father and mother went to a doctor to talk to them about my father's health issues prior to having kids... They were in their late 20's. They made the decision to not have kids IF the doctor said his ailments would be passed along. They got the all clear, so now you poor saps are stuck with me.
That's call being responsible. What this lady did was selfish, nothing more.
-
Don't take it personally - it's not personal.
My father and mother went to a doctor to talk to them about my father's health issues prior to having kids... They were in their late 20's. They made the decision to not have kids IF the doctor said his ailments would be passed along. They got the all clear, so now you poor saps are stuck with me.
That's call being responsible. What this lady did was selfish, nothing more.
+1
I personally don't think anyone should have kids after a certain age. Espically if they HAVE to use outside intervention to make it happen. What age that is, is hard to say. Certainly after 50 is a no no, IMO.
We've spent the last few decades - to my knowledge - making our children suffer through everything from divorce to same-sex parents to IVF or sperm donor births. When are ADULTS going to stop viewing children as playthings and start being responsible?
I wish I could give you a HI5. :cheersmate: This is the crux of the matter.
-
+1
I personally don't think anyone should have kids after a certain age. Espically if they HAVE to use outside intervention to make it happen. What age that is, is hard to say. Certainly after 50 is a no no, IMO.
That made me think...I am 50. I have a granddaughter in town, and have been able to keep her one day - and night - every week since she was about 4 weeks old. 50 is way too flipping old to get up at 3 AM with a baby!!!! Seriously!!! Even one night a week about killed me...I was so glad that she started sleeping all night at 10 weeks!
And, yeah...I'm "only" 50. She was 20 years older.
-
That made me think...I am 50. I have a granddaughter in town, and have been able to keep her one day - and night - every week since she was about 4 weeks old. 50 is way too flipping old to get up at 3 AM with a baby!!!! Seriously!!! Even one night a week about killed me...I was so glad that she started sleeping all night at 10 weeks!
And, yeah...I'm "only" 50. She was 20 years older.
This is a sticky wicket for me. Does one except what God has put in place or allow Science to help-.
I watched the trial of parents that allowed their son at 16 to die as they prayed over him. The young man refused medical help as he wanted the acceptance of his parents and church that would have frowned on him getting medical help.
Nature said yes he must die but science could have saved him. I am still upset over this thinking.
Some woman can conseve at the age of 50, strange but who would have thunk it.
I am reminded of the Bible story of a woman who never could conseve a child, at the age of 88 or so she gave her husband permission to in pregnant her servant. The slave gave birth to a son, then at the age of 90 she the wife became pregnant and also gave birth to a son----All hell broke out after that, both sons wanting to become heir , something about one of them tricking the father into giving rights to the slaves son.----OH MY. Some how a bowl of porridge came into all this drama.
Then MRS Smith I read this SCI-Fi story at a young age that stuck in my mind.
Set in the future, all woman over the age of 75 were forced into so called nursing homes. They were sedated and the nursing home doctors implanted eggs in the woman's wombs. The woman became nothing but incubators and when they could no longer do the job , the family was told their loved one had died of a heart attack.
If I remember correctly the children were raised as sex slaves .
Crap so much can in fact happen beyond our understanding, some are at this time trying and and may have accomplished cloning humans.
I am going to have nightmares over all the possibility science can bring up, what does one expect when the humane brain is given the chance to experiment---- next thing we can expect is something tried in in the past that didn't work out then but may work today.
-
This is a sticky wicket for me. Does one except what God has put in place or allow Science to help-.
I watched the trial of parents that allowed their son at 16 to die as they prayed over him. The young man refused medical help as he wanted the acceptance of his parents and church that would have frowned on him getting medical help.
Nature said yes he must die but science could have saved him. I am still upset over this thinking.
Some woman can conseve at the age of 50, strange but who would have thunk it.
I am reminded of the Bible story of a woman who never could conseve a child, at the age of 88 or so she gave her husband permission to in pregnant her servant. The slave gave birth to a son, then at the age of 90 she the wife became pregnant and also gave birth to a son----All hell broke out after that, both sons wanting to become heir , something about one of them tricking the father into giving rights to the slaves son.----OH MY. Some how a bowl of porridge came into all this drama.
Then MRS Smith I read this SCI-Fi story at a young age that stuck in my mind.
Set in the future, all woman over the age of 75 were forced into so called nursing homes. They were sedated and the nursing home doctors implanted eggs in the woman's wombs. The woman became nothing but incubators and when they could no longer do the job , the family was told their loved one had died of a heart attack.
If I remember correctly the children were raised as sex slaves .
Crap so much can in fact happen beyond our understanding, some are at this time trying and and may have accomplished cloning humans.
I am going to have nightmares over all the possibility science can bring up, what does one expect when the humane brain is given the chance to experiment---- next thing we can expect is something tried in in the past that didn't work out then but may work today.
There are cut off points in scientific advancements for me. I would NEVER use the "choose the gender of your child" advancement that is in place now, however, God gave us doctors and scientists, and there are some scientists who do believe in God. It can be a slippery slope, and caution should always be used. Having said that, I am thankful for medical advancements and scientific advancements. One medical advancement saved my life, and I am sure many many have stories of being saved by it. I am not sure about the cloning. It seems like a terrible idea until my child needs a heart transplant, or what have you. I certainly don't want another me walking around, that is messed up, but I can see the plusses too. It is about where you draw the line morally I guess. Morally FOR ME, I couldn't fathom bringing a child into this world at such an old age.
-
There are cut off points in scientific advancements for me. I would NEVER use the "choose the gender of your child" advancement that is in place now, however, God gave us doctors and scientists, and there are some scientists that do believe in God. It can be a slippery slope, and caution should always be used. Having said that, I am thankful for medical advancements and scientific advancements. One medical advancement saved my life, and I am sure many many have stories of being saved by it. I am not sure about the cloning. It seems like a terrible idea until my child needs a heart transplant, or what have you. I certainly don't want another me walking around, that is messed up, but I can see the plusses too. It is about where you draw the line morally I guess. Morally FOR ME, I couldn't fathom bringing a child into this world at such an old age.
Has anybody ever read....or seen the movie....My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult? It was written in 2004. I read it for a book cllub I was in.
It's about a 13yo girl who's parents had her, after her sister was diagnosed with cancer, as a very young child, in order to get her bone marrow.
It's a gut-wrenching book, I haven't been able to watch the movie, but I think it's running on tv now, Runnin' Buddy said she watched it the other night.
The doctors told the parents that the best way to save their daughter was to have another child as that child's umbilical cord could be used to save the existing daughter. Then it was the younger daughter's blood that was wanted, then bone marrow, then a kidney. It was never-ending.
We've all read about parents who have had another child to save an existing child.
I not only can't imagine being in that situation....I honestly don't know what I would do.
Is it morally wrong to do anything you possibly can to save your child?
Is it wrong to put one child in the position of saving another?
Science can do it to save your child...how far are you willing to go to save your child?
We had quite a lively discussion at book club...half of the women had children, half had never had - nor will give birth to their own child. We finally decided it was impossible to say what we would do, as none of us, had ever been in the position - nor ever will be (we're all too old) - to have to make that type of decision. We did all agree though that we would give anything of ourselves to save one of our own, even if it meant dying ourself.
-
Having another child to essentially be an "organ donor" is wrong in my opinion. I would give anything of myself for my child. But to bring in another person in this world, simply as a back-up is horrific in my opinion. It's as horrific as cloning.
I hope this book you read was fictitious....This is on the same level of Munchausen's syndrome. You may not be causing the child harm for attention, but you are causing the child harm. Imagine if one was to find out their sole reason of existence is to donate body parts (including blood, bone marrow) to another?
OMG...the more I think about this, the more scary it is.
-
Has anybody ever read....or seen the movie....My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult? It was written in 2004. I read it for a book cllub I was in.
It's about a 13yo girl who's parents had her, after her sister was diagnosed with cancer, as a very young child, in order to get her bone marrow.
It's a gut-wrenching book, I haven't been able to watch the movie, but I think it's running on tv now, Runnin' Buddy said she watched it the other night.
The doctors told the parents that the best way to save their daughter was to have another child as that child's umbilical cord could be used to save the existing daughter. Then it was the younger daughter's blood that was wanted, then bone marrow, then a kidney. It was never-ending.
We've all read about parents who have had another child to save an existing child.
I not only can't imagine being in that situation....I honestly don't know what I would do.
Is it morally wrong to do anything you possibly can to save your child?
Is it wrong to put one child in the position of saving another?
Science can do it to save your child...how far are you willing to go to save your child?
We had quite a lively discussion at book club...half of the women had children, half had never had - nor will give birth to their own child. We finally decided it was impossible to say what we would do, as none of us, had ever been in the position - nor ever will be (we're all too old) - to have to make that type of decision. We did all agree though that we would give anything of ourselves to save one of our own, even if it meant dying ourself.
I never saw the movie, but I did know the basis of it. What a terrible and tough decision to make. I can't say what I would do. My baby is my world, and I would do anything to save her if it ever came to be. Desperation makes people do desperate things. It doesn't seem right to have another baby just to save another's life, however, like you said, how can you ever really say what you would do unless you are faced with it yourself. I'd like to think it was my baby's time to go as terrible and tragic as that sounds. I pray to God I am never ever faced with such. I can't even imagine.
I do know that watching my mother and father lose their very young 24 year old son while I was only 18 made me realize that the love of a parent is almost like no other love. I can imagine my mom would have done damn near anything to bring him back. Selfish? Maybe, but it is human nature. I am blessed to know that love myself now. I love my baby girl with all of my being. It is a wonderful and scary love.
-
Having another child to essentially be an "organ donor" is wrong in my opinion. I would give anything of myself for my child. But to bring in another person in this world, simply as a back-up is horrific in my opinion. It's as horrific as cloning.
I hope this book you read was fictitious....This is on the same level of Munchausen's syndrome. You may not be causing the child harm for attention, but you are causing the child harm. Imagine if one was to find out their sole reason of existence is to donate body parts (including blood, bone marrow) to another?
OMG...the more I think about this, the more scary it is.
The book itself is fiction....but people do have children in order to save an existing child. Have been doing so for years.
I don't know if you've ever read any of Picoult's books, but they are extremely thought provoking. I've also read
Nineteen Minutes, about a high school shooting. They are the type of book that you really want to discuss with someone else, and are frequently used in book clubs because of that.
The Memory Keeper's Daughter by Kim Edwards is another one of those that make you think about choices. It's about twins that are born and one has Down's - back in the early '60's, and progresses 30+ years. It's fiction, and really reflects how times have changed.
-
This is a sticky wicket for me. Does one except what God has put in place or allow Science to help-.
I watched the trial of parents that allowed their son at 16 to die as they prayed over him. The young man refused medical help as he wanted the acceptance of his parents and church that would have frowned on him getting medical help.
Nature said yes he must die but science could have saved him. I am still upset over this thinking.
Some woman can conseve at the age of 50, strange but who would have thunk it.
I am reminded of the Bible story of a woman who never could conseve a child, at the age of 88 or so she gave her husband permission to in pregnant her servant. The slave gave birth to a son, then at the age of 90 she the wife became pregnant and also gave birth to a son----All hell broke out after that, both sons wanting to become heir , something about one of them tricking the father into giving rights to the slaves son.----OH MY. Some how a bowl of porridge came into all this drama.
But, in this case, the conception DID happen naturally. If Sarah and Abraham had been completely obedient, Isaac would have been the only son. God knew what Isaac's future was...and how long he would have his parents. When we take God's decisions into our own hands, we mess things up. You know the verse that says the father's sins will carry down onto the third and fourth generation? Our mistakes fall upon our children and grandchildren, sometimes heavier than they fall upon ourselves. When it's obvious that an action is going to harm your child, a parent should not take that action.
-
The book itself is fiction....but people do have children in order to save an existing child. Have been doing so for years.
I am so naive at some things.
-
I am so naive at some things.
Can you imaging being told "the only reason we had you was because we wanted your body to save your sibling..."???
-
Can you imaging being told "the only reason we had you was because we wanted your body to save your sibling..."???
It brings child abuse to a level I never knew existed. :(
-
I am all for organ donation...in the unfortunate event of death...or even voluntarily giving a kidney to a sibling....or giving blood(something I do). I understand a parent wants to do everything they can to prevent the death of a child...but I don't think it is morally correct for a parent to do so if it infringes upon the rights of another child.
-
Can you imaging being told "the only reason we had you was because we wanted your body to save your sibling..."???
I certainly can't imagine that. But having lost a sibling at an early age (not child early, but 18 nonetheless), I would have given whatever I could've to save him if it were a possibility.
People have children for the wrong reasons all of the time. It is a shame. There is then the whole issue of whether a parent should be able to consent to give such organs, etc., on behalf of a child who may not fully understand the consequences. Definitely a very slippery slope morally and otherwise.
Again, I am thankful, at least as of this point, that is something I will NEVER have to consider. I've said it many times, and yes I will say it again. Desperate people do desperate things.
-
Can you imaging being told "the only reason we had you was because we wanted your body to save your sibling..."???
I doubt that a parent would come right out and say that - at least most wouldn't - but I would think the child would eventually figure it out for themself.
-
I am all for organ donation...in the unfortunate event of death...or even voluntarily giving a kidney to a sibling....or giving blood(something I do). I understand a parent wants to do everything they can to prevent the death of a child...but I don't think it is morally correct for a parent to do so if it infringes upon the rights of another child.
We definitely agree on this. Unfortunately, our gov't doesn't... :(