Advance?
Is a 66 year old woman having a baby an advance? I know it’s old news but I’m not reporting it here. I’ve had some time to think about it and form a view which sits comfortably with my conscience so lets see how it sits with yours. This supposed miracle of modern medicine actually disgusts me. It manages this on what I believe are 3 separate levels which overlap with one or two of the current “liberal” arguments of the day. I’ll see if I can keep this tidy for you.
My first problem lies with the assertion that this event was successful. It should be remembered that this woman was pregnant with twins, one of which died which resulted in an immediate caesarian operation to remove both twins. This means that the surviving twin was born prematurely with all the inherent dangers that come with that. Now I’m no medical expert but I kind of suspect that these problems were as a result of the woman’s advancing years. These facts were reported in the papers but were hidden away in the detail. I hope that the medical team learned some things that will help younger women with fertility treatment because it’s the only good thing I can think of which may have come out of this farce.
Now her age. In a couple of years time the surviving twin will be merrily toddling away. Mother will be 68 years old. I have visions of this old woman running round the house trying to catch a toddler who is quite capable of moving faster than she can. It sounds farcical but I think it has a very close relationship to reality. Of course she could just hire a Nanny to do all the child-rearing stuff but that would beg the question “why become a mother to give someone else the job?” Then, by the time the child is leaving school, mother will be in her 80s, assuming she’s got that far, and she’s unlikely to see any marriage or grandchildren. And what about the father? Is there one? I’ve not heard him mentioned at all. So is this a single 66 year old woman having a baby?
The last thing to bring on my disgust was that, in order to go through the fertility treatment, the woman had first to be put through 9 years of reverse-menopause treatment to get her back to the point where she could be made pregnant with the fertility treatment. I have big problems with this kind of medicine. Too often today, in many things apart from medicine, we merrily ignore the fact that we are human beings and that we have a built-in biology designed over tens of thousands of years for the purpose of protecting us and keeping us healthy. The menopause is a part of this biology. It tells a woman that her body has reached a stage where it is not capable of safely going through a pregnancy so it is going to close the production centre and shut down a couple of support systems as well. I think it’s safe to assume that most of the time your body knows more about itself than you or any doctor does. It seems to me to fly in the face of reason to reverse a process that is designed to protect a pregnancy and make it as safe as possible by stopping any pregnancy from happening once the body has gone past the point of being able to safely deal with it.
I feel that there needs to be more stringent legislation in place for private as well as state treatment to regulate what can or can’t be done when it comes to fertility treatment and here is where I cross swords with some of the current popular thinking. Many women talk of their right to have a baby. I don’t think you have such a right because no such right can exist. You are talking about having a baby. Another human being with rights. You cannot have a right over another human being. It sounds immoral to me. Now I’m quite happy with the idea that we can do as we wish with our own bodies so if a woman wants to go out, have unprotected sex, get pregnant and have a baby then so be it, remembering that parenthood carries it’s own responsibilities and you should take these into account before jumping into bed.
It would seem logical then that I don’t believe women have a right to fertility treatment either. This treatment isn’t exactly cheap and it’s not life-saving. You’re not ill. You’re not going to die. Though I don’t want to belittle it’s importance, fertility treatment is kind of on a par with plastic surgery, in that it is designed to enhance your life rather than prolong it. Plus, if you are having treatment through the state, you are expecting the tax-payer to foot the bill. I mention all this in defence of my beliefs on rights but I do not propose that such treatment be stopped. I just feel there should be a few rules.
I think my first step would be to set an age limit. Now this will, of course, be an arbitrary figure, and there will always be arguments for a higher or lower one but I feel that it needs to be set. My figure would be 50. I could listen to arguments for 55 but I would prefer 50. I think most women have started or been through the menopause by then but I would add a further restriction in that those women who have started or been through the menopause would not get fertility treatment. I would be very selective with this reverse-menopause treatment too. I know there are women who experience the menopause at a very early age and these should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In fact any figures or limits I suggest here should be looked on as recommendations rather than hard-and-fast rules, but never-the-less, recommendations which should only be ignored under exceptional circumstances.
I also feel that fertility treatment should only be offered to couples and that those couples should consist of a man and a woman. I do not think it should be offered to single women (i.e. women not in a stable relationship) or gay couples. The first, because I feel children should have mothers and fathers. The second, because their sexual preference has excluded them from the normal methods of procreation. Dare I say that they can’t have it both ways? I have no problem with gay couples raising kids if they wish but there are plenty of orphans out there desperately looking for parents. Look in that direction instead.
I suspect I’ve raised a few hackles on this one so by all means have your say.
Comments ( 7 )
I think 50 is a high number (age limit). There are so many risks involved in these types of pregnancies – I feel it’s not worth those risks. Adopt! My cutoff number would probably be 40-45.
I don’t have a problem with single women or gay couples having babies as long as the child is loved and cared for properly. I don’t assume that man + woman = ideal. It all depends on the individuals in question. Although it is clear that children need and benefit most from the (positive) influence of both genders in their lives… that doesn’t always come from a parent.
I also understand, though do not agree with your comments about same sex parents and single mothers. It’s true that if you compare single mothers to 2 parent families, you will find that statistically, the children do better in 2 parent families. However, there is not currently enough information to compare to the same level of significance hetero vs homo parents, however what information has been found so far does in fact indicate that a 2 homosexual parent family is just as good as a 2 parent heterosexual family. (don’t forget, I’m Canadian, and if all goes well, we’ll nationally accept same sex marriages in less than a month)
My thought is what about gay male couples… they can’t even just decide that one of them goes and gets themselves knocked up so that the couple can have a baby… they have to adopt or find someone who is willing to be a surrogate mother…
When I talked about single women I was referring to women who were not in a long-term relationship with a spouse or partner.
To add to what I’ve already said I feel that this treatment is not only expensive, but it is also very rewarding and life-changing when it works and I just feel that we should be a little bit choosier about who we offer it to. Don’t forget that the responsibilities don’t really start until the treatment is successfully completed and they involve another human being.
If a woman can pay for it, I don’t see why she should be excluded from treatment based on her sexuality or relationship status (provided she has the means and wherewithall to raise a child in the first place).
Their sexual preference has basically excluded them from the procreation race because they want no sexual contact with males.
I’m not sure this is completely true. In any case, lesbians often choose a male partner to father and help raise their child. As do some single women (the same procreation argument you’re applying to lesbians could be applied to single women if they are choosing not to be in a relationship with a man).