Another 70-year-old in India has IVF baby

[Sister Fracas 5]

I don't think it's selfish. Everyone is entitled to the life they want. Only those who desire children so much and cannot have them can tell you really how it feels, to not be able to procreate.

I want a life where I don't have to work or pay taxes. Am I entitled to that? No.

Where is the responsibility of the parent if they very quickly become too old to properly care for their child? Putting that responsibility on other family members doesn't seem fair to the child. Yes, it's true that nothing is a given and that younger parents can be taken from their child when they are too young, but why increase the odds by having a child at that age?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Parents have a responsibility to not only bring life, but, to raise them.

[Gigli2008 70]

I don't think it's selfish. Everyone is entitled to the life they want. Only those who desire children so much and cannot have them can tell you really how it feels, to not be able to procreate.

I want a life where I don't have to work or pay taxes. Am I entitled to that? No.

Where is the responsibility of the parent if they very quickly become too old to properly care for their child? Putting that responsibility on other family members doesn't seem fair to the child. Yes, it's true that nothing is a given and that younger parents can be taken from their child when they are too young, but why increase the odds by having a child at that age?

And I fully understand that. But who are we to say who can and cannot have children? And who says that these children will grow up in a life of misery? Maybe everything has been properly arranged for them to have a good life. There are people who have children just to hand them over at birth. Where is the responsibility in that to the birthing parent? Surrogacy for e.g. Obviously in this scenario the parent who gives their child away knows how that child will grow up. Maybe these old women have done the same thing. And India is know for huge and close family units.

The children will be fine.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have voiced yours. I happen to have a different point of view, which is - it's ones natural right to procreate. It's also a child's right to have a normal life. There are abusive parents out there whose right to have children should be taken away. Those are the majority. The fewer cases of older women who just want to have children is a handful - and is not a threat to the childs life.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Gigli2008

[Amby 490]

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

[Amby 490]

I don't think it's selfish. Everyone is entitled to the life they want. Only those who desire children so much and cannot have them can tell you really how it feels, to not be able to procreate.

I want a life where I don't have to work or pay taxes. Am I entitled to that? No.

Where is the responsibility of the parent if they very quickly become too old to properly care for their child? Putting that responsibility on other family members doesn't seem fair to the child. Yes, it's true that nothing is a given and that younger parents can be taken from their child when they are too young, but why increase the odds by having a child at that age?

And I fully understand that. But who are we to say who can and cannot have children? And who says that these children will grow up in a life of misery? Maybe everything has been properly arranged for them to have a good life. There are people who have children just to hand them over at birth. Where is the responsibility in that to the birthing parent? Surrogacy for e.g. Obviously in this scenario the parent who gives their child away knows how that child will grow up. Maybe these old women have done the same thing. And India is know for huge and close family units.

The children will be fine.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have voiced yours. I happen to have a different point of view, which is - it's ones natural right to procreate. It's also a child's right to have a normal life. There are abusive parents out there whose right to have children should be taken away. Those are the majority. The fewer cases of older women who just want to have children is a handful - and is not a threat to the childs life.

I wasn't saying who can and cannot have children. I was saying it's irresponsible and unfair to the child to be born to parents who may not even be able to stay alive long enough to raise them. It's also unfair to other family members who maybe don't want children if they have to take care of a child because the 70yr old died when the kid was 3.

[Mononoke28 135]

I wasn't saying who can and cannot have children. I was saying it's irresponsible and unfair to the child to be born to parents who may not even be able to stay alive long enough to raise them. It's also unfair to other family members who maybe don't want children if they have to take care of a child because the 70yr old died when the kid was 3.

This is the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the article this morning. The parents won't even be able to play with this child the way most parents can, they're going to be in their 80s when he/she turns 10. It's beyond sad.

Diana

[Gigli2008 70]

I don't think it's selfish. Everyone is entitled to the life they want. Only those who desire children so much and cannot have them can tell you really how it feels, to not be able to procreate.

I want a life where I don't have to work or pay taxes. Am I entitled to that? No.

Where is the responsibility of the parent if they very quickly become too old to properly care for their child? Putting that responsibility on other family members doesn't seem fair to the child. Yes, it's true that nothing is a given and that younger parents can be taken from their child when they are too young, but why increase the odds by having a child at that age?

And I fully understand that. But who are we to say who can and cannot have children? And who says that these children will grow up in a life of misery? Maybe everything has been properly arranged for them to have a good life. There are people who have children just to hand them over at birth. Where is the responsibility in that to the birthing parent? Surrogacy for e.g. Obviously in this scenario the parent who gives their child away knows how that child will grow up. Maybe these old women have done the same thing. And India is know for huge and close family units.

The children will be fine.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have voiced yours. I happen to have a different point of view, which is - it's ones natural right to procreate. It's also a child's right to have a normal life. There are abusive parents out there whose right to have children should be taken away. Those are the majority. The fewer cases of older women who just want to have children is a handful - and is not a threat to the childs life.

I wasn't saying who can and cannot have children. I was saying it's irresponsible and unfair to the child to be born to parents who may not even be able to stay alive long enough to raise them. It's also unfair to other family members who maybe don't want children if they have to take care of a child because the 70yr old died when the kid was 3.

No one knows how much family support she had to do this. Maybe the whole clan is happy......maybe.

Is Amby and Sister Fracas one and the same person? I thought I was replying to the latter!

Edited December 9, 2008 by Gigli2008

[Amby 490]

and maybe the whole family is pissed off knowing they're going to have to raise a kid they can't afford and don't want because the selfish 70yr old wanted a baby for a few years

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't understand why people over 45-50 want to have kids. I undertand they want children and finally have the opportunity to have one but it just seems really selfish and they need to think about the kid in the long run when they're not around anymore.

People are living longer, healthier lives than was possible 20-30 years ago. Why is it no problem if a man f%^ks around until he is 40-50 years old, stringing along women during their most fertile years, then decides 'I want to settle down' and finds women his age are too old to have kids so finds a 25-year-old from <insert country>, or divorces his 40something wife, marries a 25 year old(foreign or USC) and starts a second family? Why shouldn't women also have the ability to start a family when they are in the say 40-55 year old range when they have matured mentally, had the chance to travel and get an education and be more secure financially? It is harder and harder financially to start a family when you are in your 20s and 30s. Maybe 70 is pushing it but why shouldn't a healthy 45-55 year old woman be less able to have her first child than a 45-55 year old man?

Because we can.

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

Actually, you would.

Imagine having to take care of your 90-year-old parents when you're 70.

[Gigli2008 70]

and maybe the whole family is pissed off knowing they're going to have to raise a kid they can't afford and don't want because the selfish 70yr old wanted a baby for a few years

And the miracle of the baby will live hopefully to be at least 80 and mabe invent the cure for AIDs that continues to be the number one killer in India.

It's water under the bridge at this point.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think it's selfish. Everyone is entitled to the life they want. Only those who desire children so much and cannot have them can tell you really how it feels, to not be able to procreate.

I want a life where I don't have to work or pay taxes. Am I entitled to that? No.

Absolutely. If you don't work, you will have no income and therefore pay no taxes.

[doodlebugg 10]

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

What does it matter how old your parents are when you're 20? It's not like they're going to have to chase after you through a park or something.

[Amby 490]

Actually, you would.

Imagine having to take care of your 90-year-old parents when you're 70.

Hey I will be 74 when my parent is 90

She has already requested that I put her in a nice nursing home when she needs it and spare no expense. I'm her only hope when it comes to a nice old age. She can't count on my sister

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

What does it matter how old your parents are when you're 20? It's not like they're going to have to chase after you through a park or something.

It does matter. Generation gaps. Older parents don't understand their children because they have no clue.

[Gigli2008 70]

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

What does it matter how old your parents are when you're 20? It's not like they're going to have to chase after you through a park or something.

Poor Michael Douglas and Donald Trump. Maybe Trump is younger.

[KiKi 0]

70 is NUTS, and selfish, and creepy

but 45??? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.......I had my daughter at 40, so probably a bit biased.

I guess in your 20's you imagine 40 as ancient...lol

I don't think 40 is ancient at all but if I was 20 I wouldn't want my parents to be in their 60s or even 70!

Why not? It would reflect badly on you?

My dad had my half-sister at 37....it's never bothered her.

My Dad is in EXTREMELY good shape, bikes, runs, travels like a maniac....lot more energetic than most pepole half his age.

It would have been better for my half-sister to never exist than to have a Dad who was in his 60's when she was in her 20's?

Odd.