aesdfzx
aesdfzx
Last edited by Lady Jade; 11-04-2008 at 07:08 PM.





I personally think it's unethical to pick the gender, physical traits of our children. I feel like that is God's work. As far as the 70 y/o woman, I'm actually torn. But, my views lean more to say that she is still has a working reproductive system, she should be able to use it.
Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"
My first thought is if at least one parent is young, this should be fine. Old men have been fathering babies since the dawn of man. But both parents are over 70, and I have a problem with that. They likely won't be able see this child through adulthood, and leave the child an orphan to be raised by hired nurses/ teachers. I am assuming that they are very wealthy to be able to get this procedure done.
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
I dont agree with it. I saw an article about this saying that they blew their whole life savings to do it..purpose was to produce a MALE heir to run the farm after they die.(they already had 2 grown daughters who have children of their own now) If they knew this was what they wanted,why didnt they do this decades ago when they were having their other children???
Sorry,but I think it is irresponsible and selfish to have a child when you KNOW you wont be alive to see it grow up...and to leave it orphaned and penniless as well. Not to mention that it will spend its entire childhood caring for parents who dying of old age and have dementia or other elderly-related conditions.
It sounds like theres some cultural issues going on there too.
I think its crazy and unethical for a woman to have a child at the end of her life. Perhaps she and or her husband have another 20 years, perhaps only one or two but to be at that age and bring new life in to the world I think is ludicrous.
its one thing to be young and to not be able to have children but theres a reason we have menopause.
I cannot imagine having the energy to care for a newborn at 70. It's hard at 30. People have to do what they want to do...but I know I wouldn't do it.



Is it their right? I suppose, but what kind of people would do that to a child? I mean this woman is 70... she might not even make it through child birth! who knows how long she or her husband have left?
The female human body goes through menopause for a reason. It's one thing if your just not blessed with the ability... but she HAD the ability, she HAD her chance and what she's doing is totally irresponsible.
hmmm... that sounds great... maybe I'll have a kid at 70 too when i don't care what my body looks like anymore and people will HAVE to help me raise my kid unless they want it to be neglected!... sounds like a good idea to me!





My issue with this entire situation is how can people think this is wrong/unethical while at the same time argue/debate that when it comes to abortion, a woman has a right to choose?
It's ok to abort a child if you aren't "ready" to have a child, but it's unethical if you're to old to be able to keep up with a child? That just seems backwards to me..
Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"




I think IVF is unethical period, whether the parents are 20, 70 or anywhere in between. Millions of orphaned children are already in the world in need of parents and a real home. Yet people are artificially creating more because they refuse to open their hearts to a child that's not their blood? IMHO that's horrible.
~'A Seven Nation Army Couldn't Hold Me Back'~
Good point Cinammon.
The difference for me is that post menopausal women simply arent meant to be having babies, no ifs no buts. This goes against what the female body and our human psycology is designed to do (if we look at the big picture of the ideal of how children are meant to grow up and what role their parents play blah...)
The same cant be said of abortion - the female reproductive system is very likely to abort fetuses.
Well we don't vet parents to determine whether they are likely to live to their child's adulthood. Like we don't say "You're a cancer survivor - your chances of succumbing in the next 15 years is reasonably high so you shouldn't be having babies." I think the difference being - we don't wonder why a 25 year old cancer survivor wants to have children and we wonder very much why a 70 year old woman does. Like something about that woman seems unsound.
As for "designer babies".... meh. Like I'm not in favour of euthanizing disabled or ugly children or children of an undesired gender - but if they are not born they are... not around to contemplate their own non-existence. I mean, nobody ever knows exactly what they are aborting, or for that matter, what they are not conceiving, and going around having children constantly because you imagine what the potential person who would be conceived would be feeling about not being conceived is... well, it is hardly a sensible way to live.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
So you think the responsibility of giving homes to these children should fall on the heads of those that can't reproduce on their own w/o medical intervention?
It's not MY fault a crackhead down the street had her 14th child placed in permanent foster care, I want my OWN child of my OWN genes, from my OWN husband, not some random father with a crap shoot of a gene pool on Mom's side. It's also not MY responsibility to take care of someone else's kid, just cause I can't have my own naturally.
Bookmarks