66 Years old and a Mother? Can this be right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Have we had athread on this yet?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4179057.stm

This woman has given birth to a baby at 66. She had two abortions when she was younger and has always regreted it. Now, medical science has allowed her to give birth to a baby (not biologically hers) that will be 10 when she will be 76. Nice.

What do you think?
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Have we had athread on this yet?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4179057.stm

This woman has given birth to a baby at 66. She had two abortions when she was younger and has always regreted it. Now, medical science has allowed her to give birth to a baby (not biologically hers) that will be 10 when she will be 76. Nice.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Sounds like here self-centeredness hasn’t changed.
 
I am glad you included the part about “science helping”. If the pregnancy had happened naturally, I think it would have been ok. Infact, bible stories tell of women who have their own children at a very old age. In those cases it was their own child, not someone else’s child.
 
I don’t think this is a good precedent. She will be too old to care for that child properly.
 
40.png
bapcathluth:
I don’t think this is a good precedent. She will be too old to care for that child properly.
Click to expand...
I do no see what is “wrong” about a 66-year-old woman giving birth. Yes, I agree that abortions are essentially murders, but even with all that in mind… She still brought a life into this world, and that’s what I find important.
 
J Mo:
I do no see what is “wrong” about a 66-year-old woman giving birth. Yes, I agree that abortions are essentially murders, but even with all that in mind… She still brought a life into this world, and that’s what I find important.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t matter if the woman was 66 or 26. Bottom line is, it wasn’t a natural pregnancy…she had to resort to IVF, donated eggs, whatever the latest lab-created procedures are, etc…and the last time I checked, the Church said “not allowed,” and for darn good reason.

Does anyone out there think that some of these lab procedures are getting awfully “Frankenstein”-ish? Isn’t some of this stuff nothing more than a bunch of scientists “playing God?” They’re going wa-a-a-y too far.

Ever wonder what might come to pass when there’s things going on like bio-genetic engineering, or cloning, or scientists trying to “create” new species by combining a bunch of DNA from different creatures? (“Hey, let’s take an egg cell shell from this woman, and a cell nucleus from this other woman, and combine it with this hunk of DNA from a firefly, and then we’ll clone it and implant it in another woman and see if it’ll glow in the dark!”)

What appears as simple and “good” on the surface as helping a woman have a child (remember the so-called “test-tube” baby in the late 70s or early 80s, and how wonderful it seemed to be that there was real help for infertile couples) has led to some of the issues, like cloning, we see going on now, and it will only lead to even crazier procedures–with even worse moral ramifications to deal with–in the future.
 
Good post! And when will they draw a line? Has this preganancy created a precedent? Who will step over the line? Is 70 to old? 80? 90?
 
I understand her regret and the temptation to resort to whatever Science can offer as a “cure” for what ails her spirit. But I think this comes under the heading of “disordered” and she should have just bit the bullet and denied herself this one last indulgence. As I have done.
 
Isn’t it funny how people past the normal childbearing age are often condemed for thinking only of themselves and their “want” for a baby?

“You’ll be 90 years old when the kid graduates from high school!”

“You should be retired, and relaxing, not changing diapers!”

“A child needs someone agile, who can run and play with them!”

And you’ll notice, the evidence the critics use is often centered around the well being of the child involved.

But would these same people profess the same outrage and public opinion to parents of normal childbearing age who choose to abort the child?

The logic seems a bit misplaced here.

Note: I do not support the use of fertilization methods which are deemed illicit by the Catholic Church- no matter how old the person is. That said, there are situations where conception has occured naturally in couples where one or both of the parents are older than “socially” appropriate.

I wish society spent a little less time counting ages, and more time counting dead babies.

(I realize several posters on this thread voiced concerns about the parenting of this child, and I do not mean any disrespect to those posters. My comments are directed toward people who would say this woman is too old (because of concerns for her child) and in the same breath uphold a woman’s right to choose with complete disregard to the rights of the murdered children!)
 
40.png
Meggie:
just another example of how abortion can screw up your mind
Click to expand...
On the otherhand, here’s a perspective from OpinionJournal:
Delayed Roe Effect
One objection we often hear to our hypothesis of the Roe effect–that abortion makes the populace more conservative, because liberal women are more apt to abort their pregnancies than conservative ones–is that many women who have abortions when young go on to have children later. A report from the BBC shows why this phenomenon doesn’t necessarily run counter to the Roe effect and indeed in some ways is part of it:
A 66-year-old Romanian woman thought to have become the world’s oldest mother has revealed that she had two abortions in her early 20s. . . .

“In those days I would never have thought of a termination as murder as I do now,” she told the Sunday Telegraph. . . .

"In that time I had two pregnancy terminations–it was the normal thing back then and the accepted form of contraception. If there is anything I regret then it is those terminations, not having a baby now.

“Religion was not a big part of many people’s lives and I had never had any religious education, I believed the party line that a foetus is only considered a life when it is older than three months.”

Mrs Iliescu said she “discovered religion” after her marriage and is now Romanian Orthodox.

If she had had those children back then, they might well have picked up her pro-choice views. They would be around 40 now, probably with children of their own. Instead, she is preparing to raise a daughter who will be influenced by mom’s pro-life views.
 
it MESSED with her mind, regardless of how the children were being raised. Just because a child is born to liberal parents dosn’t mean that they will be liberal and pro-abortion.

Abortion causes psychological as well as phisical tramua to a women in a way that the mind was not ment to work. A woman’s body is FORMED from conception to be able to itself concieve children. The artifical termination of a pregnacy does bad things to the mind, people can’t see that.

This woman was pressured by society, now she is able to have a child but the fact still remains that two children are dead.

Children are not objects. This pregnancy does not “make up” for what happened. This child will always suffer from the fact that two of her sibilings were aborted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top