While I think it is very selfish to decide to have a child at age 70 (for the father and/or mother), what bugs me most about this article is the reference at the end that seems to imply that the couple had an infertility issue that needed to be helped by IVF. Menopause is not infertility.
Originally Posted by jknyc
I suppose that's correct unless you include women who are in Menopause for reasons other than being over 40 years old (cancer treatment, lack of ovaries, lack of eggs, and so on). 40 yo seems to be the deciding factor of whether you are in 'premature' menopause or not. If you are under 40 then you have an 'infertility issue' and if you are over then you don't?
I suppose you could say the same thing about women who don't have a male partner that is able to impregnate them for some reason. That isn't an infertility issue for the woman either.
Personally I think that there are plenty of opportunities to care for children without giving birth to a child if that is the desire that one has but I hesitate to condemn someone for doing this because of their age because they may have a higher probability of not being alive when the child is grown. None of us know when we will die. Some of us engage in high risk sports or other activities like smoking that increase the probability. Some of us have occupations that increase our probability of untimely death (farming leaps to mind for some reason or deep sea fishing). Should those people also be condemned?
I'm quoted jkny but these are not directed to her but in general.
I don't know at what age specifically the cut-off for menopause not being IF should be, but I do know that 70 is past it.
Originally Posted by freetibet
The things that you mention, like child abuse, murder etc are all horrible, awful things and I despise every one of them. However, I do not see any connection between that and having a child when you have surpassed the average life expectancy. One has no relationship to the other. I checked a few sources and the average life expectancy of a child born in 1996 in India is 60 years. If that is true (and I saw estimates from 59 to 70 though the more reliable sites were in the low 60's), then this couple has already surpassed the average life expectancy for thier age group.
If a person became pregnant by accident, then I'd say "life happens", be shocked and hope that they have a good support system for thier child. I view a couple who are at or have surpassed thier life expectancy average choosing to undergo IVF as an extremely selfish act- they've guarenteed that thier child will be an orphan before they get to adulthood. Yes, many children lose a parent and its horrible, truly horrible but to take a step to have a child knowing that BOTH parents will not survive to see them grow up and most likely will not survive to see the first 10 years of the child's life is very much different. They made this choice knowing the risks and with the intention of having a child that they cannot raise to adulthood.
In this case, I believe the couple allowed thier own selfish desires to lead them to a poor choice.
Edited to add:
According to the CIA factbook, a baby born in 2008 in India can expect to live 69.25 years. Life expectancy of someone born 70 years ago would be lower then this, this couple has already exceeded the average life expectancy of thier age group.
BTW, this doesnt mean that a person will die at the life expectancy average- there is alot to this statistically to understand (ie: in some cases, your individual life expectancy increases as you age), I just think that there should be a limit to when reproductive technology is used and life expectancy makes sense.
Last edited by BriNJ; 12-11-2008 at 04:33 PM.
What makes you think the child will be an orphan before adulthood? Many people live to age 90 and beyond. My grandfather died at age 97 and was on a bowling team well into his 90's and he exercised every day until right before his death.
I wonder if the life expectancy stats are misleading. It appears this couple is well off if they are able to do IVF and there are dramatically different lifestyles between the rich and poor in India. I would think the huge number of people who live in abject poverty in that country would skew the life expectancy to a lower number. The rich may live much longer lives.
I don't necessarily think that having a baby at 70 is such a great idea, but the argument about the children becoming orphans may not be the best one.
Well, because it's not the norm to live that long. And how many people who are in their 70's, 80's, 90's are active and have enough energy to take care of children? I don't know too many, and dh and I each have 2 grandparents still living. Even still, lets say they live to 90. That means the kid loses their parents at 20. Just because they are adults doesn't mean they don't need parents anymore. It's just sad and I think irresponsible. Of course, now that the baby is here, I hope they live long, active lives, and I hope there is extended family to help out when they are no longer around, no matter when that is.
Originally Posted by June2
I agree that this couple may live longer due to financial status- but still think that life expenctancy is a good cutoff for reproductive medicine. After all, it is a good mark that you are too old to have children if the a majority of your age group is no longer with you.
Being that its hard to figure out a cutoff- this seems to be the most logical one- that the expected life expectancy should be- because menopause etc is so variable- this at least has some sense to it.
It's like coming home!! )))) xxx