International Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
let's have a discussion on this...pregnant at 70.
I caught the last 10 minutes of this show on TLC called Pregnant at 70.
Here is a quick little youtube blurb on the show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bjyW8B90Uo
And here is TLC's description of the show:
Modern fertility treatment enabled 70-year old Rajo Devi to have her first child; 58-year-old Sue Tollefesen was thrilled when she became Britain's Oldest Mum; In America, a blind 64-year-old Janise Wulf has toddlers aged three and six.
I am all for women's reproductive rights and what not so would never support any type of legislation regarding a age limit on IVF. I am very government keep your laws off my body.
But FFS why would you want a child at 70?!??!
Re: let's have a discussion on this...pregnant at 70.
The issues that come to mind are a bit selfish, I think. At 70 you've only got what, 20 years left if you are LUCKY, right? What if you go at the ripe old age of 80, when your kid is only 10?
And health wise, how much harder would it be to run around after a toddler in your golden years regularly?
As for the kid too, I just think it would be a difficult upbringing in some ways.
However, if you want a baby and have a baby and care for that baby and raise that baby, who am I to say you're not making good choices?
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I totally get what you are saying would you ever think it is OK to make legislation about an IVF cut off age?
I know that the UK has an age where they won't cover it but you can still do it out of your own pocket right?
I think it is wrong to even DISCUSS legislation like that.
Oh no, sorry. I don't agree with any sort of legislation against it.
I do think, however, that there should be legislation involving fertility treatments when it comes to actively trying to create higher order multiples, just because of the dangers involved to babies born of higher order multiples. Not the mum, if she wants to do that to herself and wants to pay for it, whatever. But I just don't think it's right to gamble with babies and their health like that.
Flame away.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
So do you think there should be legislation against twoo Cystic Fibrosis carriers procreating because there is a higher chance the kid could have huge medical problems (PS I am making that up I'm not sure if that is true but for the sake of argument pretend like it is OK?)
Or what about someone who has a genetic disease and procreates 3 or 4 times knowing each time his/her kid has a really good chance to getting that genetic disease?
I don't think there should be legislation against any of that. It isn't the governments choice.
No, I don't think that the possibility of someone passing a disease on to their child ( or a condition, including Fetal Alchohol Sydrome or Crackbabies) should be a legislatable (word?) prevention or exclusion for fertility treatments, nor do I think should age be.
My point is things like when people use extreme fertility treatments to try to get quints and more that it puts the babies at such risk, not just for issues during pregnancy but after they are born that it should be more than frowned upon. But that's probably the only time I would get behind government involvement in fertility.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I don't see a difference in this and having 5 kids knowin there is a very likely chance you are going to give them a genetic disorder.
So that would be like saying that I shouldn't have been allowed to have had the girls because I've got a genetic disease. Not cool in my books. My girls have a chance of developing it, yeah, but they also have a huge chance of not. And that should be my personal choice on whether or not I want to reproduce based on my medical history.
If I want to turn my uterus into a clown car for shiits and giggles and knowingly put higher order multiple kids at risk, I don't think that's cool.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
Can I butt in?
I don't think it's the same thing. In the one case, the only way Tofu can have children is if she has them with the risk of a disease, but who is that not the case for? The number of people with absolutely no diseases in their family that have a genetic component is pretty low, I'm guessing. My grandma died of breast cancer when she was 48 (or so). My father had colon cancer, and my grandfather had diabetes. All of those are potentially fatal, directly or indirectly. So according to the "risk" logic, there would be almost no one allowed to have children without genetic selection and IVF.
With the high-order multiples, however, it's a different story. Here, we're talking about doctors who agree to implant more than 2-3 eggs with IVF, knowing that they will either abort some of them (what's that called again? something selection, I think) to give the others a better chance of survival or end up with preemies who might have serious health problems for the rest of their lives. These parents could still have children if only 1 or 2 eggs were implanted. If they wanted 8 kids and insurance covered it or they could come up with the money, they could even have those 8 kids by going through the process several times. Expensive? Yes. Harrowing? Yes. But possible.
What I'm saying is that in the one case you've got people who have to take the risk if they want to have kids at all, and in the other you have people who can have kids (even the same number, spread out) without taking the risks. In Germany I believe the law restricts it to 2 fertilized eggs / IVF transfer.
I think the government should just stay out of fertility issues for the most part. I agree with not impregnating woman via IVF with ten babies. I think it is unethical on the part of the doctors who are supposed to 'first do no harm' or something like that. Women aren't dogs and it is dangerous to mother and baby to give birth to litters.
As for the old lady mothers, who am I to judge. Those babies might have a better 10 years with their mum than many children have in a lifetime with their mothers. Not to mention, lots of children are orphaned young for all sorts of reasons, so the kid will just move on like the other orphaned children. I would hope that the old lady mums would also be more financially secure so as to leave money for the babies should they pass away.
Generally, wouldn't support a 'magic age' or 'magic number' legal restriction.
That said, I'd like to think/hope people (would-be mothers, would-be fathers, doctors, etc) would exercise prudent judgment. Pipe dream, I know. But I sincerely like to believe the majority of adults are clear-minded and reasonable. Flame away on that one
!
For me personally, the 'ok' age to have a kid keeps going up the older I get. It's weird. At 20, I guess I would have thought somewhere around 27 sounded about right, but 27, 32 seemed good. Now, at 35, I gotta be honest, 38 doesn't sound as old as it once did. That said, 70 is NM(our)S.
For multiples-- yeah I think twins are cute and the whole born-in BFF, great, but don't know that I'd intentionally try for multiples. My abilities to jungle are limited, so one's probably plenty for me. We've got a set niece/nephew, so I guess it's a possibility, in which case, fine/swell/lucky-surprise us, but I won't personally court that responsibility.
I don't think any of this should be legislated, but that perhaps counseling on all the ins and outs of this has been considered before any action is taken.
But IVF costs a minimum of $12,000, so I can see wanting to get twins or triplets out of it if you have a desire for a large family. Think about it: If you want three kids, it will cost X to raise them, plus $12,000 for IVF.. if you spread them out it will STILL cost X to raise them, but now it costs $36,000. Now, I think anyone trying this should be counseled about the special challenges of multiples, and no one should be allowed to put like 7 embryos in. Also, the truth is that IVF fails ALL THE TIME. So the reason they put two or three in there is not because they think they'll have twins, but because if you just put one in there, likely no baby will happen.
"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." -Isaiah 61:10 NKJV
"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." -Isaiah 61:10 NKJV
My thoughts exactly. While using fertility treatments to get pregnant at 70 isn't something I'd do, I think this type of legislation is a slippery slope... And, there are some pretty young 70-year-olds out there
I strongly disagree in governments/lawmakers making what are essentially medical decisions. It's simply not their place/area of expertise.
I do however think it unethical of medical professionals to implant 6 eggs for example and though I will likely be an "old" mother (am 35 this year and not TTC'ing yet) & can't begin to imagine how to draw the line if you implement some sort of cut off, I kind of feel there should be one. But dictated by medical reasons, not legislation.
I don't know. My mother had me at 40 when that was considered ancient & it's now a very common occurence, which is perfectly fine by me (I'll likely to that too) but where does it stop? Young at heart or not, in your 40s and 60-70 is just not comparable IMO.