Posted on 07/16/2009 10:29:41 AM PDT by OrangeHoof
MADRID (AP) — A Spanish woman believed to have become the world's oldest new mother when she gave birth at 66 has died at 69, leaving behind twin toddlers, newspapers reported Wednesday.
Maria del Carmen Bousada, who reportedly died Saturday, gave birth in December 2006 as a single mother after getting in vitro fertilization treatment at a clinic in Los Angeles.
The births ignited a firestorm of debate over how old is too old for a new mother, and how much responsibility fertility clinics have over who gets treatments.
Bousada told an interviewer she lied to the fertility clinic about her age, and maintained that because her mother had lived to be 101, she had a good chance of living long enough to raise a child.
(Excerpt) Read more at legacy.com ...
And getting the government involved? How long before the decree comes down that babies born like this are to be retroactively aborted? No, thanks.
I do & I agreed ...she was fulfilled...so whatever makes you happy is acceptable today!
“Bousada told an interviewer she lied to the fertility clinic about her age, and maintained that because her mother had lived to be 101, she had a good chance of living long enough to raise a child.”
Well, she’s dead wrong.
Only if she were using her own eggs, which I seriously doubt she was.
Many breast cancers are steroid-dependent. A woman who has had this type of breast cancer and has a good prognosis significantly worsens her prognosis by having another baby, because of the elevated circulating steroid levels during pregnancy. The timing of this 66 year old’s breast cancer, originally diagnosed soon after the birth of the twins, is probably not a coincidence — it was most likely triggered by the pregnancy, or at least accelerated by the pregnancy (i.e. maybe she was going to get it anyway, but she probably wouldn’t have gotten it by age 69 if it hadn’t been for the pregnancy). The same principle applies to much younger women who are already at high risk due to a previous bout of breast cancer.
I’m just pointing out that if a story was posted on FR about a woman in her thirties who already had a couple of children, who had recently had breast cancer with a poor prognosis for 5 year survival, and who was now choosing to have yet another child, it’s likely that no one would post a reply accusing her of being “selfish” for choosing to have another child, even when she knew she was unlikely (statistically much MORE unlikely than this 66 year old was) to live to see her child start kindergarten.
More importantly, what’s really happening in our society is that women who start careers and are seeking to achieve enough financial security to have children and stay home with them while they’re young and keep them out of the public schools later on, are being very very heavily taxed to support the children of people who are going ahead and having children despite not being able to fully support them (and that includes a solid majority of all children in public schools — whose parents have not and never will pay as much in school taxes as the government is spending to educate/indoctrinate their children). So these hard-working, productive women keep putting off having their own children longer and longer, because the government keeps taking more and more of their money to spend on other people’s children and to buy the votes of the parents of these other children. It would be the ultimate act of government tyranny to then block these older women’s access to high tech fertility treatments.
The use of donor eggs give a huge advantage over natural conception in mothers over 35, when it comes to the risk of the child being born with a genetically based disability (which is by far the most common kind, apart from babies born to drug or alcohol abusing mothers). Donor eggs are always from women in their 20s, and the statistical incidence of Down Syndrome is far, far lower from these eggs.
When Sarah Palin got pregnant at 43, her statistical risk of the baby having Down Syndrome was about 1 in 60. For this 66 year old woman using donor eggs from a woman even in her very late 20s (like 29), the risk was less than 1 in 1000. So if statistical risk of having a disabled baby is a legitimate argument against a woman choosing to have a baby, then we should be criticizing any woman beyond her mid-30s having a baby unless she’s using donor eggs.
It’s not the payload, it’s the DELIVERY VEHICLE.
There’s a reason females become infertile at advanced ages, especially 66.
So you think, but this is pure speculation on your part. When you have some evidence to support your low opinion of your fellow Freepers, it might be more believable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.