Posted on 01/23/2005 6:11:43 AM PST by flitton
How completely incompetent. Why didn't he recommend psychological treatment? Maybe she could have volunteered in an orphanage, when she wasn't working.
This whole thing is so totally wrong. This woman now has, what is it, five dead babies? And one living who will be brought up by a nanny.
Amen
So old smart.
Ellen Goodman saw fit to use this woman as an example in her latest column. Ellen basically says that women are put in the position of having to do what this woman did-- choose between motherhood and a career. Stupid Ellen doesn't see that having children is a career. It's the most important career a woman can have. Stupid Ellen doesn't understand that when one tries to have two careers, one career suffers. Furthermore, stupid Ellen and this stupid woman don't see that this woman made her choice years ago-- now her baby will pay for it.
Amen!!
When will these women get it, its murder of their own flesh and blood.
I'm amazed at the number of naysayers here! While I couldn't agree more that adoption should be the first choice when conceiving is impossible (or, in this case, improbable without treatment), her first two "murders" were, in a sense, manslaughter--she had, so she says, no formed conscience. But even if she had, she managed to reform later and perhaps correct her previous error (as if one life could substitute for another).
I'm less amazed at those who believe it's irresponsible to have a child at a late age. Little faith. What, really, does age have to do with the issue? Grandmothers and even great grandmothers are left with infants and toddlers all the time in this age of feminism; no one complains about that! Not to mention that life-expectancy and -quality have improved greatly since the "norms" for parenthood were arbitrarily set.
No matter which side of the abortion issue you are on, this
situation is a stunning example of why if there must be
abortions then the removal of reproductive organs should be
part of the operation.
I know, I know ...but at least it would cut down abortions
quite a bit.
Ahhh--the joys of having a high IQ and an abortionist handy.
I agree. There are also too many chances for this little one to grow up an orphan for this woman's vanity project to have my blessing. It's all about her.
The woman found God? She found the Devil! Having a child at 66 is immoral.
Even at 40 I'm not as full of the energy needed to raise a child. Our bodies start wearing out and at 60+ there ain't a whole lot left to give.
This poor child will end up taking care of this woman. This was a very selfish, self centered thing to do.
Ellen Goodman is on Planet Zongo (as Mark Steyn likes to say). I have some sympathy for the woman's having had abortions many years ago. Communist Romania was a horrible place, and most people simply didn't have children at all.
However, to pretend there's some parallel between this woman's unfortunate decisions, and the "choices" of overindulged American women, is simply an ideological smokescreen. A more rational reading would be that the poor lady was driven around the bend by post-abortion guilt.
There's a difference between becoming pregnant naturally in one's later years, and manufacturing a child when one is physically too old to conceive.
And I don't think a single woman (of any age) who intends to hire a nanny and go on with her childless lifestyle should adopt a child, either. It's not fair to the child.
So the logic here is that if one is too tired, one should refuse to accept a pregnancy and that it should never be necessary for children to take care of their parents?
No, our bodies naturally stop having babies at a reasonable age. 66 yr old women are in no way, shape of form capable of raising a baby for the next 18 years.
I agree with the poster who said this was an immoral thing to do.
There's a difference between becoming pregnant naturally in one's later years, and manufacturing a child when one is physically too old to conceive.
Agreed--all but the last phrase. Again--what in the world does age have to do with it? If 60's the new 30, isn't age a bit too relative to use as determinant? 66 isn't even too old to ride a motor-cycle, ski, mountain-climb, marathon (not to mention shovel snow, take the garbage out, mow the lawn, SHOP!). She may have a rough time demonstrating tumbling moves or jump-shots; but I know a bunch of women who couldn't do that at ANY age.
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.