"...????...so they can nurse and play with her bellie button at the same time..how cool is that"
Posted on 04/12/2015 8:03:17 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
A 65 year old German lady has told German newspaper Bild that she’s expecting quadruplets. This news story is the talk of the day in Europe. There are those who believe it’s a reason to celebrate, while others have a slightly different opinion. See for instance this tweet from a Dutch Twitter-user:
Translation:
“A women of 65 years old pregnant with quadruplets. This is loathsome. Incredibly egotistical.”
Her argument is that the mother is a) too old to take care of one new baby let alone four, and b) that she’s basically nearing the end of her life thereby making it very likely that her children will lose their mother at a very young age.
As far as I’m concerned, this is nothing to be ashamed of, let alone to find “loathsome.” People are healthier than ever before and become older because of it. If this German lady wants to have seventeen kids, why shouldn’t she? She could live on for another 30 or even 40 years. Should she, then, be deprived of family bliss just because some folks consider her to be “too old?” What nonsense.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I wish I had more time with my parents, too.
Sarah, wife to Abraham was in her 90’s when she had Isaac. It’s never too late.
Yes, we all do, and in my case, age was a limiting factor.
You shouldn’t take my experience personally. God bless.
It is incredibly selfish to commit to living a child-free lifestyle to maximize fun and freedom, then approaching the age of death suddenly decide to have children. 1 or 4 makes no difference. This woman is sinfully selfish to now want to bring children into the world when she knows it is very unlikely she will live to see them graduate high school, and if they do she will probably be in a home they can’t pay for or give her genuine care.
What a selfish brat.
Also, I understand autism rates are closely tied to elderly pregnancies. So she liable to have a couple of them be autistic as well. Should be fun raising 4 children all at once with one or 2 autistic, when you are 75 years old.
Good luck with that you selfish brat.
Horrible.
FWIW, I have no problem with couples who start a family in their 20s or 30s and just continue to have children naturally until the mother can’t conceive anymore. That is just a natural part of family life. Dad and mom have kids and if one happens to come along when Dad is 50 and mom is 45, well that is life.
Selfishness is a woman who doesn’t want the bother or hassle or responsibility of child rearing until she feels remorse about it at an advance age, and without any father in the picture takes advantage of modern technology to “create’ children she will abandon sooner than later by her natural death.
Just cruel in her selfishness.
"...????...so they can nurse and play with her bellie button at the same time..how cool is that"
I’m glad that both my parents were in their twenties when they had me and are still alive.
Selfish woman.
Adoption does not fall under any kind of moral objection --- in fact it can be heroic generosity --- when the natural mother and father for some reason cannot parent their children. This sad situation happens when the child's natural parents are gone because of, e.g., death, disability or dereliction. There's nothing wrong with stepping into a sad situation where a child is without his natural parents, and trying to repair a broken situation by supplying an adoptive mother's and father's love and support.
BTW, my husband and I have an adoptive son as well.
The harm comes in when a child is deliberately "made" in such a way that he is deprived of his natural parents by plan. For instance: buying a baby in a baby-trafficking scheme. Or hiring a surrogate mother (reproductive concubine) with the intention that the maternal ties be broken. Or single women or lesbians being artificially inseminated with donor (or "vendor") semen and intending from the git-go that this child is going to be raised fatherless.
That is a whole heckuva lot different from the praiseworthy practice of normal adoption.
I'd almost call them opposites.
In normal adoption, good parents are stepping into a sad situation and trying to supply what the child needs. It is centered on meeting the child's needs.
With--- for instance --- Elton John and his "husband" hiring a rent-a-womb woman, it is making a child deliberately and intentionally deprived of durable maternal connection from the git-go. It is centered on meeting the adults' preferences.
I don't object to women who can conceive and bear a child at an unusually mature age, by natural spousal intercourse.
However, the laboratory-based pregnancy described in the article was clearly not a gift of the spousal embrace, but a kind of experiment, a science project. No husband is mentioned; four-at-a-time undoubtedly means drug-induced hyperovulation of some poor female (A donor? A vendor? Related? Unrelated?) followed by IVF.
God bless these children, but they wee conceived in a way that demeans their own dignity.
Wow, most women have gone through menopause by then. I’m assuming yours began late?
The thing is ... trying to keep things objective and philosophical ... is that there’s no other way the subject person could exist. One’s parents didn’t have the choice to have that child at an earlier age. If they did have children earlier in life, those children are different people from any children born later in life. If they didn’t have children earlier, any they did have would still have been different people from the one who wanted younger parents.
So the person is really positing his own non-existence as being better that being the person he is.
Try drinking goat’s milk instead of cow’s milk.
I wouldn’t be surprised if fertility treatment causes long term damage.
World’s oldest mother dies, leaving her two-year-old twin sons orphaned
Spanish woman thought to have been diagnosed with cancer after giving birth
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/worlds-oldest-mother-dies-leaving-her-twoyearold-twin-sons-orphaned-1748270.html
I fall into your camp. There are many ways she could enjoy ‘family,’ share her love, etc. without having to bring as many as 4 babies into the world that it is unlikely she will live long enough to raise.
She may live another 20-30 years, but that doesn’t mean she will be able to ‘mommy’ them, even as babies.
What about the father? Does this scenario include him, at all?
Where does the financial support for this family come from?
At my age NOT 65——yet, no thanks. Grandchildren & great nieces & nephews will do just fine.
I see what you’re saying, and it’s an interesting philosophical point.
Still, all I know is that they left me early, and I miss them. No boy or man was ever good enough for me, as far as my dad was concerned, UNTIL my husband came along. They bonded right away. Then, nine months after our wedding, my father was gone. Even now, eighteen years later, it upsets me to talk about it. My mother was absolutely destroyed, and she never got over his death. She made it another five years, and then she, too, was gone.
That’s my personal experience with the subject at hand...that’s what I know. I wouldn’t try to dissuade another couple from having children later in life. But am I happy with the way it turned out for my parents and me? No. Not at all.
But my situation-—and how I feel-—doesn’t reflect on yours, so you shouldn’t be bothered.
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.