Is 70 too old to have a baby?

[Rainbow Moonlight]

We do not know how long the mother will live for. I see the difficulties if she dies early in the baby's life and if she does not have a supportive family. However, if she does have a supportive family then i think there is nothing wrong with this. The drive to have a baby is a very strong one and instinctive. I think the story said she had been trying to get pregnant f0r 15 years- maybe it was 50.

I think the ethical problems with IVF lie more with the disposal and or us efor research of embryos which are not implanted.

[mantra.]

The drive to have a baby is a very strong one and instinctive. I think the story said she had been trying to get pregnant f0r 15 years- maybe it was 50.

Yes the drive to have a baby is very strong and instinctive Rainbow - that is until you reach a certain age then suddenly that drive disappears. This 70 y.o. had a baby because she could - artificially - not because of some natural desire - otherwise you would see more women in their 60's and 70's trying to get pregnant. It just doesn't happen. I think it's more likely she would have been trying for 50 years - but most women would have given up in half that time. Let's hope for the sake of her baby she does have supportive family to look after this child when she departs.

I think the ethical problems with IVF lie more with the disposal and or us efor research of embryos which are not implanted.

There was a lot of controversy about this a couple of years ago and didn't Howard & Abbott put a stop to it? Many people would agree that surperfluous embryos should be used for stem cell research rather than have them just disposed of in the garbage - or wherever they get rid of them. The only moral issue here is saving or improving lives.

[Hebe]

The drive to have a baby is a very strong one and instinctive.

No doubt. So is the desire to see, hear, walk, be mentally healthy etc., and I contend that the needs of the living have precedence of the creation of more living. Just because you want it doesn't mean you have a right to it.

[freediver]

Just because you want it doesn't mean you have a right to it.

People do have a right to breed, just as they have a right to see, hear, walk, be mentally healthy etc.

[mantra.]

People do have a right to breed, just as they have a right to see, hear, walk, be mentally healthy etc

Hebe's right - just because you want it - doesn't mean it's right. Nature has a cut off point and for good reason. It's morally & physically obscene to have a baby at 70. Even when the baby is in the womb - it can't get the right nourishment due to the deterioration of an old body - let alone the premise that the parent/s will live to see the child reach maturity.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

In this case it sounds like her body did just fine nourishing the baby. She would also likely have been extremely careful with what she ate and drank etc, because she wanted the baby so badly, likely more careful than some younger women.

I think she clearly has much more right to have this baby than women do to dispose of one in an abortion.

[Hebe]

People do have a right to breed

and your basis for that claim is..?

[freediver]

It's called a natural right.

Also, whatever qualms you may have about 'bad parents' being 'allowed' to breed, the prospect of the government legislating reproductive rights is just obscene. We need to appreciate that some things are better left to personal morals rather than government interference. That implies accepting that others will have different standards to you.

[JW Frogen]

People do have a right to breed

and your basis for that claim is..?

I site the case of Darwin versus the Grim Reaper your Honour.

[Hebe]

It's called a natural right.

Also, whatever qualms you may have about 'bad parents' being 'allowed' to breed, the prospect of the government legislating reproductive rights is just obscene. We need to appreciate that some things are better left to personal morals rather than government interference. That implies accepting that others will have different standards to you.

Who decides what is a "natural" right? I certainly agree about government interference - they (or rather, we) shouldn't be funding it. And if they are funding it, they are tacitly legislating reproductive rights.