Why are older mothers still taboo? Cultural historia n Shere Hite says it’s just sexism — but others say ther e is sound reason that we look askance at them
|
|
Thread rating:  |
kippa - 23 Sep 2009 02:18 GMT http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6843074.ece
September 22, 2009 Why are older mothers still taboo? Cultural historian Shere Hite says it’s just sexism — but others say there is sound reason that we look askance at them Vivienne Parry 24 COMMENTS
When in July this year Maria Bousada de Lara died at the age of 69, leaving two-year-old twin boys that she had conceived by IVF, there was almost universal condemnation of her “selfishness” in becoming a mother so late in life.
Opinions about “geriatric mums” have become so heated that a reasoned discussion about the issues raised by older motherhood has become almost impossible, yet it is essential, given that one in five women is now 35 or older when she gives birth. To start the debate, Sammy Lee, a professor at University College London and the chief scientist at the Wellington Hospital IVF programme, last week held a conference on motherhood in the 21st century at UCL and invited contributions from doctors, anthropologists and the cultural historian Shere Hite.
“I believe that women of every age have the right to bear children,” Hite tells me when we meet at the Royal Festival Hall on the South Bank in London. For Hite, perhaps unsurprisingly, late motherhood is a feminist issue. She is the American-born author of the Hite Reports, books based on extensive questionnaires about sexuality. The first, on female sexuality, was published in 1976 and made her internationally famous overnight.
Others followed, on men and on the family, but her unorthodox research methods became the focus of sustained attacks from family campaigners. It caused her to renounce her American citizenship and take up German citizenship, when she should have been celebrated for her contribution to the understanding of sex.
She has no children and is now 67 — would she consider using reproductive technologies to have babies now? “Maybe,” she says enigmatically, but then concedes that her body might not be up to it. Actually she could quite easily lie about her age because she looks younger than 67 with her blonde curls and a willowy figure. But she gets to the nub of it. For all the hysteria that the world is going to end if older women start having babies, my guess is that if you offered 10,000 women of Hite’s age the chance to have a baby or take a Caribbean cruise, you’d be killed in the rush for the captain’s table. Most women would rather jump off a cliff than have a baby as a pensioner.
The real issue is the growing number of women in their forties who want babies but have very limited success in having them. And in a decade’s time it may well be the growing number of women in their fifties. As Sammy Lee says: “Older women are pilloried as selfish — meanwhile we give older fathers a cigar.”
For Hite, this ambivalent reaction of hysteria and congratulation all comes down to sex. She has a point. In the Fifties and Sixties, news of a woman getting pregnant in her forties was greeted with knowing glances and tuts of disapproval. After all, was pregnancy not incontrovertible proof that a woman had had sex? And surely this pregnant harlot should know that nice women did not have sex after 40. This attitude has not entirely gone away, judging from some of the comments in the press when Cherie Blair announced she was pregnant at 45.
Hite gets particularly irritated by the way that women are portrayed as selfish, her soft voice rising to a high pitch of indignation. “Every birth should be celebrated,” she insists.
She says that at heart, the negative reaction to late motherhood is about equality. “Men don’t like women taking reproduction into their own hands because it has for so long been a male preserve. Late motherhood puts women in charge. It’s all about ownership of women.” There follows a long diatribe about orgasm, which is clearly her standard spiel although, to be honest, I’m struggling to relate it to the matter in hand, as did the rather puzzled audience at the conference.
But just at the moment when you think she is as nutty as a fruitcake, out comes a flash of deliciousness. For instance, responding to the notion that children suffer because an older mother might die while they are still in their teens (something that sadly happens to many children of younger mothers, too), she suddenly says with a wicked smile: “Children never like their parents anyway.”
In Hite’s view, Mary is regarded as the quintessential mother and the Holy Family as the aspirational family model, but as she gleefully points out: “Mary was a virgin and a teenage mom and there is no girl in the Holy Family. Why is Mary being a young virgin better than if she were a ‘normal’ woman of older age?” There is clearly no place then for the older woman in our iconography.
Perhaps our cultural ambivalence towards older mothers is down to biology. If human beings were like other animals, we wouldn’t be facing this problem and would simply go on producing babies until we died. We are the only species where the female has a menopause.
“Compared to other mammals, human life histories are strange,” says the biologist, Ruth Mace, a professor of evolutionary anthropology at UCL, who spoke at the conference. “We live for a long time but we don’t get on with reproduction for at least ten years after it is technically possible, before (in the traditional African populations that I study) churning out eight or so babies at an incredible rate of one every three years.
“By comparison, female orang-utans, which are of similar body weight to female human beings, have a baby every eight years. And they do it all through their lives, whereas we stop reproduction at least 20 years before death.” Is this biology conspiring against older motherhood and, if so, why? It could be physiological — something to do with hormones or ageing bodies, or it could be an adaptation.
One theory, the grandmother hypothesis, is that because human babies are helpless for so long and we have them in such quick succession, mothers are likely to have several children around their ankles at any one time, each unable to care for themselves, and need other generations to help raise them.
Significantly, the years around menopause are those when women are most productive (mainly on account of having got shot of the kids of course) but significantly, this time of leisure and plenty is reached just as their daughters are about to start their production line. The theory goes that if older women had small children, they could not help to care for their grandchildren.
Another approach, the mother hypothesis, is that we stop reproducing because it is better to invest in our existing children than risk the higher maternal and child mortality of later births. Then there is also the splendid mother-in-law hypothesis. Women are the so-called dispersing sex, traditionally leaving home to get married and moving to the husband’s home. Menopause is said to be a means of preventing the mother-in-law’s children being in competition with those of the daughter-in-law.
This is plausible but a bit redundant in today’s world. One of the reasons for having a big brood is that it brought money into the family. Contraception now allows us to gain wealth, sex and prestige without having lots of children. We have fewer children but invest much more in them. In some senses we have to, because competition between our children for opportunities such as the place at a favoured school, is now so intense.
Mace points to the strong evidence that siblings are in competition for parental resources, with only children consistently doing better at school than kids from large families. Evolution, she says, may begin to favour older mothers because they are able to give their few children more advantages in life and, if this is the case, then the age of menopause might begin to increase. Where would the debate go if late motherhood was “natural”?
One senses that for all the representations about older motherhood going against biology, it is actually an issue about culture and what we regard as our ideals of a “good” woman. For Hite, older motherhood is just another feminist battleground. “It is part of the negative stereotyping of women,” Hite says simply. And perhaps it is.
rkb - 23 Sep 2009 07:50 GMT Yeah. I kind of agree with her.
> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/arti... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > Vivienne Parry kippa - 23 Sep 2009 14:22 GMT > Yeah. I kind of agree with her. KInd of. Maybe. Possibly me too, even. Perhaps. I agree the sexism is there, but the issue itself is awfully iffy. The memory of those images of Adriana Iliescu still freak me out. Hite said, “I believe that women of every age have the right to bear children,” Right? Perhaps the right of women of every age to try, the healthy, wealthy and wise (as in educated) being better equipped than most to succeed in their efforts - and in that sense, they are more equal than others. It reminds me of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Happiness is not a right per se. Same thing with bearing children, IMO.
> >http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/arti... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > > Vivienne Parry rkb - 23 Sep 2009 18:31 GMT The reason it doesn't freak me out is that I think it's a double standard in several ways.
1. No one has any problems with men fathering children no matter what their age. You could argue that mothers contribute care and fathers contribute cash, so older fathers are still okay. But in that case, there should be equal opprobrium for men fathering children when they can't afford to support them. That is frowned on, but not enough to make headlines. When will we see "Ten thousand in debt and fathering more"?
2. People have children when they're completely unprepared to look after them, often even without wanting them. I'd support a 60+ woman having kids she wants over someone who doesn't really want kids having them anyway. Adriana's kids are not likely to end up in care.
3. Its tragic that she died when they were so young. But that's happened to lots of younger mothers, too. True, her being 60+ raised the odds, but again, would we prohibit mothers who had higher odds of dying? That would exclude a lot of the third world - especially young mothers vulnerable to dying in childbirth.
4. No one seems to object to a woman of 60+ *raising* children. Grandmothers are taking on grandkids all the time, when their children can't or won't be parents. So the objection is to her bearing them. I figure it's her body, it's up to her. I personally wouldn't do it, but it's her call.
I think it's more about the expectation that a woman who is 60- something is old and out of it, while a man of the same age is vigorous and mature. If we headlined every man who became a Dad at 60+, there'd be no room for any other news. I think Hite is right, and it's essentially a sexist objection.
> > Yeah. I kind of agree with her. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > > > Vivienne Parry kippa - 23 Sep 2009 20:50 GMT > The reason it doesn't freak me out is that I think it's a double > standard in several ways. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > make headlines. When will we see "Ten thousand in debt and fathering > more"? Talking here about *extreme* IVF only. As long as men are physically able to father children, they have the natural right to do so. In the case of older women, they may have a legal right, but ability to exercise it is contingent on a number of things, not least of which is economic privilege. From sexism to classism.
> 2. People have children when they're completely unprepared to look > after them, often even without wanting them. I'd support a 60+ woman > having kids she wants over someone who doesn't really want kids having > them anyway. Adriana's kids are not likely to end up in care. Adriana is this lady http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023792/The-girl-mummy-aged-70-says-lo t-give.html not the Spanish woman who died. She is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/15/spanish-woman-ivf-dies
> 3. Its tragic that she died when they were so young. But that's > happened to lots of younger mothers, too. True, her being 60+ raised > the odds, but again, would we prohibit mothers who had higher odds of > dying? That would exclude a lot of the third world - especially young > mothers vulnerable to dying in childbirth. I'm sure a lot of them would prefer not to have so many children (They might even actually live longer if they didn't). Unless of course the children are needed to work the land or whatever.
> 4. No one seems to object to a woman of 60+ *raising* children. > Grandmothers are taking on grandkids all the time, when their children > can't or won't be parents. So the objection is to her bearing them. I > figure it's her body, it's up to her. I personally wouldn't do it, but > it's her call. Actually there was case recently in the UK where the grandparents were turned down as carers for their grandchildren because they were considered too old (in their 60s) Anyway, surely most grandparents would prefer *not* to have to take on the grandkids. Those who do probably feel obligated and that they don't have much choice in the matter.
> I think it's more about the expectation that a woman who is 60- > something is old and out of it, while a man of the same age is > vigorous and mature. If we headlined every man who became a Dad at > 60+, there'd be no room for any other news. I think Hite is right, and > it's essentially a sexist objection. I don't think essentially, though I agree it's a part. I know social familiarity is primarily responsible for changing public opinion about whether a practice is ethically acceptable or not. But even so, call it the "Ick" factor or whatever, I still think there are lots of good reasons that have nothing to do with sexism as to why women in their sixties or older would be ill-advised to have children. Now, if, as per Ruth Mace's suggestion, evolution may cause women to reach menopause later, that's another different story.
> > > Yeah. I kind of agree with her. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > > > > Vivienne Parry rkb - 24 Sep 2009 10:21 GMT > > The reason it doesn't freak me out is that I think it's a double > > standard in several ways. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is economic privilege. > From sexism to classism. But that's true of pretty much everything, though. In many countries, even having children in hospital is classism. Certainly the ability to raise a child depends on some degree of economic privilege, unless - as in the third world - you expect children to be economically productive in six or seven years.
Why is it a natural right of fathers to keep fathering kids as long as they stay able, with or without Viagra, and not of women to bear children through IVF?
> > 2. People have children when they're completely unprepared to look > > after them, often even without wanting them. I'd support a 60+ woman [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Adriana is this lady http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023792/The-girl-mummy-aged... > not the Spanish woman who died. She is herehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/15/spanish-woman-ivf-dies Oops, sorry. Adriana's kid - the little girl - I hope will not end up in care. Though I can't say I'm encouraged by her story of a falling out with her family.
The Spanish woman's kids seem to be taken care of by the family.
> > 3. Its tragic that she died when they were so young. But that's > > happened to lots of younger mothers, too. True, her being 60+ raised [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > might even actually live longer if they didn't). > Unless of course the children are needed to work the land or whatever. That, and the hunger for sons. In situations of real poverty, children start to earn their keep very early. But I guess the point I'm making is that for a child to be born wanted, loved, and in a situation of reasonable economic stability already puts it ahead of the game. There are millions who are not.
> > 4. No one seems to object to a woman of 60+ *raising* children. > > Grandmothers are taking on grandkids all the time, when their children [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > turned down as carers for their grandchildren because they were > considered too old (in their 60s) Unless they were in poor health, that is really dumb.
> Anyway, surely most grandparents would prefer *not* to have to take on > the grandkids. Those who do probably feel obligated and that they > don't have much choice in the matter. I think it can be cultural. In some cultures, it's not at all abnormal for children to be put in their grandparents' care if the parents cannot or will not raise them - for instance, if the father is posted to a place where there are no schools, or which is considered unsafe. For some grandparents, it's a more relaxing experience than raising their own: they enjoy the kids more.
> > I think it's more about the expectation that a woman who is 60- > > something is old and out of it, while a man of the same age is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Now, if, as per Ruth Mace's suggestion, evolution may cause women to > reach menopause later, that's another different story. I can think of only four, really: (1) Her health. Childbearing is strenuous even for young women. But my argument here is really that it's her body. If she chooses to use some of the mileage, so to speak, in childbirth, it's up to her. (2) A lower energy level than younger women have. Again, this varies. Some women in their seventies are more energetic than others in their twenties. Besides, they also have a great deal of life experience, which younger women don't have. (3) A higher risk of death. True, but we don't account for death-risk when people decide to have babies. (4) Social opprobrium. This probably exists, but should be dealt with by changing society. A lot of things had an ick factor not long ago - like mixed-race babies. Now we have President Obama.
> > > > Yeah. I kind of agree with her. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > > > > > Vivienne Parry kippa - 24 Sep 2009 15:25 GMT > > > The reason it doesn't freak me out is that I think it's a double > > > standard in several ways. There is that. But that's not *all* it is. Not by a long chalk.
> > > 1. No one has any problems with men fathering children no matter what > > > their age. You could argue that mothers contribute care and fathers [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But that's true of pretty much everything, though. In many countries, > even having children in hospital is classism. 'Reproductive classism', like bordering on eugenics?
> Certainly the ability to raise a child depends on some degree of > economic privilege, unless - as in the third world - you expect > children to be economically productive in six or seven years. A very different kind of investment, that. Part of the problem it seems to me is that some women, like Marie Broussada, are so desperate to carry a child that they invest all their financial resources into the effort, and then have to depend on financial help from relatives (in her case, until she died, her 70 something year old brother and his wife - who were not party to the decision, but were nevertheless stuck with the consequences of it. Now it seems the children are her nephews responsibility. Who knows how he feels about it?) to raise the child.
> Why is it a natural right of fathers to keep fathering kids as long as > they stay able, with or without Viagra, and not of women to bear > children through IVF? Because, like you said, they're able. And too many all too willing. In my world, people aren't impressed. I liked what J said about not encouraging older women and discouraging older men.
> > > 2. People have children when they're completely unprepared to look > > > after them, often even without wanting them. I'd support a 60+ woman [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in care. Though I can't say I'm encouraged by her story of a falling > out with her family. It's pretty pathetic. I hope she won't end up in care too, although Adriana herself seems to consider it as a possibility (which shows a certain degree of realism absent in her earlier interviews).
> The Spanish woman's kids seem to be taken care of by the family. Apparently the brother and SIL apparently weren't consulted and weren't happy about her decision. When she dies they couldn't cope on their own and the children came to the nephew by default. It's lucky he was prepared to step up to the plate - there is no guarantee that family are going to be willing to do that.
> > > 3. Its tragic that she died when they were so young. But that's happened to lots of younger mothers, too. There is some suggestion that the ovarian cancer which killed her may have been triggered by the infertility drugs she took. I knew someone who developed ovarian cancer after being treated for infertility, so I'm inclined to take that possibility seriously.
> > > True, her being 60+ raised the odds, but again, would we prohibit mothers who had higher odds of > > > dying? That would exclude a lot of the third world - especially young [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reasonable economic stability already puts it ahead of the game. There > are millions who are not. True. But extreme remedies are appropriate to extreme diseases, and I don't think of infertility associated with age as extreme disease. Or a disease at all, for that matter.
> > > 4. No one seems to object to a woman of 60+ *raising* children. > > > Grandmothers are taking on grandkids all the time, when their children [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Unless they were in poor health, that is really dumb. Not perfect, as I remember. But not terrible either..
> > Anyway, surely most grandparents would prefer *not* to have to take on > > the grandkids. Those who do probably feel obligated and that they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For some grandparents, it's a more relaxing experience than raising > their own: they enjoy the kids more. Sure, for some. For others not. Guess it depends how old they are. A sixty something year old women would be likely to have parents near the 80 mark. If they're still alive at all, that is.
> > > I think it's more about the expectation that a woman who is 60- > > > something is old and out of it, while a man of the same age is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I can think of only four, really:
> (1) > Her health. Childbearing is > strenuous even for young women. But my argument here is really that > it's her body. If she chooses to use some of the mileage, so to speak, > in childbirth, it's up to her. And her bank balance. I happen to think it's important that she's also making a decision on behalf of the child she may carry. Who may have health issues itself, and also have to bear the brunt of having a mother who will possibly, as a result of the fertility treatments she's had, have health issues too.
> (2) > A lower energy level than younger > women have. Again, this varies. Some women in their seventies are more > energetic than others in their twenties. Besides, they also have a > great deal of life experience, which younger women don't have. Yeah, but for how long? No matter how energetic they are when the kids are born, women who have kids in their seventies are going need to stay perky into their eighties and possibly nineties. Besides, aging accelerates with age. If you know what I mean. And life experience is such an 'intangible' I'm not sure it should even be a consideration.
> (3) > A higher risk of death. True, but we don't account for death-risk when > people decide to have babies. Some people do decide not to have kids because of health issues. Other than that, it seems silly to ignore the odds.
> (4) > Social opprobrium. This probably > exists, but should be dealt with by changing society. Like I said, social familiarity is largely responsible for changing public, but that can be a double-edged sword, especially when that familiarity is achieved though the use of persuasion techniques.
> A lot of things > had an ick factor not long ago - like mixed-race babies. Now we have > President Obama. Frankly, I don't think racial prejudice can be usefully compared to concern about the consequences of unregulated ART.
> > > > > Yeah. I kind of agree with her. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > > > there is sound reason that we look askance at them > > > > > > Vivienne Parry kippa - 24 Sep 2009 19:01 GMT Sammy Lee on the conference: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_47022.asp He says "For me, the ethical issue which looms largest is the likelihood that TCM is driven by desire and that object of desire is children. TCM costs a lot of money and the desire seems to place the child(ren) in the worrying position of commodity." He is right. I think that we, along with Shere Hype, are side-tracking.
The problem with 21st Century Motherhood 17 August 2009 By Dr Sammy Lee Sammy Lee is based at UCL, where he teaches medical ethics, embryology and biomedical sciences. He also carries out research on regenerative medicine.
Appeared in BioNews 521
Did the death of Maria Bousada change public attitudes to the modern phenomenon headlined as 'Oldest Mums'? The world's media certainly made hay and the news reverberated for a few days; and it seems likely that the Channel 4 documentary 'the Worlds Oldest Mums' was rescheduled to screen early to catch the media wave which the death generated. The aftermath, though, of this tsunami seems to have largely been relative indifference.
Since May, I have been organising the conference '21st Century Motherhood' (TCM), which will take place at University College London (UCL) on 18 September. During this time, it has been interesting to see the responses of the prospective speakers to the phenomenon. Everyone approached has expressed views on how interesting and important it is to hold this conference. The consensus is that the conference is needed and Maria Bousada's case probably heightens the need and urgency to have a public debate on the conundrum. A number of persons approached expressed the opinion that though this was a very important topic, there was a paucity of data and expertise. Some were reluctant to participate because, even though they were experts in the ethics, sociology, anthropology or psychology of human reproduction and technology, they felt the lack of hard data made it difficult to make meaningful statements on the subject.
What are the problems then? If a review is done of the world's press, despite headlines indicating ethical and moral outrage, the content of the articles contains little or no discussion of the ethical issues. The key criticisms centre on the individual selfishness of the 'mother (s)' and their lack of responsibility. Comments have been made on the dangers of pregnancy and giving birth at an advanced age, but other than a few mutterings concerning the welfare of the children there have been few other issues mentioned.
All those years ago, when working with Ian Craft and Paul Serhal (now UCL's IVF (in vitro fertilisation) medical director) at the Wellington Hospital, I recall my reticence about the ovum donation (OD) project, which the Wellington team pioneered in the UK. As head of the laboratory, my job was to provide 'engine room' support to the project. As such, I really saw OD as just a 'small beer' option for young ladies who had undergone premature menopause. My reticence was linked to the way that the egg donors were recruited (at the time controversial, but now commonplace and routine), but perhaps it was also linked to a subconscious foreboding. Who would have thought that OD would spawn a field which would produce about 2,000 cycles per annum in the UK alone! Moreover, who would have predicted that it would be used to treat 70 year old ladies?
Now, almost 25 years after the first UK OD babies were born, and a journey stretching from specialising on male infertility to a diploma in counselling (trying to help couples cope with childlessness and letting go of treatment), when reflecting in the cold light of day, in fact TCM is not really a surprise. Rather, it is the ultimate expression of a primal desire. Over the years, it has become clear to me that infertile couples very very rarely let go. This seems to happen only when egg or sperm and money run out. In the old world, this produced a halt. In the new world, technology has yet again moved the goal posts. The danger is that TCM is on the threshold of moving into the realm of OD. It might be that 10 years from now there will be 2,000 per annum of this modern phenomenon.
The conference will help throw more light on the matter, hopefully serving to highlight what the real issues are, helping to generate new insight which will help the clinics and the regulators deal with likely increasing demand. For me, the ethical issue which looms largest is the likelihood that TCM is driven by desire and that object of desire is children. TCM costs a lot of money and the desire seems to place the child(ren) in the worrying position of commodity. Kant's ideas of being a 'means to and end'; i.e. making a child the 'means to an end', is a bad idea. When I heard about Bousada's death, my first thought was of the twins and my second thought was that this is what happens when you make children a 'means to an end' (commodity). Forget all the other arguments, the objectivisation of people is perhaps the biggest danger here.
Sammy Lee is organising the conference 21st Century Motherhood - cosponsored by the charity that publishes BioNews, the Progress Educational Trust (PET) - in London on 18 September 2009.
> > > > The reason it doesn't freak me out is that I think it's a double > > > > standard in several ways. [quoted text clipped - 203 lines] > > read more » rkb - 25 Sep 2009 05:37 GMT I can see why he thinks the way he does; and I agree it's a very thoughful article. But I don't agree with it.
I also don't know what he means by a "means to an end." Every child is exactly that, since prior to its birth it doesn't exist. There has to be a reason for it to exist. Either the conception is intentional, in which case the 'end' may be as economically focused as 'more field- hands' or as emotional as 'someone to love.' The only question is whether the 'end' is so unethical as to be illegal. [Like, 'we're chopping this one up for its component parts.']
I am very dubious about going too deeply into peoples' *motives* for having children. The ideal, for me, is that one has children because one wants the joy and the mission of raising them. Realistically, this is not why most kids get born. People have kids because its instinctual. People have kids because they want sons, and they get daughters as a by-product. People have kids as a by-product of sexual activity. On a global basis, I'd guess that the percentage of kids conceived for the "wrong" reasons would greatly exceed those who are made for the "right" reasons.
If someone is willing to spend a significant portion of their wealth bearing a child - good for them. I don't think it's necessarily optimal, for parent or child, but if feasible, I don't feel ready to interfere.
If I were Unseen Monarch of the World, I'd probably be more willing to stop people from bearing children with severe disabilities - especially when they are aware that the fetus is abnormal but go ahead with the pregnancy. It impacts the child, the parents, and society much more than the normal children of elderly women (notice, not *parents*).
I don't think paying a huge amount to bear a child commoditizes it. If we were told of a poor couple who wanted a child and sold their only cow so the woman could bear her child safely in hospital, we would think it laudable. (We might also think about healthcare costs, but that's a separate issue.) For me the bottom line is whether the child is wanted and cared for.
I would like to think that people shouldn't have babies until they were "prepared" - financially, emotionally, physically - to be good parents. But that sets, to my mind, an impossible standard and one which few countries have been willing to consider enforcing. At the moment, the only criterion for bearing a child seems to be a functional reproductive system. If that function is medically assisted, fine by me. I don't think it's a particularly*useful* criterion in evaluating readiness to parent the resulting child.
> Sammy Lee on the conference: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_47022.asp > He says "For me, the ethical issue which looms largest is the [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > > - Show quoted text - kippa - 28 Sep 2009 14:33 GMT > I can see why he thinks the way he does; and I agree it's a very > thoughful article. But I don't agree with it. "Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. " I imagine that among other things Dr. Lee is thinking in terms of the doctrine of "anticipated consent". I agree with him in that I think the cost thinks the all-round cost is exorbitant, including the time, money and research spent on medical resources, surely a precious enough resource not to be squandered on pandering to the desires of older women obsessively focused on achieving "their end", regardless of whether they can scrimp together the money to pay for it. If that sounds 'sexist' - or even heaven forbid, 'ageist' - so be it. I'd feel the same way about an older man going to comparable lengths to father a child - only they would more rarely need to to (Viagra not being to do with fertility per se. In fact I've read some suggestions that that it might even effect fertility adversely)
> Every child is > exactly that, since prior to its birth it doesn't exist. There has to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whether the 'end' is so unethical as to be illegal. [Like, 'we're > chopping this one up for its component parts.'] Marie Boussada's treatment *was* illegally obtained. She lied about her age. Though frankly I don't see how she got away with it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-391606/Thousands-lie-IVF-clinics-despe ration-baby.html
> I am very dubious about going too deeply into peoples' *motives* for > having children. The ideal, for me, is that one has children because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conceived for the "wrong" reasons would greatly exceed those who are > made for the "right" reasons. Reasons right or wrong aside, ovum donation kids aren't 'conceived' by the people who give birth to them. Plus, in the case of these older women, I think one can fairly safely assume that rarely, if ever, do they have any genetic relationship to them. Where that is the situation, I wonder how many of these older women care enough about transparency to make sure they know the identities of the donors so that the children they gestate and give birth to will later have some kind of pre-birth history of their own (other than the medical information in their files, which may or may not even be that useful to them)? Besides, why would people already considered too old to adopt be considered good candidates for ovum donation? It doesn't make a lot of sense. If a seventy year old single man or woman wanted to adopt, they wouldn't stand a chance. And that's talking about children who already DO exist - not about creating new ones.
> If someone is willing to spend a significant portion of their wealth > bearing a child - good for them. I don't think it's necessarily [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much more than the normal children of elderly women (notice, not > *parents*). Um, no. Advise perhaps, but never mandate.
> I don't think paying a huge amount to bear a child commoditizes it. If > we were told of a poor couple who wanted a child and sold their only > cow so the woman could bear her child safely in hospital, we would > think it laudable. Selling a possession (a cow is a cow is a cow) to pay for medical requirements isn't commodification.
> (We might also think about healthcare costs, but that's a separate issue.) > For me the bottom line is whether the child > is wanted and cared for. I get the "wanting" part here, but as far as "the caring for" bit is concerned, I think older women are significantly less likely to have family/friends around who are willing and/or able to take over if they die, than, for example, the aforementioned thirty-something year old lesbian or whoever. Such a person is, IMO, *much* more likely to be able to get together a support network of her contemporaries to take over her role in the event of unforeseen death than a sixty/seventy year old woman whose world of friends and family is already waning.
> I would like to think that people shouldn't have babies until they > were "prepared" - financially, emotionally, physically - to be good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > functional reproductive system. If that function is medically > assisted, fine by me. Some ART procedures are fine by me too - up to a point. Which includes (among other things) an age limit somewhere around the present-day normal range of menopause.
> I can see why he thinks the way he does; and I agree it's a very > thoughful article. But I don't agree with it. [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > > read more » kippa - 28 Sep 2009 14:59 GMT Two interesting articles:
"Dying for a baby: the lethal risks of donating eggs" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6735921.ece
And on a non-judgmental, even pro note, "Just six lives to create before lunch" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/child_health/article68498 86.ece
> > I can see why he thinks the way he does; and I agree it's a very > > thoughful article. But I don't agree with it. [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > > read more » J. - 24 Sep 2009 03:05 GMT > http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/arti... > [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > is just another feminist battleground. “It is part of the negative > stereotyping of women,” Hite says simply. And perhaps it is. As Sammy Lee says: “Older women are pilloried as selfish — meanwhile we give older fathers a cigar.”
Perhaps the best course is not to encourage older women to have children, but to discourage older men.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html?_r=1
J.
rkb - 24 Sep 2009 10:27 GMT > >http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/arti... > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > > J. I think I could go with "discourage." The problem is that encouragement or discouragement seems to go entirely by the Ick factor, and that's definitely sexist in its application. An 80-year- old guy fathering a kid is regarded with grudging admiration - unless of course, *snicker* , the suspicion is that he didn't. Then it becomes a joke.
kippa - 24 Sep 2009 13:20 GMT > >http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/arti... > [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > As Sammy Lee says: “Older women are pilloried as selfish — > meanwhile we give older fathers a cigar.” Sometimes a cigar is a cigarette
> Perhaps the best course is not to encourage older women to have > children, but to discourage older men. Makes sense to me.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html?_r=1 > > J.
|
|
|