Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / September 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

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 view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.