ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Should Women Over the Age of 50 Be Given IVF?

Updated on July 17, 2009

There is a recent news story about the 69 year old woman from Spain, Maria del Carmen Bousada, who has died, leaving behind two children. Most people who die at that age leave children behind, if they ever had any. So what makes Bousada's case so special? She was impregnated at the age of 66, lying on her fertility application in the United States about her age. Now that her two-year old twins are orphans, an important question is raised: Do fertility clinics "owe" women the so-called right to have children?

In the past decade, not only the United States, but the world has been on a major baby-making competition drive. Women trying to "out birth" other women by how many babies they have squeezed out in the shortest amount of possible time has been making the news. Then we have the women competing for the title of "Oldest Mother" (keep in mind it is just a title and nothing but), having children through in-vitro fertilization. Most people with an ounce of common sense acknowledge the serious consequences of women in their senior years giving birth. It is not just the fact that the older the woman, the greater chances she has of dying during childbirth, but also the children winding up orphans when the mother dies a year later. Unfortunately for Bousada, she was not even married, so should she die, there would not even be a father around to care for the babies, although there is a very good chance that he would have died if he was even a year older than Maria. It is bad enough when a woman lusts for a child, but when she is not even married and lives with a family member, brings to mind the case of Nadya Suleiman, another woman who is now known to the world as Octomom for having given birth to eight babies at once this past year. The baby-making obsession the modern western world has to deal with has actually caused the human race to regress, not progress. Most people think of something much more significant to give the human race besides babies. The list includes: poverty cures, cancer cures, scientific discoveries, and so on. It is futile for someone to have a child to just make the excuse of "But one day the child will grow up to cure cancer!" when the same opportunity was available to the woman saying that.

The problem here is not someone's wistful wants to love a child. Love is purely relative when it comes to children. Most people have to learn to love a child, since it is not an innate instinct to love one's own child. People who truly love children will be spending time working with needy children, adopting a child for their own, maybe even doing volunteer work to help provide the child with a better life. Squeezing one out and lavishing over a million bucks a year on the child is nowhere near "love": it is simply the spoiling of one's flesh. As it has been said elsewhere, spoiling is for produce, not children. Wanna be mothers who are in love with having children usually wind up being bad parents, anyways. The news reports of bad parenting has escalated and gone through the roof, whether the name happens to be Andrea Yates, Brenda Slaby, or Nadya Suleiman. Maybe it's not such a big accomplishment after all - giving birth to a child. However, being a proper parent is a big accomplishment.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.