Is Childbirth an Inalienable Right?

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:54am

As someone who doesn't really have much of a desire to procreate, perhaps it's not my place to proffer such an opinion but personally, I've always found rampant use of drugs and science to produce offspring a little self-indulgent at best and reckless at worst. This is by no means a slam on anyone who has used IVF, etc to produce a child, mind you, but when I look at the money people spend and the hell they put themselves through all in the hopes of being able to bear a child, I have to wonder if it's really worth it.

While my heart goes out to those of childbearing age who want to conceive but can't, I have zero empathy for women like the 67 year old in Spain who just gave birth to twins. Am I the only one who finds this ludicrous?

I have no doubt that it makes me a terrible blow for those who want to bear children that they are infertile, but is IVF really the answer? The world is already chock full of people as it is.

In the days before IVF and whatnot, choices were limited. There are now multitudes of options, but does that really make it right? Do people really have inalienable right to bear children, regardless of their age or natural ability to do so, or is this just a sense of entitlement gone too far?

(I realize the doctor quoted in the article is a little ridiculous, too, having recently assisted with a 63 year old woman giving birth, but I do agree with him that the pregnancy of a 67 year old woman is reprehensible)

67 too old to give birth says Italian fertility doctor

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:06pm

I think adoption really ought to be weighed more heavily when people want a child out of ordinary conception. Then again, adoption laws are ridiculous, complex, costly...they don't make it very accessible.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:14pm

I couldn't agree with you more (at the risk of sounding as if I can't think for myself). It amazes me the lengths people go through to procreate. I know that to some people it seems that if you are unable to conceive and give birth it makes you an incomplete person, but with world population what it is and so many unwanted children being born everyday, isn't adoption the best answer? The hubris involved in seeking such extreme measures to ensure that you experience child birth amazes me sometimes.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:14pm

People who go to such extreme rates to procreate don't concern me as much as those who are able to pop out offspring without any second thought. Odds are good that people who go to these lengths to have a child are going to take the time and energy to raise their children properly and help introduce contributing and worthwhile citizens to our society. I wish all people had to put as much time and energy into reproducing, I think it would help reduce several societal problems.

That being said, I don't particularly understand it. I've always said that if I found myself unable to become pregnant the old fashioned way, I would adopt. Parenting, to me anyway, is not about producing an individuals that shares my DNA but guiding a young life through the world. Even if I do find that reproduction is not a challenge for me, it is likely that I will choose to also adopt anyway.

I definitely do think that limits on IVF should be in place. To birth a child at 67 years of age is just simply unfair to the child. As a parent you want to protect your children from hardship as best as you can, and odds are quite good that this child is either going to have to assume the role of caregiver for his/her mother, or be burying her, before s/he is even out of high school. How someone could knowingly place that burden upon their child seems unbelievably selfish.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:15pm

Then again, adoption laws are ridiculous, complex, costly...they don't make it very accessible.

Especially for those coveted little white babies.

Are the costs of adoption that much greater than the costs of IVF? I honestly don't know.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 12:15 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:17pm

I was wondering the same thing. IVF isn't exactly cheap, especially if you have to make several attempts at it.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:19pm

I looked it up, and if insurance doesn't cover any of it (and many don't) IVF costs between $10,000-$20,000

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:19pm

Even better question. I know it's time-consuming AND costly but I couldn't do a side-by-side comparison of the two.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:21pm

I don't think it's possible to, bway, there are too many variables with each individual situation in both cases.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:25pm

Colleen, that is a good point about the parents who want the child so badly that they would go to such extremes might make a better parent, but I think that some of these people might be more concerned with having a baby than being a parent.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:27pm

The 67 year old is ridiculous.

"'ve always found rampant use of drugs and science to produce offspring a little self-indulgent at best and reckless at worst."

I completely respect your opinion but disagree. I know women who have benefitted from such treatments and they're the most loving, grateful and wonderful mothers I've seen. If it comes from the true desire to bear a child, I'd never judge someone. Adoption is great but it isn't for everyone. I can totally understand wanting to create life with someone you love. Like Colleen, I'm more concerned with parents who pop out kid after kid without a thought and neglect them.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:32pm

I'm more concerned with parents who pop out kid after kid without a thought and neglect them.

I guess I see what you guys mean, but I also think it's kind of an apples/orange situation.

I strongly disagree with Colleen's statement "Odds are good that people who go to these lengths to have a child are going to take the time and energy to raise their children properly and help introduce contributing and worthwhile citizens to our society." I think it's very nice in theory, but I don't think people going through all the trouble of IVF (or adoption) are predisposed to being better parents.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:43pm

Re: the question of an inalienable right. I don't like the idea of the government stepping in telling women how she can conceive and IF she can conceive, much like I don't want the government stepping in on her other reproductive choices (including abortion). It works both ways.

What do you think of forced sterilization, though? In the case of a Susan Smith?

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:59pm

It would seem nature is doing its own part to force sterilization, but science keeps getting it its way. I dunno, though, even in cases like Susan Smith. It's a tricky issue, and one that would deserve its own thread.

I suppose I understand the parallel you're making blueroses between abortion and IVF, but bear in mind that it's not the government originally deciding if the woman can conceive or not. It's nature.

And with the case of the 67 year old woman, I do think there should be some regulations. I think it's reckless to have a child that you stand a very good chance of not being around for through its formative years.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:10pm

I guess it just goes to prove that with enough money you can do just about anything. And that some doctors will do anything for the right price.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:28pm

What in the world is that woman even thinking? She's sixty freaking seven! It's totally selfish for her to do what she's doing. I, too, think it's unfair for a kid.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:36pm

What about men who father children into their 60s, 70s, and 80s?

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:40pm

I think it's just as irresponsible, although if they have nature on their side there's not much I can say about it in the context of this thread. Nature isn't always fair.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:46pm

And in those cases I would assume that the mother is at least of child bearing age, so the child would at least have the mother around to raise it.
I know it is easy for someone like me who has no interest in raising children to pass judgment on those who will go to ANY extremes to accomplish what nature clearly does not want them to achieve, but there comes a time when people really should realize that not everyone can do everything. Not all people who WANT children should have them.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:55pm

I sometimes wish that people would have to pass a test in order to have children. Like this woman: Her young son (about a year old) was found playing by the side of a highway, and running in and out of traffic. Mercifully, he wasn't hurt, and when police brought him home, they found his mother sleeping and his 2-year-old sister eating spaghetti off the floor in their filthy apartment.
The mother's only response? "Oh, he got out again." She has been arrested and the kids are in custody of the state.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:59pm

Why not, though, if the medical community can help them fulfill their dream of parenthood? Not everyone wants kids and that's totally cool. Our bodies were designed to reproduce, and if something's not working, something is wrong. Infertility is considered a medical disorder, so I see nothing wrong with trying to address the problem (and for people who want to conceive and can't, it IS a problem). Nature doesn't get everything right. Interventions like stents, pacemakers and antidepressants have helped lots of people. Should they have suffered because of their physical problems? Yes, I realize you won't DIE if you don't have a baby, but believe me, the people I know who have been trying for years really suffer (especially psychologically). Their desire to conceive is that strong.

"I've always found rampant use of drugs and science to produce offspring a little self-indulgent at best." Even if that's the case, I don't see the harm. Lots of people have the urge to reproduce.
Updated On: 1/2/07 at 01:59 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:01pm

"Lots of people have the urge to reproduce."

It's survival of the species - like any animal, we were supposedly born with that instinct. Not all of us end up with it, but obviously most people do.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:10pm

They don't need the medical community to fulfill their dream of parenthood, though. They need medicine to allow them to bear a child. They can still become parents without medicine or science.

"I've always found rampant use of drugs and science to produce offspring a little self-indulgent at best." Even if that's the case, I don't see the harm. Lots of people have the urge to reproduce

"Self-indulgent at best, reckless at worst" was my full quote and I still stand by it. We've got more than enough people, which may have something to do with the fact that more people are finding they are unable to conceive.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:13pm

you just hate breeders, kringas, and we hate you right back! you better watch yourself, mister i like to kick pregnant women and run.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:15pm

"They don't need the medical community to fulfill their dream of parenthood, though. They need medicine to allow them to bear a child. They can still become parents without medicine or science."

Of course, but many people still have the desire and longing (one friend described it as almost physical) to conceive a child. I'm not discounting adoption. I think it's great. But I can't judge people harshly for seeking out help fulfilling what I see as a perfectly legitimate desire. I guess we'll agree to disagree. :)