shape
carat
color
clarity

World''s oldest new mom dies, leaving behind twin toddlers

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
World''s Oldest New Mom Dies at Age 69

Interesting and sad story. Thoughts?


World''s oldest new mom dies, leaves twin toddlers


Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago

MADRID – A Spanish woman believed to have become the world''s oldest new mother when she gave birth at 66 has died at 69, leaving behind twin toddlers, newspapers reported Wednesday.

Maria del Carmen Bousada, who reportedly died Saturday, gave birth in December 2006 as a single mother after getting in vitro fertilization treatment at a clinic in Los Angeles.


The births ignited a firestorm of debate over how old is too old for a new mother, and how much responsibility fertility clinics have over who gets treatments.


Bousada told an interviewer she lied to the fertility clinic about her age, and maintained that because her mother had lived to be 101, she had a good chance of living long enough to raise a child.


Bousada''s death was reported by the newspaper El Mundo and Diario de Cadiz. Cadiz is the southern province where Bousada lived her whole life.


Diario de Cadiz quoted her brother, Ricardo Bousada, as confirming her death but refusing to disclose the cause. The newspaper said she had been diagnosed with a tumor shortly after giving birth.


The Barcelona-based newspaper El Periodico de Catalunya quoted Ricardo Bousada as saying he sold the exclusive on his sister''s death to an unidentified television program and that the proceeds would go to looking after his sister''s twins.


The newspaper quoted him as saying that it had been "very difficult. Lately, she had been really bad." He could give no further details because of the arrangement, the newspaper reported.


The Associated Press was not immediately able to reach the brother for comment.


There was no word on who would raise the children, named Pau and Christian. Bousada had once said she would look for a younger man to help her raise them.


In January 2007, she told the British tabloid News of the World that she sold her house to raise $59,000 to pay for the in vitro fertilization.


"I think everyone should become a mother at the right time for them," Bousada said in a video of the interview provided to Associated Press Television News.


"Often circumstances put you between a rock and a hard place, and maybe things shouldn''t have been done in the way they were done, but that was the only way to achieve the thing I had always dreamed of, and I did it," she said.


The retired department store employee said she told the Pacific Fertility Center that she was 55 — the clinic''s cut-off for treating single women. She said the clinic did not ask her for identification.


Bousada lived with her mother most of her life in Cadiz. She hatched her plan to have children after her mother died in 2005, she said, initially keeping her plan secret from her family. When she finally told them she was two months pregnant, they thought she was joking.


"Yes, I am old of course, but if I live as long as my mom did, imagine, I could even have grandchildren," she said in the video.



 

April20

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
3,371
While I don''t think we have the right to judge those that make the decision to go extensive lengths to get pregnant/have children at an advanced age, this outcome is precisely my fear for those doing so. At the same time though, I suppose it''s not that much different than if she were a grandparent, raising her grandchildren. I just hope she planned for who would raise these children once she was gone.
 

KimberlyH

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
7,485
Date: 7/15/2009 9:46:30 AM
Author: April20
At the same time though, I suppose it''s not that much different than if she were a grandparent, raising her grandchildren.
The difference, in my mind, is that most grandparents raising grandchildren do so out of necessity not desire. The don''t commission their children to have children so that they become parents again, instead they take over responsibility for children who are otherwise being neglected or cared for improperly.

I''m really bothered by what she did and feel so sorry for those children now that she''s gone. As April said, I hope she has care in place for them, both custodial and financial.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
18,394
My opinion is that anyone can die and leave behind small children...regardless of the age at which they gave birth.
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
"My opinion is that anyone can die and leave behind small children...regardless of the age at which they gave birth"


That's true, monarch. But the likelihood of a 66/69 year old woman dying is much greater than that of a 20/30 year old, all things considered.

With life expectancy being as it is - I don't know how wise it would be to conceive a child at 69 years old, when realistically, you may just have 5-10 years of life, on average, to spend with your children. Of course, people are living a lot longer these days, and the mother did say her own mother lived to be 101. Even if she did live well into her 80's and 90's, though, how much energy would she have to be able to look after and engage with her children in their childhood/teenage years? Honestly, I think it's a bit selfish from that standpoint. It seemed as if having a child was just a dream she always had, but I'm not sure her actions were necessarily in the best interest of her children, for the above reason.

Since women are usually the primary caregivers, maybe that's why nature has designed it that a woman's fertility declines in her 30's/40's, to allow for a considerable amount of time for child-rearing to take place, before old-age sets in.

It's different with grandparents, I think. Most grandparents don't set out be the primary caregivers of their grandchildren. They usually step in out of necessity, as Kimberly mentioned, because the parents are absent or unable to take care of their children for a particular reason.
 

nycbkgirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
1,176
just so sad
8.gif
....i wonder why she at 66 decided she wanted to be a mom and not when she was a bit younger
33.gif
..maybe there were reasons that prevented her from having children sooner but i personally would never intentionally decide to have kids at such an old age especially as a single mom!
 

April20

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
3,371
In saying that in a way it would not be much different than a grandparent raising grandchildren, I was thinking from the aspect of someone of that age being the primary caregiver to minor children, no matter how they were related to her. In my head, I was seperating out the fact that she went to EXTREME lengths to have children and what her motives were and what reaction that garners.

In all honesty, I think what she did was irresponsible and selfish. She assumed she would live as long as her mother, she assumed she would be competent enough to raise these children to adulthood. I am really curious as to what she has left in place for these children.
 

qtiekiki

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,880
Date: 7/15/2009 10:41:53 AM
Author: Sha

''My opinion is that anyone can die and leave behind small children...regardless of the age at which they gave birth''


That''s true, monarch. But the likelihood of a 66/69 year old woman dying is much greater than that of a 20/30 year old, all things considered.

With life expectancy being as it is - I don''t know how wise it would be to conceive a child at 69 years old, when realistically, you may just have 5-10 years of life, on average, to spend with your children. Of course, people are living a lot longer these days, and the mother did say her own mother lived to be 101. Even if she did live well into her 80''s and 90''s, though, how much energy would she have to be able to look after and engage with her children in their childhood/teenage years? Honestly, I think it''s a bit selfish from that standpoint. It seemed as if having a child was just a dream she always had, but I''m not sure her actions were necessarily in the best interest of her children, for the above reason.

Since women are usually the primary caregivers, maybe that''s why nature has designed it that a woman''s fertility declines in her 30''s/40''s, to allow for a considerable amount of time for child-rearing to take place, before old-age sets in.

It''s different with grandparents, I think. Most grandparents don''t set out be the primary caregivers of their grandchildren. They usually step in out of necessity, as Kimberly mentioned, because the parents are absent or unable to take care of their children for a particular reason.
Ditto. Well said, Sha.

I wonder if she decided to have the babies after her mom died b/c she was co-dependent on her mom and she can''t stand to be alone.
 

NakedFinger

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
690

TravelingGal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
17,193
Toddlers are such hard word that they probably drove her to an early grave. I can barely keep up with one and I''m 36.

I think it''s ridiculous for women in their 60''s to want to become biological mothers. I''m not as opposed to adoptive mothers at a later age because if kids have a chance at a better home I''m for it. But to have biological kids, only to create more orphans...ugh.
 

D&T

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
12,503
oooh goodness, very sad
7.gif
especially for the kids who probably won''t remember their moms.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who "should" become biological mothers and who "shouldn''t". Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
I''m sorry for the kids & her family ... but I can''t help but think that what she did was incredibly selfish and short-sighted and possibly insane. Read between the lines of this story: single woman in her late sixties who has lived with her mother her entire life decided to sell the mother''s house after she dies in order to undergo fertility treatments? Uh boy.

Someone hide this idea from Susan Boyle! It doesn''t have a happy ending!
20.gif
 

MakingTheGrade

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
12,624
Yeah...there''s a reason why you can''t naturally get pregnant at 66. And I''m not going to dictate who can and cannot have a child by natural means, but if I were the physician, I would weigh the risks and benefits and would have ruled a "no" on this one. This woman probably wasn''t even legally eligible to adopt. I don''t about the laws in spain, but many asian countries actually has very tight requirements for who can adopt infants, including age limits (which you have to prove), marital status, and income thresholds.
 

TravelingGal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
17,193
Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
zhuzhu, nothing is a sure thing, to be sure. But NATURE did not intend for a 66 year old to become a mother. I think Holly said it best when she said just because it CAN be done doesn''t mean it should.

I would say to ANYONE - if you cannot take care of your children (whether you are old or sick or not healthy enough to get around and be active with your children), then think twice about having them.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
Date: 7/15/2009 5:43:26 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM

Author: zhuzhu

I am sorry for their loss.


I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?


My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
zhuzhu, nothing is a sure thing, to be sure. But NATURE did not intend for a 66 year old to become a mother. I think Holly said it best when she said just because it CAN be done doesn''t mean it should.


I would say to ANYONE - if you cannot take care of your children (whether you are old or sick or not healthy enough to get around and be active with your children), then think twice about having them.

Kidney patients were not expected to live very long by nature either, until hemodialysis became widely available in the 1960s. We as human invent wonderful technologies to prong life and improve quality of life. I am not saying she did necessarily the smartest thing, however who are we to judge on behalf of her children that bringing them to life was a "mistake"?
 

TravelingGal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
17,193
Date: 7/15/2009 6:07:46 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 7/15/2009 5:43:26 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM

Author: zhuzhu

I am sorry for their loss.


I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?


My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
zhuzhu, nothing is a sure thing, to be sure. But NATURE did not intend for a 66 year old to become a mother. I think Holly said it best when she said just because it CAN be done doesn''t mean it should.


I would say to ANYONE - if you cannot take care of your children (whether you are old or sick or not healthy enough to get around and be active with your children), then think twice about having them.

Kidney patients were not expected to live very long by nature either, until hemodialysis became widely available in the 1960s. We as human invent wonderful technologies to prong life and improve quality of life. I am not saying she did necessarily the smartest thing, however who are we to judge on behalf of her children that bringing them to life was a ''mistake''?
I think it''s selfish. I would never say any child born is a mistake. I think mature, smart, normal and SANE women in western culture do not want to run off and become biological mothers at 66.
 

fisherofmengirly

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
3,929
Date: 7/15/2009 5:27:10 PM
Author: MakingTheGrade
Yeah...there''s a reason why you can''t naturally get pregnant at 66. And I''m not going to dictate who can and cannot have a child by natural means, but if I were the physician, I would weigh the risks and benefits and would have ruled a ''no'' on this one. This woman probably wasn''t even legally eligible to adopt. I don''t about the laws in spain, but many asian countries actually has very tight requirements for who can adopt infants, including age limits (which you have to prove), marital status, and income thresholds.
Exactly. There''s a reason that nature discontinues allowing for pregnancies when a person reaches a certain age.

I''m glad that there have been medical advancements to allow people who would otherwise likely never conceive to have the opportunity to conceive, but with all things, there are limits that *should* make sense to everyone. This mother knew them, too, and decided to not reveal her true age. (How scary is it to think that the clinic never required verification of age, name, anything???) I don''t doubt that these babies were loved, and loved very much, but now they''re in a rough situation for three year olds to process....

However, it can happen to anyone, at any time.
 

KimberlyH

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
7,485
Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
Thinking something is right or wrong is a whole different ball of wax than mandating whether something is appropriate legally. Everyone has a right to weigh the facts and determine their own thoughts/opinions/judgements about the choices another person makes, it''s no more wrong than her making the judgement that this was a wise choice (except that no matter what anyone else thinks about they situation they haven''t hurt two children by giving birth to them very late in life then dying). Of course it''s not going to help her family to talk about them specifically, but the subject does bring about an important discussion about whether it is reasonable and ethical for a doctor and patient to decide for a woman far beyond child bearing years to give birth through alternative means.

My opinion is that I think what she and her doctor did is wrong, but I don''t believe there is a legal line that could be drawn regarding who should and shouldn''t be allowed to give birth that would be acceptable to me; it''s way too slippery a slope to even begin to go down. Hopefully this will be an example to others who are close to her age and considering doing what she has done that it isn''t the wisest of decisions one could make and that if being a parent is something they feel they must do they would consider foster parenting or adoption instead.
 

TravelingGal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
17,193
Date: 7/15/2009 6:53:37 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
Thinking something is right or wrong is a whole different ball of wax than mandating whether something is appropriate legally. Everyone has a right to weigh the facts and determine their own thoughts/opinions/judgements about the choices another person makes, it''s no more wrong than her making the judgement that this was a wise choice (except that no matter what anyone else thinks about they situation they haven''t hurt two children by giving birth to them very late in life then dying). Of course it''s not going to help her family to talk about them specifically, but the subject does bring about an important discussion about whether it is reasonable and ethical for a doctor and patient to decide for a woman far beyond child bearing years to give birth through alternative means.

My opinion is that I think what she and her doctor did is wrong, but I don''t believe there is a legal line that could be drawn regarding who should and shouldn''t be allowed to give birth that would be acceptable to me; it''s way too slippery a slope to even begin to go down. Hopefully this will be an example to others who are close to her age and considering doing what she has done that it isn''t the wisest of decisions one could make and that if being a parent is something they feel they must do they would consider foster parenting or adoption instead.
Good point Kimberly.

And they weren''t even her biological children, right? Did she just want to go through pregnancy for the bonding? Because adoption would have made her a mother too.

I shouldn''t speak ill of the dead. It is sad she passed away, period.
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
This is a sad situation, and I really don''t know what to say about it. Hopefully family can step up and take in these little ones. I''m sure that way, they would grow up learning the incredible journey their mother went through to have them, and how important they were to her. They will probably be no worse for the wear, in all honesty. Octo-mom though, that''s a WHOLE OTHER can of worms.

having kids in your 60''s = not a great idea

having 14 kids under 7, via in-vitro = WRECKLESS

however, if the legal age limit for this procedure is 55, I do feel that it would be reasonable to sanction or bring action against people who defraud their information. This would help to protect both doctors and patients, IMO.
 

lucyandroger

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,557
Date: 7/15/2009 6:07:46 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 7/15/2009 5:43:26 PM

Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM


Author: zhuzhu


I am sorry for their loss.



I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?



My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
zhuzhu, nothing is a sure thing, to be sure. But NATURE did not intend for a 66 year old to become a mother. I think Holly said it best when she said just because it CAN be done doesn''t mean it should.



I would say to ANYONE - if you cannot take care of your children (whether you are old or sick or not healthy enough to get around and be active with your children), then think twice about having them.


Kidney patients were not expected to live very long by nature either, until hemodialysis became widely available in the 1960s. We as human invent wonderful technologies to prong life and improve quality of life. I am not saying she did necessarily the smartest thing, however who are we to judge on behalf of her children that bringing them to life was a ''mistake''?



Did I miss some sort of anti-aging treatment being invented??? It would be great if modern medicine could prevent us from aging and dying but at this point I''m pretty sure that hasn''t happened yet and seeing as she had the babies a few years ago, I''m thinking it wasn''t around then either. Nobody said the children were a "mistake" but the decision to have them was certainly a selfish one.

I would say the same thing about someone who was terminally ill and decided to have children while single anyway, knowing the children would watch them die at an early age and then remain orphans. I think that would be an incredibly selfish decision.
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
Date: 7/15/2009 11:59:50 AM
Author: NakedFinger
Wow and I thought the English woman who had a baby at 57 in the episode of ''I Didnt Know I Was Pregnant'' was old for a baby! But luckily, her husband was only 46, so at least if she passed the father was younger.

ETA: Found her story online....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-541608/Woman-57-thought-cancer--doctors-told-30-weeks-pregnant-Now-shell-birth-days.html
I watched that episode too- very interesting! I think the next episode comes on tonight on TLC.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
I just find that women are too hard on other women sometimes. This woman is dead, for crying out loud. She had a chance to fulfill her one lifetime wish, and she went an extra mile to accomplish it. Is it a well-calculated, smart planning? For the public and average people like you and I, no. For her, it was prob the best decision of her life.

We do not need to agree with her decision, but there is certainly no need to speak ill of her when she is not even resting sound 6 feet under the ground just yet.

It is sad to have her children not remembering their mother growing up; but comparing to so many cases of mother (young or old) emotionally and physically abusing their own children, at least this woman gave birth to them with all the love in her heart.
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
Date: 7/15/2009 6:53:37 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who ''should'' become biological mothers and who ''shouldn''t''. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
Thinking something is right or wrong is a whole different ball of wax than mandating whether something is appropriate legally. Everyone has a right to weigh the facts and determine their own thoughts/opinions/judgements about the choices another person makes, it''s no more wrong than her making the judgement that this was a wise choice (except that no matter what anyone else thinks about they situation they haven''t hurt two children by giving birth to them very late in life then dying). Of course it''s not going to help her family to talk about them specifically, but the subject does bring about an important discussion about whether it is reasonable and ethical for a doctor and patient to decide for a woman far beyond child bearing years to give birth through alternative means.

My opinion is that I think what she and her doctor did is wrong, but I don''t believe there is a legal line that could be drawn regarding who should and shouldn''t be allowed to give birth that would be acceptable to me; it''s way too slippery a slope to even begin to go down. Hopefully this will be an example to others who are close to her age and considering doing what she has done that it isn''t the wisest of decisions one could make and that if being a parent is something they feel they must do they would consider foster parenting or adoption instead.
Ditto to this. There''s nothing wrong with having an opinion on this issue or discussing the pros and cons of her decision, IMO.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
[Ditto to this. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on this issue or discussing the pros and cons of her decision, IMO.

Sha]

True. I also hope that there is nothing wrong with my expressing how I feel about what has been written here, either.
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Date: 7/15/2009 7:42:27 PM
Author: zhuzhu
at least this woman gave birth to them with all the love in her heart.
What makes you so sure of that? Isn''t that pure speculation? For someone railing against "judgments" I''d argue that painting things in the best possible light is a judgment of another kind.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
Date: 7/15/2009 8:14:15 PM
Author: decodelighted
Date: 7/15/2009 7:42:27 PM

Author: zhuzhu

at least this woman gave birth to them with all the love in her heart.

What makes you so sure of that? Isn't that pure speculation? For someone railing against 'judgments' I'd argue that painting things in the best possible light is a judgment of another kind.

I am certainly not one who "rails against all judgments". I do believe however, that there is a more appropriate time and place for certain judgments to be made.

As in my "speculation" that she loves her babies? I for one would not go through 9 month of pregnancy to give birth to anything unless 1) I believe in the purpose of the birth, 2) I love the life I am giving life to, or 3) I am paid enough money to go though the trouble!
9.gif


Sounds like it is either 1 or 2 in her case to me.
 

KimberlyH

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
7,485
Date: 7/15/2009 7:42:27 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I just find that women are too hard on other women sometimes. This woman is dead, for crying out loud. She had a chance to fulfill her one lifetime wish, and she went an extra mile to accomplish it. Is it a well-calculated, smart planning? For the public and average people like you and I, no. For her, it was prob the best decision of her life.

We do not need to agree with her decision, but there is certainly no need to speak ill of her when she is not even resting sound 6 feet under the ground just yet.

It is sad to have her children not remembering their mother growing up; but comparing to so many cases of mother (young or old) emotionally and physically abusing their own children, at least this woman gave birth to them with all the love in her heart.
Zhu, so many people and things are off limits from discussion now, how do we ever have productive conversations? I don''t think anyone has said this woman is horrible, or that she is deserving of a terrible fate, people are just expressing distress over a decision many see as poorly made.

Love alone does not make a good parent (or a good spouse, good friend, good employee, etc.) and while it''s nice to think that she loved these children with all her heart one could also think this woman was incredible selfish and shortsighted (selling your home to have kids indicates a lack of available funds to live comfortably). It takes a lot more than loving someone or something to be successful at it. And one does not need to compare her children to those who have been abused to find the whole situation disturbing. You may not go through pregnancy for any reasons other than those that are listed, but who knows what her motivations were? They could have been financial (expecting support through media frenzy like so many atypical families do), selfish, or heartless. The point is we''ll never know, we can only form opinions based on what is fact: a woman way past child bearing and and her doctor, who she decieved and whose clinic failed to follow due process, concieved two children who are now without a mother or a father as a result of her advanced age and the method by which they were concieved.

Regarding people with shortened life expectancies having children, I know someone personally who has done so and it was very hard for me to stomach her decision. Seeing her as a parent has softened my thoughts about the situation (she is a most excellent mother), and helped me form my thoughts regarding the slippery slope I am so against, as mentioned above. But I do wonder what damage will be done to her children when they lose their mother at a young age and how that will shape who they become. My hope is it inspires them to live life to the fullest, but there are no guarantees.

I do not feel that in death a person deserves to be absolved of all of their life choices, especially considering the hole that has been left behind in these childrens'' lives, because they are, after all, living with the consequences of her decision.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,676
Date: 7/15/2009 4:58:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I am sorry for their loss.

I think we should be careful judging who 'should' become biological mothers and who 'shouldn't'. Should 25-30 years old with family history of cancer not be allowed to have children? Should young people in wheel chairs or have chronic disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis or obesity not he allowed to have children? We know they are also at increased risk of mortality and morbidity, no?

My point is, it is pretty sad that she died and left 2 little ones behind already. Pointing fingers at her motherhood decision is not necessarily going to help her family.
Well said.

Let's just say there are plenty of young mothers who aren't fit to raise kids. No one judges them.

Some women aren't lucky enough to meet a man they love and get married and raise a family while they are still fertile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top