70 year old gives birth!

[D_Ivana Dickenside]

The mother, Rajo Devi, had been trying for 50 years to get pregnant with her 72-year-old husband...

holy crap they're horny old people!!!

 

[Deno]

The baby will probably be able to breast feed while laying on her lap.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Xcuze...

I had not noticed it before, but recently I have, and I'm beginning to believe
that NO ONE can, or is ALLOWED...BY YOU...to have any opinions that are
DIFFERENT from YOURS.

It really is a shame that you are so intolerant of others and their rights, and
that you feel you have to verbally abuse and be nasty to them to prove your
point. It is so childish, as well as common, and extremely uncalled for.

In stead of joining in in a civil manner, you absolutely ruin any thread in which
you post......and it is really becomming annoying, to say the least!!

I fully expect that you will now spew a tirade of abuse at me. I wonder what
colorful words you will chose to throw at me....:shrug:

I wonder if you have considered taking the advice of your slogan at the bottom
of your postings....

Hey Silverthriumph, well I must agree with wath Xcuze said. It is indeed not great for that child, it isn't cool for that child that when it's 5 years old that his parents already could be dead...
And I agree that njqt didn't read well Xcuze his answer because he never said that he hates children, from his post you can see that he care more for the child.

But I agree with you that he could be more polite. But Njqt wasn't polite either, not really giving him a chance and not reading his answer well.

Well is it that important that the 70 year old lady is happy now? There are so many couples who can't get children, why don't adopt one at an age that you know you will be able to take care for your child.
Well at one side it is great that she finally has a child from herself, but for the child... not good. Imagine when it goes too school and then the other children will ask if that are his grandparents...

Sorry, I think it isn't a good thing that they choice.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Having gone through an extremely strong wanna be a mamma phase, I understand her.

I have great-aunts who lived well into their 90's, and I expect to beat a hundred, easy. This woman could theoretically witness her daughter's wedding.

And might I add that lots of kids lose their parents at an early age due to accidents, drugs, illness, etc. Not ideal, but it happens all the time.

ALSO, there are thousands upon thousands of grandmothers raising their grandchildren as their own kids.

I say, good for her.

I guess I must've seen it from an existential POV rather than the capability perspective. And yeah, NP, you got a point; there are plent of women her age tending to Grandchildren.

All I was concerned was whether or not she had the physical ability to do so, which of course after revewing the whole thread, in addition to Xcuze's vitriolic and repulsive attitude, is hardly inconclusive, since she just gave birth at 70 and is well.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Who the fuck are u to decide what is relevant or appreciated? Do u seriously think I give a toss what u appreciate? You are just a nasty, judgemental cow with a Sybil mentality. Take your purple text & ram it up your favourite fuckhole - we all know which that is!

How is my post not relevant? Are u really that stupid? Who said I hate kids? WTF are u yapping about, seriously? I care a lot about kids which is exactly the point of my post. Try reading it properly.

Get over yourself bitch, you aint the big Momma around here.

Now, since I don't know too much about you, I'll be as brief as possible;
WHO IN FUCK ARE YOU THAT YOU'RE JUMPING ON NJQT LIKE THAT?!
WHAT, YOU HAVE A SEVERELY FUCKED UP CHILDHOOD THAT YOU HAVE TO BE OVERLY CRITICAL?
gET THIS AND GET-IT-RIGHT-NOW: SNIPING ON MEMBERS LIKE THIS AIN'T COOL. NJQT IS ONE OF OUR MOST VALUED MEMBERS HERE, AND YOU'RE CHEWING HER OUT 'CAUSE SHE DIDN'T LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE.

Xcuze...

I had not noticed it before, but recently I have, and I'm beginning to believe
that NO ONE can, or is ALLOWED...BY YOU...to have any opinions that are
DIFFERENT from YOURS.

It really is a shame that you are so intolerant of others and their rights, and
that you feel you have to verbally abuse and be nasty to them to prove your
point. It is so childish, as well as common, and extremely uncalled for.

In stead of joining in in a civil manner, you absolutely ruin any thread in which
you post......and it is really becomming annoying, to say the least!!

I fully expect that you will now spew a tirade of abuse at me. I wonder what
colorful words you will chose to throw at me....:shrug:

I wonder if you have considered taking the advice of your slogan at the bottom
of your postings....

Dig it. I couldn't have summed it up better as an amateur psychiatrist.

QFT!
Thank you very much silvertriumph for saying what we have all tried to ignore or deal with by pm.
He is just a nasty, hurtful, sad excuse for a man.
cigarbabe

Hardly conclusive calling him a man when he's demonstrated his mentality as childish and petty there, Cigarbabe.

Under normal cirumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to turn him over to the mods with the report button, but I get the feeling NJQT's gonna beat me( I hope not!):naughty: to it after all this.

 

[B_cigarbabe]

Im glad that your are speaking for EVERY woman looking to have a baby NJ. Sorry but a 70 y/o woman giving birth is not a good idea. For her or the baby. Just because science can make it so. Doesnt make it a great idea for a 70 y/o woman to give birth.

And your comment was completly over the top.



Gee and here I thought people were allowed to express themselfs here. Or is it maybe only 'SOME' people??



So your personal attack brings you to what level Cigarbabe?


Anyways I shall jump off my soap box now and find a doctor that can make me pregnant now, lol.

It is hardly a personal attack Jason just saying what other members have also expressed. That I find him to be a sad poor excuse for a man is my opinion and not even close to the attacks you have made on Jason els and others or the attack on NJ.
It seems you and xcuse are of the same mindset that only you and he should be allowed to rant about people attacking you. You don't like it when others don't like your blog or comment negatively about it. He's mostly nasty and tries to bully people. For examples of this ask me and I'll show you.
Do show me where I attacked anyone in a spotlight thread dearie.
MassivePKGO Chuck you always say just the right thing!
You are correct also that I gave him more credit than he deserved calling him a man.
cigarbabe:saevil:

 

[B_cigarbabe]

The baby will probably be able to breast feed while laying on her lap.
FYI most babies breastfeed while laying in a womens lap.
I'm sure you were trying to be funny by implying her tits are sagging?
Which since she hasn't had any babies I doubt.:biggrin1:
C.B.:saevil:

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Im glad that your are speaking for EVERY woman looking to have a baby NJ. Sorry but a 70 y/o woman giving birth is not a good idea. For her or the baby. Just because science can make it so. Doesnt make it a great idea for a 70 y/o woman to give birth.

I agree.There should be some boundaries and ethics involved when applying medical technology in these cases. What that is, I don't know, but prior to 70 seems like a good start.

I also wonder why they never adopted - if all they wanted was a child in their lives. Weren't babies available for adoption sometime over the last, idk, at least two decades since she hit menopause?

Anyways I shall jump off my soap box now and find a doctor that can make me pregnant now, lol.

:biggrin1: That would be hottt.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Lets be honest here, IVF docs have been making guinnea pigs out of old ladies every since they figured out they could make the news doing it. I think Xcuze actually made some VERY valid points by thinking of just more than the Moms gushy warm feelings about it.

Xcuze is very tell it like it is, as is NJ, so let them go at it if they want to. Just because you want a baby doesnt mean that this contriversial news story can't be picked apart for what its worth.

As for the place where this happened, i'd say if there were any place where this child would be surrounded by an extended family, India would be it.

If only more people could think like Xcuze there would be a lot less babies being raised by other family members out of obligation because they didn't plan ahead of time for how they would care for their child.

Where the fuck is Pronatalist on this one?

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

I agree.There should be some boundaries and ethics involved when applying medical technology in these cases. What that is, I don't know, but prior to 70 seems like a good start.

I also wonder why they never adopted - if all they wanted was a child in their lives. Weren't babies available for adoption sometime over the last, idk, at least two decades since she hit menopause?

:biggrin1: That would be hottt.

Well, you have to look upon this baby as an accomplishment as well a blessing they wanted to do for the last 50 yrs there, sweetass. Physically, she shouldn't have been able to carry to term, but she did. Now, as for the next 20 yrs of taking care of the baby, well, that's another story altogether. But, hey, in twenty yrs, they may just surprise us, you know?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Well, you have to look upon this baby as an accomplishment as well a blessing they wanted to do for the last 50 yrs there, sweetass. Physically, she shouldn't have been able to carry to term, but she did. Now, as for the next 20 yrs of taking care of the baby, well, that's another story altogether. But, hey, in twenty yrs, they may just surprise us, you know?

That's fine for this case. But then where does it end?

'Is this a boundary we should not cross', is a question all medical professionals should consider before any use of medical technology, as there is a potential for abuse. That's my main issue, but I have no answers and offer no guidelines.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I'm glad i got all my baby making done before i was 22. It was hard enough to go through infertility at a young age, i cant imagine the physical and emotional symptoms at 70. It puts you through the wringer and a c-section aint no picnic in the park either.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

:shrug: I'm not having kids, nor do I have the desire, so I feel strange discussing the fertility issue, but there's nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion. Sorry, I do not see or feel a miracle at work in this case.

I'm glad i got all my baby making done before i was 22. It was hard enough to go through infertility at a young age, i cant imagine the physical and emotional symptoms at 70. It puts you through the wringer and a c-section aint no picnic in the park either.

My grandmother had a C-section at almost 50 due to a perimenopausal or menopausal pregnancy, and she did take a few months to heal, but was otherwise fine after that.

Idk, I definitely think women can have babies later perfectly fine.
I'm not adverse to a 20-50+ year old using fertility treatments to have a kid - but 70, 75, 80, 85, 90??? With enough financial resources it is not impossible.

At some point, the ill-thought-out applications of medical technology become reckless and the actions of the medical community deserve to be questioned.

 

[Xcuze]

Thanks to the voices of support on this thread. Mostly in respect to what I actually said about this thread topic. I really did not appreciate Njqt attacking my opinions in such a way, with her usual lack of charm. I didnt write all that opinion just to have her belittle it & dismiss it as irrelevant. It was actually wholly relevant & others have backed my points since. Nor do I appreciate the sight of her Manly ass. How rude. Then there was her suggestion I hate kids...WTF...where did she pluck that from? My whole post was in support of the childs needs being put before this womans dreams.

Her post was just provocative, disrespectful & downright insulting. She deserved every word I said back as far as Im concerned. Interesting the Pms Ive had since from a few who also believe she had it coming. The names surprised me...:wink:

Of course, her supporters on here completely failed to acknowledge the fact she threw the first punch. They must have missed that post. Or been blinded by their biase. Yep, that'll be it. Whatever, I dont aspire to be loved by all. I have friends here & they know how to take me. Others can think as they please.

 

[nudeyorker]

It would appear that I could cut and paste the following post as I have had to say this so often in the last few weeks. LPSG welcomes ideas and viewpoints that are as varied as the membership. However when name calling and discussion on a thread are disruptive to the subject and the other members it calls for Moderator intervention. Speaking for the Moderators and Administration we do not want anyone to alter their style or viewpoints when posting, but be mindful of posting in a manner in which you would like to be addressed. If you have a something to say to an individual(s); please make use of the Private Message system available. Every subject will have opinions that we will not always agree, I have learned so much from so many people here who have viewpoints in life that differ from my own ideas or experiences. Is that the reason we are here, or simply to tear down others?
Thank you
Moderator
NY

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

It is hardly a personal attack Jason just saying what other members have also expressed. That I find him to be a sad poor excuse for a man is my opinion and not even close to the attacks you have made on Jason els and others or the attack on NJ.
It seems you and xcuse are of the same mindset that only you and he should be allowed to rant about people attacking you. You don't like it when others don't like your blog or comment negatively about it. He's mostly nasty and tries to bully people. For examples of this ask me and I'll show you.
Do show me where I attacked anyone in a spotlight thread dearie.
MassivePKGO Chuck you always say just the right thing!
You are correct also that I gave him more credit than he deserved calling him a man.
cigarbabe:saevil:

Find one attack on jason_els that I have made please. Cigarbabe, You are well aware of the vile and nasty things Jason_els has said about me on another board. So Im shocked to see you writing that I attacked him. A person I have had on ignore for months.

I have no idea why you have dragged my lil ol blog into this mess, lol. But I control my blog, comments and all. I suggest if you dont like my blog than dont read it. Its really that simple.

Cigarbabe you are just as forthcoming in your comments on here as Xcuze is. And did you not find NJ'S comment of 'Kiss my sweet black ass' over the line? What if he had asked NJ to kiss his sweet white ass? How would that have gone over?

You attacked Xcuze in your words as well. Remember NJ really did throw the first stone here. So if a tos should be reported than we all know where to click. Jason.:saevil:

 

[naughty]

Well,

I have a family story to tell for anyone who thinks it shouldnt be done or that people are being selfish... A family member of mine after watching his much beloved first wife die of a horrible disease married again at 70. At age 72, he and his second wife gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. He said it was a turning point in his life and made him realize that he had to stay around long enough to get her grown. So...he totally changed his diet and has been doing just fine. His daughter just became a teenager. I have no doubt he may well see her into her 20's. This was a natural birth late in childbearing for both father and mother. However, knowing all the potential consequences they took that leap of faith. It has been a fabulous experience for all involved.

D,

I think you would be a fabulous dad. Have you thought about getting a surrogate mother and you and your SO both contributing sperm. I have seen other gay couples do this and it has turned out well. IF you did, I know the child would be gorgeous and brilliant! He or she have twice the potential to have it happen!


Xcuse,

though you may feel the parents of this newborn are selfish it may turn out to be a wonderful experience for all concerned. I am sure that they have had plenty of time for thoughts on their contingency plan for this child. When I think of all of the abused, neglected children conceived merely because the mother's eggs and father's sperm were viable I applaud this couple for their leap of faith.

NJ,

Dont think your dream is over. There are so many little children out there who would love to have a bright caring mother like you. I know it isnt the same as having your own naturally born child but you have so much love to give. If you really want a child I am sure any child would be lucky to have you as a mother.

 

[pronatalist]

Just what a populous world needs? Doctors finding ways for people to have babies at age 80? Whatever. Why not.​

Lets be honest here, IVF docs have been making guinnea pigs out of old ladies every since they figured out they could make the news doing it. I think Xcuze actually made some VERY valid points by thinking of just more than the Moms gushy warm feelings about it.

Xcuze is very tell it like it is, as is NJ, so let them go at it if they want to. Just because you want a baby doesnt mean that this contriversial news story can't be picked apart for what its worth.

As for the place where this happened, i'd say if there were any place where this child would be surrounded by an extended family, India would be it.

If only more people could think like Xcuze there would be a lot less babies being raised by other family members out of obligation because they didn't plan ahead of time for how they would care for their child.

Where the fuck is Pronatalist on this one?

Sorry to disappoint you, in not having contributed something to the discussion.

I believe in the natural flow of human life, to benefit all the more people to thus come alive. So logically, that doesn't rule out infertility assistance, but merely wouldn't seem to always require it, as presumably, the need for infertility assistance would be diminished somewhat, if more of the "huge" world population was growing more naturally, unhindered either in its sheer size nor its natural growth rate. Deut 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. That, and the commandment Thou shalt not kill, rule out abortion, but make no objection to possible infertility assistance, as helping people to become pregnant obviously promotes human life.

I do not believe in imposing regulation of human birthrates, but in welcoming babies to happen and push out, as they happen. I am no Catholic, so I don't believe in using Catholic-tolerated rhythm either. What is really seeking to make experimental "guinnea pigs" out of people, is all the shoddy contraceptives, not so much various infertility assistances. If world population was still growing more naturally and seemingly unrestrained in terms of overall population size and rate of growth, seemingly there would be less need for infertility assistance, but that's hardly much comfort to childless couples unable to conceive, and probably there wouldn't be all that much infertility assistance going on, in comparison to the rate of natural increase, that it wouldn't add all that much more to the natural rate of population growth.

Without the use of shoddy anti-life "birth control," obviously, babies may continue to come forth, until natural menopause, the obvious natural sign of when maybe it's finally time to stop having so many babies. Age of menopause, or naturally declining fertility may come sooner than expected for many couples, but presumably it varies, and some people may still be able to naturally conceive even as old as 70, especially if they haven't damaged their bodies with unnatural attempts at fertility control. Obviously in families that choose to shun birth control, babies can still be coming along sometimes, even as older children have grown up, married, and are starting to have grandbabies of their own.

I have no objection to mothers getting pregnant at age 70, even if by "artificial" means. Surely that's no worse than a society tolerating abortions. I think it's okay for childraising to be taken over by other family members, all the easier with the promotion of extended families as is still common in other cultures. I hardly think that parents must always be young enough to be expected to live in good health for the entire duration of the time expected to raise their own children. There's the example in the Bible, of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac as a baby, when they were what? 90-some years old? I hardly think it an imposition, and if something, for example, happened to my sister and brother-in-law, I would be honored to take in my little nephews, and raise them, in addition to any of my own children, and keep having more children of my own. Sure, it might be nice for children to be born to younger parents, but that really isn't so possible in large families that just keep right on growing naturally, nor would it be the "same" children, had they been born younger. Sure, encourage people to marry and have children young, but after that, the children can obviously just keep right on coming. It's better for the child to be born to "old" parents, than to not have been born at all, so I don't have a problem with it. And then there's the obvious matter, of having to, in a supposedly free society, at least to some reasonable extent, respecting people to make their own decisions. Which includes quite possibly, some people having children when themselves are as old as 70 or 80.

God's commandment to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, to people implies natural increase, but not necessarily mandates any infertility treatments, as obviously God could heal infertility without our "help." And obviously, world population would be naturally burgeoning along nearly enough already in the absence of birth control that there wouldn't be much "population need" to egg it along all the more beyond the natural exponentially-expanding huge baby booms. But God's command to humans to multiply, neither rules out possible infertility treatments. However, there are certain infertility treatment moral issues to be considered. I oppose "selective reductions," as isn't that very similar to abortion murder? I also oppose reckless experimentation, and I am opposed to corporations trying to place patents upon "life." I don't believe designer babies are a good idea, nor sex selection of any sort unless it's so easy to tell in advance in the case of "test tube babies?" And I don't think that frozen embryos should long be abandoned in freezers. So I am much in favor of "snowflake adoptions," in which pro-life or religious married couples step forth to adopt such embyos and grow them into babies. But obviously, there are infertility treatments that manage to steer clear of such moral hurdles. How many pro-life or religious couples have refused to have any "selective reduction" and successfully brought a "litter" of 5 or 6 babies to birth, all at once? What are the records set for that? As supposedly moral and civil people, we should give human life every reasonable chance to continue and progress.

 

[Axcess]

Just what a populous world needs? Doctors finding ways for people to have babies at age 80? Whatever. Why not.​

Sorry to disappoint you, in not having contributed something to the discussion.

I believe in the natural flow of human life, to benefit all the more people to thus come alive. So logically, that doesn't rule out infertility assistance, but merely wouldn't seem to always require it, as presumably, the need for infertility assistance would be diminished somewhat, if more of the "huge" world population was growing more naturally, unhindered either in its sheer size nor its natural growth rate. Deut 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. That, and the commandment Thou shalt not kill, rule out abortion, but make no objection to possible infertility assistance, as helping people to become pregnant obviously promotes human life.

I do not believe in imposing regulation of human birthrates, but in welcoming babies to happen and push out, as they happen. I am no Catholic, so I don't believe in using Catholic-tolerated rhythm either. What is really seeking to make experimental "guinnea pigs" out of people, is all the shoddy contraceptives, not so much various infertility assistances. If world population was still growing more naturally and seemingly unrestrained in terms of overall population size and rate of growth, seemingly there would be less need for infertility assistance, but that's hardly much comfort to childless couples unable to conceive, and probably there wouldn't be all that much infertility assistance going on, in comparison to the rate of natural increase, that it wouldn't add all that much more to the natural rate of population growth.

Without the use of shoddy anti-life "birth control," obviously, babies may continue to come forth, until natural menopause, the obvious natural sign of when maybe it's finally time to stop having so many babies. Age of menopause, or naturally declining fertility may come sooner than expected for many couples, but presumably it varies, and some people may still be able to naturally conceive even as old as 70, especially if they haven't damaged their bodies with unnatural attempts at fertility control. Obviously in families that choose to shun birth control, babies can still be coming along sometimes, even as older children have grown up, married, and are starting to have grandbabies of their own.

I have no objection to mothers getting pregnant at age 70, even if by "artificial" means. Surely that's no worse than a society tolerating abortions. I think it's okay for childraising to be taken over by other family members, all the easier with the promotion of extended families as is still common in other cultures. I hardly think that parents must always be young enough to be expected to live in good health for the entire duration of the time expected to raise their own children. There's the example in the Bible, of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac as a baby, when they were what? 90-some years old? I hardly think it an imposition, and if something, for example, happened to my sister and brother-in-law, I would be honored to take in my little nephews, and raise them, in addition to any of my own children, and keep having more children of my own. Sure, it might be nice for children to be born to younger parents, but that really isn't so possible in large families that just keep right on growing naturally, nor would it be the "same" children, had they been born younger. Sure, encourage people to marry and have children young, but after that, the children can obviously just keep right on coming. It's better for the child to be born to "old" parents, than to not have been born at all, so I don't have a problem with it. And then there's the obvious matter, of having to, in a supposedly free society, at least to some reasonable extent, respecting people to make their own decisions. Which includes quite possibly, some people having children when themselves are as old as 70 or 80.

God's commandment to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, to people implies natural increase, but not necessarily mandates any infertility treatments, as obviously God could heal infertility without our "help." And obviously, world population would be naturally burgeoning along nearly enough already in the absence of birth control that there wouldn't be much "population need" to egg it along all the more beyond the natural exponentially-expanding huge baby booms. But God's command to humans to multiply, neither rules out possible infertility treatments. However, there are certain infertility treatment moral issues to be considered. I oppose "selective reductions," as isn't that very similar to abortion murder? I also oppose reckless experimentation, and I am opposed to corporations trying to place patents upon "life." I don't believe designer babies are a good idea, nor sex selection of any sort unless it's so easy to tell in advance in the case of "test tube babies?" And I don't think that frozen embryos should long be abandoned in freezers. So I am much in favor of "snowflake adoptions," in which pro-life or religious married couples step forth to adopt such embyos and grow them into babies. But obviously, there are infertility treatments that manage to steer clear of such moral hurdles. How many pro-life or religious couples have refused to have any "selective reduction" and successfully brought a "litter" of 5 or 6 babies to birth, all at once? What are the records set for that? As supposedly moral and civil people, we should give human life every reasonable chance to continue and progress.[/quot
PRONATALIST ROCKS !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Axcess]

Just what a populous world needs? Doctors finding ways for people to have babies at age 80? Whatever. Why not.​

Sorry to disappoint you, in not having contributed something to the discussion.

I believe in the natural flow of human life, to benefit all the more people to thus come alive. So logically, that doesn't rule out infertility assistance, but merely wouldn't seem to always require it, as presumably, the need for infertility assistance would be diminished somewhat, if more of the "huge" world population was growing more naturally, unhindered either in its sheer size nor its natural growth rate. Deut 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. That, and the commandment Thou shalt not kill, rule out abortion, but make no objection to possible infertility assistance, as helping people to become pregnant obviously promotes human life.

I do not believe in imposing regulation of human birthrates, but in welcoming babies to happen and push out, as they happen. I am no Catholic, so I don't believe in using Catholic-tolerated rhythm either. What is really seeking to make experimental "guinnea pigs" out of people, is all the shoddy contraceptives, not so much various infertility assistances. If world population was still growing more naturally and seemingly unrestrained in terms of overall population size and rate of growth, seemingly there would be less need for infertility assistance, but that's hardly much comfort to childless couples unable to conceive, and probably there wouldn't be all that much infertility assistance going on, in comparison to the rate of natural increase, that it wouldn't add all that much more to the natural rate of population growth.

Without the use of shoddy anti-life "birth control," obviously, babies may continue to come forth, until natural menopause, the obvious natural sign of when maybe it's finally time to stop having so many babies. Age of menopause, or naturally declining fertility may come sooner than expected for many couples, but presumably it varies, and some people may still be able to naturally conceive even as old as 70, especially if they haven't damaged their bodies with unnatural attempts at fertility control. Obviously in families that choose to shun birth control, babies can still be coming along sometimes, even as older children have grown up, married, and are starting to have grandbabies of their own.

I have no objection to mothers getting pregnant at age 70, even if by "artificial" means. Surely that's no worse than a society tolerating abortions. I think it's okay for childraising to be taken over by other family members, all the easier with the promotion of extended families as is still common in other cultures. I hardly think that parents must always be young enough to be expected to live in good health for the entire duration of the time expected to raise their own children. There's the example in the Bible, of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac as a baby, when they were what? 90-some years old? I hardly think it an imposition, and if something, for example, happened to my sister and brother-in-law, I would be honored to take in my little nephews, and raise them, in addition to any of my own children, and keep having more children of my own. Sure, it might be nice for children to be born to younger parents, but that really isn't so possible in large families that just keep right on growing naturally, nor would it be the "same" children, had they been born younger. Sure, encourage people to marry and have children young, but after that, the children can obviously just keep right on coming. It's better for the child to be born to "old" parents, than to not have been born at all, so I don't have a problem with it. And then there's the obvious matter, of having to, in a supposedly free society, at least to some reasonable extent, respecting people to make their own decisions. Which includes quite possibly, some people having children when themselves are as old as 70 or 80.

God's commandment to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, to people implies natural increase, but not necessarily mandates any infertility treatments, as obviously God could heal infertility without our "help." And obviously, world population would be naturally burgeoning along nearly enough already in the absence of birth control that there wouldn't be much "population need" to egg it along all the more beyond the natural exponentially-expanding huge baby booms. But God's command to humans to multiply, neither rules out possible infertility treatments. However, there are certain infertility treatment moral issues to be considered. I oppose "selective reductions," as isn't that very similar to abortion murder? I also oppose reckless experimentation, and I am opposed to corporations trying to place patents upon "life." I don't believe designer babies are a good idea, nor sex selection of any sort unless it's so easy to tell in advance in the case of "test tube babies?" And I don't think that frozen embryos should long be abandoned in freezers. So I am much in favor of "snowflake adoptions," in which pro-life or religious married couples step forth to adopt such embyos and grow them into babies. But obviously, there are infertility treatments that manage to steer clear of such moral hurdles. How many pro-life or religious couples have refused to have any "selective reduction" and successfully brought a "litter" of 5 or 6 babies to birth, all at once? What are the records set for that? As supposedly moral and civil people, we should give human life every reasonable chance to continue and progress.[/quot



PRONATALIST ROCKS !!!!!!!!!!!