Nope Baps is 28!

I've only just found out that 'baps' is male too! and 28. lord.
I just assumed from the posting style....

do you reckon she'd change her nappy same time as her kids?

Yes. that was rather incoherent wasn't it? I blame the wine.


ANYWAY

A man naturally fathering a child at 72 and a woman mothering a child using IVF at 66 are two completely different moral cases.

ah right, i didn't see how a father could unnaturally 'father' a child.

I'm not bothered about this whole discussion, really, so what if the child's mum will be 85 by the time the child is 20? What right has anyone to say 'No, you can't have children actually, sorry.'

Losing a parent is probably the most traumatic event of anyone's life. That child will grow up knowing that by the time they are 30, realistically, their mother isn't going to be around. That's if they're both very lucky and this woman is healthy.
If she stays active and healthy, the kid will probably have until s/he's about 15 before they'll need to start looking after her. Ages 15-25 will be spent looking after her a lot of the time and the emotional trauma caused by that will be immense.

It's not to do with whether or not anyone has the right to tell someone they can't have a child, it's about the fact that this woman obviously is very selfish and hasn't thought about the child enough. She needs to have been given a long time to think about this, and shown case studies of what her child will have to go through before she actually makes a decision. That would probably be the most 'right' thing to do. I personally think there should definately be a cut-off point.

My nan had my mom when she was about 50. Her friends would say things like "I saw you out with your nan the other day..." and she'd get really upset because it was her mom.
Imagine that, but more so because the woman is older and has been in the news so much. The kid won't even be able to avoid embarassment by saying that she's his/her nan because everyone will know already.

I'd have said losing your child is more traumatic. Or being raped.
And you're about a month too late, I've not heard a single thing on this in weeks.

Wrong...in my humble opinion shes not goin to be in any fit condition to be able to handle a kid at her age...
Kids of that age never ever stop moving and have waaayyy to much energy!!...
and can u honestly say that when the kid reaches there most crazy,the mother ,who'll be in her 70's, will be able to look after the child properly??..
lets be honest,probly not...

It's not about the kids though yet, they're only hypothetical children atm. The point is the woman at the centre of this is being denied the chance to have children because a lot of other people who have nothing to do with it don't like the idea of it and are critical of it.

Like comradestripes post at the top of the page.

I agree.

She isnt being denied though.She had the child

she has?
Why is there still an argument then? What's it going to change now?

Damn the "Think-of-the-children Brigade".