If you havent heard about it a Mum in Romania was given IVF so that she could conceive and give birth to a child. What are the ethical issues this throws up?Is it right that someone of this age should have a child?Is it any of our buisness?

Apparently the clinic is willing to offer the treatment to women 50+ in this country....

ya mom's so old she got her pension before ya were born!

well men can still father children at 66

Naturally?

i think its absolutely wrong

whether ur Christian or not

we were made a certain way and thats the way it shud be kept in terms of ages ppl bring children up

obv there are exceptions where say children are brought up by their granny etc.

but to actually ON PURPOSE choose to do it

is just fucking wrong

is she gonna breast-feed?

*pukes*

:s

and its not even as if she were someone who jus didnt have her menopause for ages

she got it reversed somehow :s

emm that was me above

She will be in her eighties when he is 18 if she makes it that long. Lets be honest as contravesial as it is, there should be a cut off point with these things.Otherwise it will effect the child to have much older parents and remember many older women have complications in brith.

If you actually want to look at it ethically...

According to the Natual Law Theory everything has a purpose. The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have a child. But this woman did not have sex to conceive. IVF is not natural. It is not natural for a woman of her age to have a child. And therefore it would be wrong. But, who are we to decide what natural actually is?

If you apply the theory of Utilitarianism which states that all you must be concerned with is "the happiness of the greatest number" then her action may be justified. She has wanted a child for a long time. I believe she has been using IVF treatment for 9 years and so this child would create a great intensity of happiness for the woman. However, you are never actually totally sure of the consequences that your actions may have. As she is 66 she could find taking care of this child incredibly hard work and she may begin to regret her choice further into the future. The child itself may resent the mother as when they get older their mother will become a burden to them and they may have to take care of her. It's not natural for the parent-child roles to be reversed; at least in such an early stage of a child's life. If the mother was to die because there is no father the child may be left as an orphan creating great unhappiness.

As for say Situation Ethics it says that the only principle you can apply to any situation is "to do whatever is the most loving thing". This woman's action was relative to love. She wanted a child to love and no doubt the child will love her back; she is the child's mother. Therefore, what this woman did is justifiable.

In my belief what this woman did is the height of selfishness. Apparently she only started using IVF treatment 9 years ago, meaning that she was still in her 50s at the time. If she was so desperate for a child, why not start at an earlier age? Or, even better, there are some awful Romanian orphanages, why didn't she just adopt a few children earlier on also? The fact that in all likeliness this woman wont even be around when her child is a teenager is really awful and one that she is probably very aware of. If new technology in science wasn't around she would have never even been able to have a child. Perhaps she should have just accepted that it wasn't meant to be.

Bloody Student!

Well Des O' Connor did.. and he's 72.


Although I don't know if it was done naturally as I just can't seem to find the home movies on Kazaa


*shudders at the thought*

There's lots of older fathers in the world but perhaps there's a biological reason why women after a certain age are unable to have children. I hate to conform to stereotypes here but they are normally the prime carers in families. If my mum weren't around to look after me and it was just me and my dad I'd probably end up dead after 2 weeks.

Anyway...the point I was making there was there's a distinction between someone concceiving naturally at an old age and unnaturally, even if you find both to be morally wrong. Whoever said "well,men can father at 72" wasmaking a point not relevant to his discussion.

I'm not too sure if any of us can say whether it's right or wrong, given that it's not up to, and has nothing to do with us. Personally, I don't think it should happen given that the parent is unlikely to be alive for much of the child's life...but then it's debatable how much positivity a parent can offer a child anyway, so a] if this parent is really ace, those eighteen years Bill estimated may be worth more than fifty to someone else, and b] people tend to move out at eighteen and have less to do with parents anyway, and while that's obviously in no way any consolation for a parent dying, it makes it slightly easier than them dying when one's four. I must stress that I really don't think it's a good idea, but I suppose those are the reasonings behind it. Personally, I find it rather selfish and wonder if these parents should adopt or foster instead.

What on earth are you talking about? Seriously?

and baphoment_irl, how old are you? 12?