Never Too Late, But Should Be!

[SciVille]

This is kind of related to the "live forever" thread, but different enough for its own topic. I posted this rant in another message board a couple months ago. You guys'll hate me for this probably and will barbecue it to no end (despite my very pro-youth intentions), but what the hell? Enjoy!

I just don't understand it. There is all this research being done so post-menopausal women can get pregnant. This way, they can spend all of their good childbearing years doing whatever else and finally can have a baby after they've spent a few decades doing things for themselves. My big question for these women and the researchers enabling this...WHY?!?!?!

Now, I'm about the most non-ageist person you'll ever meet, but this whole thing just burns me up. Not too long ago, a 57-year-old woman gave birth to twins she conceived artificially. Let's look at this another way. A 57-year-old woman needs to wake up at all hours to tend to two screaming little ones. In a year and a half, they'll be running around, in the opposite direction of each other, and I just hope her knees are feeling okay enough to be able to chase after them. How about being 75 years old when they graduate from high school? That's just one year younger than the average life expectancy in the United States. How will she feel when she realizes there is a VERY good chance she will never see her grandchildren? She already passed through her fertile years completely ignoring her natural maternal urges.

Then let's think about the kids in all this. How much of a mother would they even have? They'd probably want to play outside with her, but she'd get tired so quickly. Also, generations change considerably over time. How much would she even be able to relate to these kids? Parents in their 30s and 40s have enough trouble relating to their kids. Can you imagine one in her 60s? Also, there's a good chance this woman got herself into this thinking "Oh, it would be nice to have a couple of babies." Well, guess what. They'll only be babies for the first two years. You now have two people you need to guide through life. The oughts are a far and away different time to be children than the 1950s! Just because you are so much older does not mean you'll make a better mother. Being further from your own youth does make a difference. Also, people learn to be parents from their own parents in some way or another. Yet these twins are without a father (from what I gather) and their mother probably would not be able to make proper time for them. She'd be more a grandmother to them. This sort of thing is true in my own family. My grandfather was born when his father was 51. Grandma was telling me just last night he never felt like he had a father, and this had effects on his relationship with my aunt, uncle, and dad. A cousin-once-removed has the same situation and the same problem. It is a real insult to these kids that they were so clearly a back-burner priority.

Another thing bothers me about this. Why do so many people go into the medical field and waste their time, efforts, and research money on such pointless ventures? Aren't there enough people in the world? Also, I'm sick of so much tampering with the most beautiful process in life: procreation. God allows us to conceive via a very pleasing process called sexual intercourse, yet somehow we find ways to even make THAT obsolete! Also, we females are allotted anywhere from thirty to forty years in which conception is possible, although only about fifteen of them are really good. Use them then! If not, having children is not a necessity. If you want kids so badly, make your life fit for them when you can make them naturally, and for God's sake, let them have two parents! Children are not experiments. They are not your property. They are not your "fertility trophies". They are a privilege and above all a responsibility. You have no "right" to children. If you've hit menopause and are childless, then you weren't meant to be a mother. You spent your life doing something else you were meant for. God gave you a certain number of years, and it's your own fault if you've spent them on things that could very well be done afterward. When you could have had children naturally, you kept putting it off, but now that it's too late, all of a sudden you're begging for a second chance. You just want it because you can't have it. Waiting until you're financially stable enough? There's no guarantee you will be "stable enough" when you're so old. It means nothing if you're having them just for the sake of having them. Those situations just lead to little ones you pay attention to at first, and then you realize you brought humans into the world who want and need things like everyone else. You lose your interest in them, ignore them, and they reach puberty and are realizing how harsh the world is, yet you gave up on your parenting duties long ago, and that's how we have the more miserable and suicidal people in our society. You are doing nobody a favor through this artificial conception. Stop screwing with nature. You are not so special. You deserve nothing. And, medical professionals working on this, can't you just work on curing cancer or AIDS and quit this other crap? I don't know if you noticed, but it's not exactly a great thing you're doing. And for the news media, stop acting like this is such a miracle breakthrough. Just because a few medical scientists have let nature-tampering powers go to their heads does not make this a great service to society or even anything people should be rushing right out and doing. It is wrong. See it for what it is. These people are not heroic. They just have too much money and too much pride. They're just selfish. End of story.

[KPalicz]

mmmmm, barbecue....

But for this, I'm using sweet and sour. I agree Kat

My father was 35 when I was born, which isn't abnormal, but I've always told myself I don't want to wait that long and be that old for my kids. I definitely don't want to wait past 30. Of course I'm 23 now and I don't even (yet) have a girlfriend, so who knows. I've got 7 years to figure it out, but I totally agree with your rant.

[Yasha]

I really don't see a problem with people having kids at an age older than many of us are used to. As long as they are up for the task, good for them.

[XavierAKadafi]

Meh, I can see where you're coming from, entirely. These kids are going to be in their mid twenties when their mother dies. It's not going to be easy on them to have a mother who can't do all of which a parent needs to be able to do. I can understand having children at a later age, mid thirties, even early 40s, but never as old as late 50s..

[Yasha]

Well that's assuming people are dying in the 80's, 90's, etc. I don't assume that our generation won't be living at least till 150. Everything we are looking at medically, technologically, sociologically, etc, suggests that 150 is a conservative estimate. I could be wrong, but it's more likely that I'm are right about that. So I don't see anything wrong with someone having kids at an older age, assuming they will be there for the kids later on in life or that they have strong extended friend and family networks to cushion the blow if something happens to a parent.

[SciVille]

I can see it now.

"Oh, you conceived your child through sex? And you were younger than 70? How old fashioned!"

[Yasha]

Maybe for some people, but I think we are looking at more fracturing of social norms. I doubt there will be one central meme as to conceiving through sex being old fashioned. Under 50 maybe.

[Ditka]

Just because someone lives to be 150 doesn't mean they have the physical capabilities to raise children in their 60's.

[Yasha]

Actually, that isn't true. If we solve the reasons why people are dying by 120 (at the latest) now, then we will have solved most the same problems that are making people fall apart with age to begin with. When I talk about lifespan increasing I'm not just talking about old age being longer. I'm talking about healthy, young, fertile life lasting longer.

[SciVille]

Remember when people rarely lived past 30 or 40? Horrendously short life, but I doubt the words "must be 21" were used that much.

In living to be 150, I'd worry about the infantilizing of 30-year-olds!

Also, it just seems when people try too hard to have the ideal scenarios, they just fuck it up worse than if they simply strived for adequate. Sure, it'd be very nice to have a nice nest egg by the time you've got kids, but not everybody is so successful. The advantage to living to 150 would be being able to see your great-great-great-grandchildren!

But I suppose I'm just family-oriented like that.

[Yasha]

Well I don't think age restrictions have to be based on some hard coded ratio. I think it is more likely that as we reduce the damage related to old age, people will be less interested in what particular age anyone is. But it's really up to us to make a difference on that front.

[KPalicz]

I think we are already seeing age restrictions increase. And MADD and others saying the brain develops until 25. If we start living longer people will be working longer, there will be less jobs, and people will insist that young people will stay out of the job market longer. That means they might extend high school (as some have suggested) extend college, and folks will strongly be encouraged and expected to go to graduate school and get later degrees to compeate. Starting life at 30 I can totally picture in this 150 year old world.

[Yasha]

That is definitely one trend. But on the other hand you have people like us pushing back. I think MADD's time has come and gone.

[XavierAKadafi]

Even without groups as extreme as us, there are plenty of people who are just sick and tired of the bullshit MADD puts out. The annoying commercials that they know are wrong. They were drinking when they were younger than 21 and it didn't cause them to be alchoholic raging idiots. MADD's time is fading fast.

[Yasha]

I really don't see us as extreme. Just youthful. NYRA is set up to be a mainstream organization with widespread support. Just give it time.

[Bongermann]

We are extreme in that everyone else are just moderate. Anyways, I thought after a certain age there was increased risk of "special" *read: retarded* children? Anyone care to back me up on this or shall I do it myself?

[Yasha]

That would again assume that no medical progress is made alongside life extension. I think that is highly unlikely.

[SciVille]

That is true, Bong, AFAIK, but I don't think they've pinpointed exactly why older women are more likely to have babies with Down's Syndrome. It just tends to happen that way.

[Bongermann]

Probably just that machine being run down too far to be usable to produce new, working machines, but still functional for other puposes.

[SciVille]

Maybe.

It's part of my point here. Jason is very optimistic about future advances, yet all in all it would be easier if we'd just do things in the time allotted. Would you rather do something when it's naturally safe and possible or decide "nah, I'll wait until I'll need to undergo all kinds of risky and expensive procedures to simulate nature for whatever reason".

Furthermore, pregnancy checkups are expensive. Deliveries are expensive. The children themselves are REALLY expensive. Shouldn't getting pregnant still be the part that is free?