Romanian woman gives birth at 67

[MaineDem]

Romanian hospital officials say a 67-year-old woman in Bucharest has given birth to a baby girl.

Adriana Iliescu, who had undergone fertility treatment for nine years before becoming pregnant, is thought to be the oldest recorded mother.

The girl was born prematurely by Caesarean section after her twin sister died in the womb, the hospital said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4179057.stm

Good grief!!!

[amazona]

1. sheesh

In an overpopulated world, there should really be some limits to what mentally ill women are allowed to do. A 67 year old should not be allowed to make babies. Hell, I'll go further and say the same should be true for 67 year old men. Don't breed 'em when you aren't going to be around to raise 'em.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[tx_dem41]

2. I can't think of anything less liberal....

...than to give Government the power over one's ability to bear children.

Bearing children is one of the most personal decisions that humans exercise. If you really think that Government should have that power, than its a very easy step for some to think that Government should also have the ability to ban abortion.

[TahitiNut]

3. I agree. At the same time, I question the medical ethics.

There's no "illness" being treated. There's no "disabiltiy" or "malady." This, to me, is far worse than cosmetic surgery which does not involve another person and which, in most cases, can be ethically rationalized on a psychological basis even when used for other than gross disfigurement.

[tx_dem41]

4. I agree with you about the "medical ethics" issue.

But that doesn't mean by default that its a Government issue.

[TahitiNut]

6. No question about it. However ...

Was this "medical care" subsidized by the public? Does Romania have National Health Care? Was this "treatment" covered? If so, I'd argue that it should NOT be covered.

I would fight against any government prohibition. Absolutely. That does not mean that the medical care resources sustained by the public should be deployed in such a fashion.

[tx_dem41]

8. Good point on the subsidizing by the public.

Food for thought.

[Ms_Mary]

5. The government, no. But ethically, I can't get behind fertility treatments

for people in their 60's. Medically, I think there should be some generally accepted guidelines. A 67 year old woman is not biologically intended to be pregnant or mother a newborn.

[tx_dem41]

7. I agree Ms. Mary.....

I wasn't implying any condoning of such fertility treatment at that age.

[Ms_Mary]

9. I agree it doesn't need to be 'governed.' Definitely disturbing, though.

[Tweed]

15. Your post made me realize this:

When the daughter is college-aged, her mother will be 87... if she lives that long. That's just wrong.

[amazona]

10. I am not a liberal on this topic

There is no liberality and no freedom if the world is crushed to bits by over-population.

The freedom of other species right to exist is being taken away by the thousands. We are losing 30 species a day if you count plants and invertebrates. My right to enjoy the full beauty of the earth as it is meant to be is taken away.

And all so people can spawn without control. Why does this one "freedom" trump all others when it will kill what is beautiful and meaningful about human existence?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[tx_dem41]

11. I respect your thoughts on overpopulation and its effect on the

environment. What do you think the Government should do to control it? Outlaw births after maybe 2 per family, which would lead to "forced" abortions. I'm not saying that this would necessarily be your solution, but I could see such pure ideology leading to that solution.

[LWolf]

19. I've spent a lifetime thinking about this,

and I don't have a real solution. I can't see, at this point, any direction that "solves" the issues. Solve one issue, and you've intensified another. I don't believe that anyone has the "right" to bring harm or damage to other people, or to habitats, ecosystems, etc..

Of course, defining "harm" is the sticking point, isn't it?

Still, over population is a big issue.

Another big issue, for me, is that sticky area of parental responsibility. Bringing life into the world means, imo, that you are responsible for raising that life, keeping it safe, nurturing it, and teaching it not to harm the world.

And yet another issue, for me, is spending our resources on matters of infertility when we don't need to increase the population. That's a waste of resources that could be spent on keeping the already alive healthier.

I've often wished that we could put all of those resources on developing safer, more reliable, reversible birth control. I've often wished that we could just, at the onset of puberty, sterilize every last human being. Then they could apply for a license to have a child, just like we do for a dog or cat. They could provide evidence that they have intellectual, social, emotional, and financial resources and skills to parent a child. I've often wished that, because I've spent too much time dealing with the messes created by people that shouldn't ever have been allowed near children.

Of course, that is also an unworkable solution, because then you've got some corruptible organization defining who is "worthy" to be a parent.

How about automatic sterilization for all, and a simple lottery to allow a very limited number of births each year? If births were rare, wouldn't those children be more likely to be nurtured and cared for by all, with all the resources available to society?

I'm just thinking here. I don't know what a REAL solution would be. I just know that there needs to be one.

Perhaps an education campaign, to change the fundamental cultural belief that we can't live happy, complete lives without reproducing?

[TahitiNut]

13. Well, I've done my part.

I have not inflicted the world with my own progeny. How many others "walk the talk"? :dunce:

[youngred]

17. are you Pro-Life then?

this is the flip-side of a woman's right to chose. She chooses to get pregnant (after nine years of fertility training) and if you disallow her to have the child that's violating her rights.

Overpopulation is a problem, and I'd love to see that not have happened, but you can't limit people's freedoms like htat

[auntAgonist]

18. Mentally ill?

Where in the article does it suggest she's mentally ill? I agree on many points that this woman at 67 is too old to be bearing and raising children. but your line .. "In an overpopulated world, there should really be some limits to what mentally ill women are allowed to do." comes from what?

[ismnotwasm]

12. I suppose this isn't the point

But isn't Romania one of those counties where there are many orphans, and a great need for adoptive parents? I agree the world is overpopulated, but I also would hate to start regulating who gives birth. However, at the very least, this women could have looked around her, and saw the need of unwanted children, and stepped in to help an already exsisting life.

[MaineDem]

14. I'm sorry this got moved to the Lounge

I truly believe it's an LBN story.

:shrug:

[tx_dem41]

16. At the very least, its "General Discussion".....

...not sure how this is a Lounge thread??

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Of course, she's a vampire. Vampires don't age! (nt)