[firegirl]

That is so selfish! I hope there is enough family to take care of that child once she is unable to.

[Menalipa]

Originally Posted by EternalAbyss ↗

I think it's very selfish of the mother to do that - for one, the risk of the baby developing Down's Syndrome (and other conditions I'm sure) greatly increases the older the mother gets after age 35, and also that child will likely not be able to enjoy a normal childhood because of issues such as the mother not being able to be active enough to keep up with the child, which robs him/her of the fun and activities they would normally enjoy with a young(er) parent. The child will also probably end up having to take care of the mother at a young age, and may lose her before they grow up and have the mom see them reach such milestones in life like graduating, getting married, having a child of their own, etc... That isn't fair to make a child go through that just because you decide you want a baby at the age you should be retired and enjoying grand children. The fact that the procedure was forbidden after age 45 and had to be done in another country only reinforces all of that

She didn't have the risk of down syndrome on her part because she used donated eggs.

[ambvlnt.ideal]

Originally Posted by SnowBun ↗

Just FYI as long as she used a donor egg, there is no more chance of down syndrome than any other woman. The reason women are more prone to having downs syndrome children over a certain age is the deterioration of their own eggs.

On the other hand, I know plenty of kids and teens who lost their parents young, from cancer or suicide. My last husband was diagnosed with cancer when our son was 7. Shit happens, who cares if this woman wanted a baby. At least it will be loved. With all the stories of younger parents beating and shaking their kids to death, or murdering their kids, I would say this kid has a better chance than alot.

Sorry to hear about your husband and all. But Cancer is unplanned you know, This woman know's she is old, she knows people are going to think she is wrong but she still did it. It was her choice. I personally feel like the child is intentionally being cheated here as opposed being a victim to unforeseen circumstance. Like a previous poster said it's going to difficult for this child growing up. Even if her mother stays healthy and cancer free, there is a large chance that this kid is only going to know their mother for 30 years, and half that time could be spent taking care of her who knows.

[Roelly118]

Dumb bitch is gonna die and leave that kid to suffer without a mother. How selfish is she?

[misery93]

That's just wonderful!

[Caf002]

[QUOTE=EternalAbyss;1837837]I think it's very selfish of the mother to do that - for one, the risk of the baby developing Down's Syndrome (and other conditions I'm sure) greatly increases the older the mother gets after age 35, and also that child will likely not be able to enjoy a normal childhood because of issues such as the mother not being able to be active enough to keep up with the child, which robs him/her of the fun and activities they would normally enjoy with a young(er) parent. The child will also probably end up having to take care of the mother at a young age, and may lose her before they grow up and have the mom see them reach such milestones in life like graduating, getting married, having a child of their own, etc... That isn't fair to make a child go through that just because you decide you want a baby at the age you should be retired and enjoying grand children. The fact that the procedure was forbidden after age 45 and had to be done in another country only reinforces all of that [/QUOTE

I believe that she had in vitro fertilization, so Down syndrome would not apply. But I do agree that she should have taken into consideration the age factor. Being a 78 yo parent to a 15 yo is not something that I would want to deal with.

[Robin1957]

She's is 63?!! She looks 70, easily. I hope her health is better!

She already has at least one child. At her age if she still had 'baby fever' she could have volunteered at hospitals, child care centers, babysat for friends & neighbors. Lots of ways to have children in your life without making one in a Petri dish.

Well, I hope she lives a very long, very healthy life - for the sake of her baby.

[rheedork]

What to do when retiring.. Have a baby!

[TypeOnegative]

The odds of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome are negligible. Out of 6 million US pregnancies a year 20,000 test positive for carrying a child with DS. Of those only 50 percent are carried through the first trimester. And of those only 40 percent are carried through the second trimester. Meaning only 4,000 DS babies are born at maximum a year. Which is .06 percent of babies born.

Even if a 60 year old was 200 times as likely to have a baby with DS (they’re not) it’d still be only 1 in 10, and of those only .02 would make it to term due to the odds of miscarriage. Essentially, 1000 sixty-year-old women would need to be having babies each year for two babies with Down syndrome to be born (assuming they’re 200 times as likely to carry a baby with DS).

Those propaganda pamphlets love to scare you with BS “facts” like you become twice as likely to have a child with Down syndrome once you hit 40, but they don’t like to give you the actual math. When the number of DS babies is five percent of one percent of healthy babies, doubling that is still only ten percent on one percent. If you’re going to harass a woman and call her selfish for taking the risk of having a baby who has a 99.9 percent chance of being born healthy, then you’re just being an asshat.

[FavaBeans]