Did you hear the one about the 72-year-old woman who gave birth? Yeah, it’s not a joke, but it feels like it should be. While struggling with infertility is a very real and very difficult part of many people’s lives, one has to question the judgment of the new, elderly parents and their fertility clinic for the sake of a baby who could be orphaned. It really comes down to the fact that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Daljinder Kaur is not exactly sure how old she is but knows she’s seven years younger than her husband who is 79. Call me crazy, but if you’re so old that you don’t know how old you are for sure, should you really be bringing a child into the world?
“We will raise him and give him a proper education,” Kaur told the Telegraph newspaper. “I had faith in Almighty that I will have my own baby, and Waheguru answered my prayers.” Waheguru is the Sikh term for God.
Video of the couple with their new bundle of joy is touching and super sweet, but they’re old enough to be the babe’s great-grandparents, so the question of how long they’ll actually be around to raise him is an important one.
The couple began undergoing fertility treatments at The National Fertility and Test Tube Baby Centre in Hisar, India, in 2013. After two failed IVF attempts, Kaur conceived last July. The center has come under fire before for encouraging older women to have babies, but this case takes the cake.
“We condemn this totally,” said Dr. Hrishikesh Pai, who serves as the head of India’s federation of gynecologists. “With science, you can make a 90-year-old person pregnant, what’s the big deal? The question is not about technicalities, it’s about ethics.”
Exactly!
Now, I don’t want to diminish the very real struggles that many people go through when they discover they have problems with fertility and want to conceive. It can be the most stressful experience of some people’s lives, and it’s far more common that most of us realize. As many as 6.7 million women in the U.S. are unable to have a child naturally. That’s 11 percent of reproductive-age women in the U.S. The WHO estimates that 186 million women of reproductive age — 15- to 49-years-old — maintain a “child wish.” This means that one in every four couples struggles with infertility.
But there’s more at stake here. This isn’t a case in which one parent is significantly older than the other, thereby increasing the chances that the child will have at least one parent around for a while. It also isn’t a case in which the child will have adult siblings to take care of him when they pass away.
No, this is a couple who are without any other children, who are elderly and far past what the WHO considers to be of reproductive age. They easily may not see this kid from elementary school. What is that going to do to their child? How is that going to affect his life?
We’ve reached the point in time when science can give us things that we only dreamed of previously. As Dr. Pai said, it’s not about the science and the fact that new technology allows us to do crazy cool stuff; it’s about ethics. It’s about right and wrong. In this case, it’s about what’s right for that newborn.
-Megan Winkler
Sources:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/72-year-old-becomes-first-time-mom-thanks-to-IVF-7444457.php
https://www.asrm.org/detail.aspx?id=2322
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/infertility/burden/en
Read recently of people in Tibet who often live to 145 yrs. At 80 they are still vibrant and able to have children. Gives something to think about with our expectations and what goes for long life or health care!
I believe we are supposed to live past 100 healthily. But with what they spray and force us to eat get injected with and all they have shortened our lives.
No and that is all I am saying
It is not up to anyone else to judge if or when someone decides to have children or not to. Get rid of judging and you can live your life – live and let live. IF they are happy, so what ??? Who cares??? I wonder why everyone has something to say about someone else’s business. That is the disturbing part – the fact that someone wrote an article about this because they are sitting on a high horse somewhere.
Wrong, strawberry! If you go back in time, you will see that human lifespans have been pretty much continually increasing. And in America, we have on average the longest spans. Most likely due to better understanding of nutrition and taking care of health issues like diseases and such. I agree that there is a lot of crap being ingested that probably doesn’t do us good, but to say that we have shorter lifespans because of this is disingenuous and wrong.
To have a baby at 72 is the height of arrogance and should be criminal, The state should force the parents to fund an annuity for the child so when they die (not if), the child can be cared for. The parents are moronic idiots.
I think that if a woman or a man can be in their seventies and raise a grandchild then a woman can be any age and have children, after all John the Baptist’s mother and the virgin Mary’s mother were both in their eighties or so when they conceived. it is the quality of live you give them while you have them that matters. sure it is nice to bee there until your children are raised, and if you take care of yourself, you still could be. there are many women who are living to be old enough to have children late and still live into their nineties and centennials.
we don’t have to eat and live with the way the establishment is trying to make us live, we can grow as much as we can, avoid doctors and their prescriptions, and use herbs and other natural foods for nourishment and medicines.
you are so wrong, if a woman has yearned for a child so badly then I don’t see what the problem is. There are many reasons why women want to have children, and just because they want to is just as valid as those who want to use any excuse they want for not having children. But just being a mother is the best thing that can happen for the mother and the child.
i say yes.
There are plenty of babies with no homes, no families if somebody really wants a baby there are always babies to care for and love. It is completely irresponsible and unnatural hence the reason for artificial means. The child needs parents who in the normal course of events will be there to care for it until it is able to look after itself. Completely selfish.
adopting a baby and having one of your own are not the same thing, and the laws are different, so dont try to tell me that it is or that adopting some body’s else’s child is the same, esp if you want to pass along your genes.
that is true, but adopting is not the same as having one of your own. so don’t try to tell me it is. adopting is okay, but the has a time and place, just like everything else does. If a person does not want or even if they do want to adopt, it is different then genetically having one of your own, it has been that way since the dawn of time, and is even illustrated in the bible.
in the bible people lived for hundreds of years, it was only during the dark ages when life spans got shortened, because they did things like used lead in their make up and use lead in the walls, ect.