Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder whether the IVF had something to do with the cancer. I imagine to kick start her ovaries she would have had to be on quite high doses (this is from someone who is going through this so i'm not saying IVF will always cause cancer).
I didn't read the story but she probably used donor eggs. I don't think there is any kick starting of ovaries THAT old.
the very hard part for many of us to understand was that she was aware of the risk and wanted it more than living. its a woman thing. the move "steel magnolias" is a must.
This is an example of some very bad judgment on the part of the mother and the doctor. I'm fundamentally against regulating this kind of thing, but people need to have some common sense...
I'm glad you included this quote in your comments.
It made me remember that my stance on reproductive matters has been just that... between a woman and her doctor.
I apologize for my comment on regulation. I'll be in my cave thinking.
RCOG and NHS (http://www.library.nhs.uk/GENETICCONDITIONS/ViewResource.aspx?resID=293331 - broken link) and the March of Dime's even and many other groups concerned with child and maternal health issues all suggest that having a baby after the age of about 35 increases risks for both mother and child. I feel that the closer a person gets to 40, the more they should rethink their decision to have a biological child. For men, as well, not just women. If they really want to become a parent - adopt! There are so many children who need homes, and yet so few adults wishing to become parents willing to share their homes with children who are already here. And then you have the people getting IVF treatments and bringing more kids into the world whom wouldn't naturally be here without the interference of science meddling with nature... It's heartbreaking. The world is overpopulated as it is, the world can't sustain selfish choices like these. That's what it boils down to - people being selfish. The world is not going to change for the better until people stop acting selfish and stop messing around with nature.
Are you serious?
Why on earth would I try to get pregnant at 54?
My point is that just because you are still having periods doesn't mean you can get pregnant. If you haven't tried lately, how would you know if you could still get pregnant? jeez. I wasn't suggesting it!
RCOG and NHS (http://www.library.nhs.uk/GENETICCONDITIONS/ViewResource.aspx?resID=293331 - broken link) and the March of Dime's even and many other groups concerned with child and maternal health issues all suggest that having a baby after the age of about 35 increases risks for both mother and child. I feel that the closer a person gets to 40, the more they should rethink their decision to have a biological child. For men, as well, not just women. If they really want to become a parent - adopt! There are so many children who need homes, and yet so few adults wishing to become parents willing to share their homes with children who are already here.
Adoption is not an easy path to take. There is a lot of heartbreak.
And parenting your own biological children is a piece of cake...
I was not referring to parenting, I was referring to the wait and then having the birth mother change her mind. Some adopting couples go through that several times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.