A 66-year-old British woman (yup – 66!), unmarried (of course), went to the Ukraine and paid doctors over there to impregnate her with fertilized eggs. The eggs were donated, as was the sperm, but the uterus – zapped with a regimen of necessary hormones – was hers.
She is due to give birth by Caesarean section next month. Wow. What a medical miracle! We have the technological know-how to allow a woman almost 70 years old to “make a baby” for her very own self! Personally, I would have suggested a shih-tzu for her case of loneliness instead – she and the dog might live the same number of blissful years together.
What about the child? What about being born to a woman who could be your great-grandmother and statistically will not live to see you finish puberty or high school? Well, that doesn’t seem to matter – it’s all about what the adult wants and not about how children pay the price.
Yes, I know – parents of any age can die from cancer or car accidents, and, of course, that’s true. But this woman’s chances of dying before her child reaches adulthood are pretty clear. And with no daddy in the picture, what does this child do for family?
The so-called “Octomom,” Nadya Suleman, also wanted what she wanted, and now many children suffer not being able to get to a teat because there are too many competitors, and they have no dad to comfort them, either.
I’m so proud (yeah, right) of women who have taken on the mantle of “I am woman, hear me roar.” They serve to make the example of how low women and humanity can go in diminishing the needs of children because of their own wants. Shameful!TrackBack URI
The “Work and Family” section of The Wall Street Journal recently had an essay describing why some single women choose to freeze their eggs. Mind you – the essay was about single women.
Evidently, only 2-4% of frozen eggs once thawed yield live births. Also, it’s not yet clear whether babies born from such eggs will face any long-term health problems. So it would seem that many women risk making important life decisions (like staying with a career long in life) based on false assumptions that their fertility is secure.
The procedure (which ranges from about $9,000 to $14,000) has been used as a way to preserve fertility for cancer patients facing treatments likely to render them sterile. This is a benevolent use of this budding technology.
However, most of the interest seems to come from women delaying marriage and child-bearing because they are ferociously career-oriented and/or can’t find or keep a good man. I would like to send them each a copy of my book, “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands,” because it is cheaper and more to the point.
These women want to “make a close family” (never mind that there would be no Daddy in this “close” family), or give their parents the “gift” of a grandchild (making a child a present). Nowhere in the article did the notion of a single woman making a baby for herself point out that this may not be in the best interest of the child! I guess that doesn’t matter.TrackBack URI