Login : Register Home : Tags

pregnancy

Gender hypocrisy or simple biology?

Anglosphere

More and more elderly use modern IVF techniques to reproduce (again), spawning children who will face a double generation gap when growing up. With the vitality of elderly these days, this in itself is not a problem. But image baby JJ Farrant and his 62-year-old mother in the future, or pregnant 63-year-old Patricia and her eye apple: come graduation day, these mommies will be 80. Their grandchildren will most likely never get to know them. Is it even ethical for doctors to assist in this? Some say it's not a big deal, because older men have been fathers:

"But let's remember, men have always been able to father children into their 60s, their 70s, even occasionally their 80s so some of the furore about a woman having a child when she is 62 - I think there is a certain amount of gender hypocrisy there."

I hate to see sexism being brought up here.

Firstly, there is a huge biological difference between men and women. Men's significant part in the biological process of child birth ends at the conception. The role of the woman has only barely started at that point. This is not hypocrisy, but a simple acknowledgment of some basic biology that even a 5-year-old would be able to explain to any sane person. Both parents need to provide healthy genes, but the woman continues to play a critical physical role for at least nine months.

Also, people who object to IVF for the "crumbled" are not likely to recommend old men to reproduce. Male sperm degrades as well. But arguing against assisted, pro-active late-age parenthood which is not possible without extensive medical intervation is not quite the same as accepting the fact that in the end, men are biologically capable to naturally reproduce at later ages. As such this occasionally happens, even when not recommended. But to assist or even indulge it?

If one were to accuse me of ageism instead: a 62-year-old woman using IVF will clearly not be ovulating anymore. My criticism is based on a naturally occurring biological trait of a woman's body and not her age, even if the latter paints some interesting pictures.

However, I do not think this should be forbidden except for cases of appointable risk of permanent harm to the child. But I do dislike it very much.

(It sucks to be a libertarian. You may only use government forcefully where necessary and let everything else get away with criticism.)

Crap!

Personal

I'm never having sex again.

Got a phone call from a girl I met in February last night. Knocked her up, isn't that just wonderful? As if I haven't got enough bills to pay, I suppose I can now add child support to the list of monthly expenses. I'm going to be a daddy. Again - for those of who who have known me since 1997 - although this one is probably not made up by the mother like that one probably was (I never found out as we got into a fight and at 19 I was precisely the kind of guy to figure: well, whatever, bye-bye).

Sigh.

Boy or girl?

Personal

Meet the perfect Valentines gift for those who cannot drop a hint in more subtle ways. GenSelect: "hi-tech" gender specific nutriceutical tablets, a scientifically formulated douche bottle, a digital ovulation thermometer, ovulation predictors.. with products like these, no wonder the conservative vote is winning territory.

At $200 a kit it's a bit too expensive for practical jokes, though.

© Copyright 1995-2009 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)