High Age Limit on Pregnancy

[harryheart]

The British Government has recently been discussing about putting an Age Limit upon pregnancy and women giving birth and my basic question is do you think this is right or wrong.

The Age Limit would be placed on older women generally above 50 years old but people are still able to concieve after that period sometimes and IVF can also help these people become pregnant which in all honesty is good as some people in their younger life may not have time to start a family or may be put into certain circumstances where they just can't because of things going on.

So do you think these older women should be allowed or do you think they shouldn't? And what do you think about the British Governments idea? Is it right or wrong? And also say whether your governments are discussing this or have already implimented it.

And remember that this is people's opinions so please respect them and I do ask that people don't just give one answers as this should be a good debate!

Links:
Read The Information Box Under The Video For A Brief Summary
More Specific Account About The Problem - Video Of The Article Attached On The Page​

 

[evkl]

Programming note: the limit is on women receiving IVF treatment, not women getting pregnant. I'm reluctant to modify the title accordingly but I hope everybody keeps this in mind, there's a major difference obviously.

 

[bell02+]

Obviously I'm against something like this, I don't see how having a child when you are fifty is more socially irresponsible than having 15 children at 27, or 1 at 13. In each case the children can become a "burden" upon society, and even for that matter a child with a 30 year old can still become a "burden" as well!

Still, I'm American, a part of me doesn't want to take a side because I feel this is Brittan's problem, not mine. (It must be the un-American part to make such an ironic statement about Americans not wanting to be involved with other country's affairs. lol)

Edit:
Well, I guess that is different, but if the reasoning has to do anything with what I said, then my statement stands, if In vitro fertilization is suppose to be dangerous for women of that age then I might back off on that opinion a bit, still I believe they should be able to choose the risk or not.

 

[harryheart]

Ah yes I needed to make it a little clearer - but even with that in place I still think it's wrong as people may want the children and as I said in the first post some women just don't have the time or chance to earlier on in life and then restriciting them later on is unfair - it's also technicall unfair on the child as you're taking away their chance at life (I know they're not even concieved yet but if it's allowed then they will so ...)

 

[Transfinite]

I have issues with IVF in the first place. There are children who need to be adopted -- and sure, they're not all blond haired blue eyed white children, and no they aren't going to share your precious genetic code, but having IVF when there's a much easier, less selfish way of caring for a child is just, well, selfish.

Still, it squicks me to say "A certain class of person can and cannot do this with her body". So I'm going to have to say this is a bad thing, even if I disagree with IVF morally. Discrimination is not cool.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

I think that perhaps the issue here is that studies have shown (if this has since been contradicted by other studies, feel free to correct me) that older women have more chance of giving birth to children with down's syndrome. This being the case, I can understand why they are saying "we don't want to pay for you to make children who may have to always have assisted care at the cost of the taxpayers."

Personally though, I don't like regulations like this when enacted by a public service, but at the same time I don't think I'd have as much of a problem if it was a private insurance company who was enacting these regulations on their policies. Saying "there can be issues if you do this, so if you want to do this still, you have to pay for it yourself," isn't really something that I can complain about in circumstances like this.


The question is, would these women still be able to get IVF if they pay for it out of their own pocket, or is it being completely banned?

 

[eyeofchaos]

I personally think that women over 50, and especially over 60, should not be allowed to get IVF treatment. Why would you want to be 70 years old when your kid is 7?

I heard of this woman from Spain who had kids at 66. She bragged about the longevity in her family. And guess what? She died less than a year ago at 69.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1022-Orla...-mother-dies-two-years-after-delivering-twins

If these women wanted kids so badly, they should have had them in their twenties or thirties - or even their early forties. Now, I had a teacher who got pregnant at 45, but I think it was natural, and even if it was IVF, 45 is not too bad IMO. If it's natural (i.e. without IVF), it's not too bad. But I've heard of very few natural pregnancies over 50.

And don't get me started on men who have kids when they're over 60, like what a lot of male celebrities have done. That sickens me.

 

[bell02+]

I have issues with IVF in the first place. There are children who need to be adopted -- and sure, they're not all blond haired blue eyed white children, and no they aren't going to share your precious genetic code, but having IVF when there's a much easier, less selfish way of caring for a child is just, well, selfish.

Yes, well, sadly (but personally I feel indifferent) no one really has children for selfless reasons, so one could say you have a problem with procreation in general.

 

[Barb]

I don't see how having a child when you are fifty is more socially irresponsible than having 15 children at 27, or 1 at 13. In each case the children can become a "burden" upon society, and even for that matter a child with a 30 year old can still become a "burden" as well!

As far as being a burden on society goes, a 50-year-old woman is more likely to have a stable job with benefits (or a husband with a stable job with benefits); a teenager who hasn't completed high school and has a part-time job, if that, would likely end up on welfare.

As long as IVF treatment is paid for out-of-pocket by those wanting to have it, then I don't think an age restriction is appropriate. It's their money to spend, after all. However, common sense dictates that older women have more difficult pregnancies (after age 35, it's considered a high risk pregnancy). I just turned 40 and while I am perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy to term, I wouldn't want to deal with the 24/7 care a newborn requires at this point in my life.

 

[evkl]

As for my opinion, think it's well within the rights of a health insurance system to determine what it will and will not cover. As IVF is both elective and very expensive, I don't think the NHS is obliged to provide it to 50+ year old women.

 

[Terra Force]

The capitalist governments of the world are becoming more idiotic and corrupt every day. I'm surrounded by idiots! Who in the right mind would make such a stupid decision?

 

[Takoto]

Eh? Is this how Britain plans to keep the population down...? Guh. Women should be able to choose, not the Government.

 

[Rath]

Something has to be done about overpopulation, but this isn't it.

 

[evkl]

Eh? Is this how Britain plans to keep the population down...? Guh. Women should be able to choose, not the Government.

Should it really be the British government's role to pay for all procedures women want? If they want it on their own, they aren't forbidden from paying for it with their own money. It's just that the NHS won't cover it.