World's oldest mum dies

[PuppyMonkey]

Just saw this on Sky...

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Carmen-Bousada-Worlds-Oldest-Mother-Dies-From-Cancer-Leaving-Tw ins-Aged-Two-Behind/Article/200907315338955?lpos=WorldNewsFirstHomeArticleTeaserRegion2&lid=A RTICLE15338955CarmenBousada%2CWorldsOldestMother%2CDiesFromCancerLeavingTwinsAgedTwoBe hind

i feel saddest for the children who are the by-product of her selfishness and the women she used to get what she wanted.

i think of Sylvia Pataki, RIP, born and brought up in Romania, one of my mother's dearest friends. Who was brought up thinking it was okay for her to be exploited by anyone and would do it in a second to feed her son, and the millions like her. who lived her adult life until she was 32 years old in poverty it's hard to imagine here and how she could have been the one to risk her health and life to serve the desires of people like this gal.

and how that's NOT okay.

But by the same token why do women have babies in warzones? Or in famine ravaged countries? Having babies is an essentially 'selfish' thing to do.

Oh, come on, MT! You're learned. You're very well-educated. You know women in regions like this usually have a) no access to birth control b) NO right to refuse a man sex, be it her husband or anyone else c) no access to abortion.

That's no comparison.

I sincerely apologise, I failed to quote.

'But by the same token why do women have babies in warzones? Or in famine ravaged countries? Having babies is an essentially 'selfish' thing to do.'

Yes, it is possible to die of cancer at any age, but it is a hell of a lot likelier when you are OLD. 80per cent of breast cancers occur in women over 40. Saying the risk of death at 30 and 70 is equal is just plain wrong. It's like saying that crossing the road on a zebra crossing after looking both ways carries the same risk as standing in the middle of the motorway at night.
I don't think babies should be created to satisfy the whims of elderly women, especially single ones. I think it is morally wrong. At least all those old men have babies with much younger women, so their children aren't left orphans when the old parent drops dead, as they tend to do, when the child is a baby or toddler.

I don't find it okay for one woman's needs to come at the expense of other women who may have been exploited in countries known for their levels of poverty and disgraceful lack of rights for women.

A mistake - 80 per cent of breast cancers happen in women over 50, not 40. There is no such thing as dying of 'old age' - what happens is the risk of a hell of a lot of fatal diseases increase with age and organs start to fail.

agree with all expats post on this thread

No, I agree, it's certainly not okay.

But women in warzones and poor societies do have more kids than women in stable societies. This is precisely demonstraed by the upcoming pensions crisis in the West. There is a massive trade off here. These women have no privledge of pursuing any other strategy of leaving a legacy other than having children. They can't decide to have one or two kids while pursuing their persoanl career goals - neither can the men actually. They know infant mortality is high - this is why why have more kids. Its a terrible trade off.

I don't mean 'sefish' as meaning 'bad' - but natural. For better or worse.

I'm not passing any moral judgement on these women. They are simply doing the best that they can - sometimes - often times - in terrible circumstances.

That doesn't eqaute to this woman of course. It was precisely becasue she lives in the West that she could have this choice.

I'd like to hear more about her extended family actually. If she had already had kids, etc.

Expat - some really good arguments there about thinking what the human cost of these women's wants is.

I was going to refer to The Moral Maze programme: I think that woman was 72 and had decided that now was "the right time" to have a baby because it would be "pioneering" and "exciting" [for her]. It was encouraging that she didn't put forward a "right" to have a child. But she did seem incapable of seeing anything from a child's point of view, for example of recognising that the chances of the child losing its mother at a very young age were very high and that this was a massive trauma for anyone, especially a child. She just kept saying that life expectancy was going up all the time and where was the problem.

While it might seem "unfair" that men can go on fathering children for decades longer than women without assistance, I'm afraid I can't be persuaded that we should do everything just because the science makes it possible.

The risks of lots of diseases/conditions, from dementia to cardiac problems to cancer to osteoporosis to arthritis etc. etc. go up massively with age and it's wilful blindness to deny that this fact rightly contributes to the notion that IVF should not be provided on demand whatever the age.

Yes, very sad for these particular children and for others who will suffer this kind of bereavement in the future. It's hard to work through the question of how not existing at all compares with losing one's mother aged 2. But that it's something to discuss at all is part of what makes me uneasy about women seeking to overcome their physical limitations in such an extreme way.

"I don't find it okay for one woman's needs to come at the expense of other women who may have been exploited in countries known for their levels of poverty and disgraceful lack of rights for women."

I think you hit the nail on the head here Expat. It's not okay, we would say, in eglaitarian moral terms. But this is where the creeds of ideology fall down. That they demand individuals subsume themseves into a wider idea of community - which works! Where it falls down is asking people to subsume themselves in to a massive nebulous whole, much bigger than community. If we canot see for ourselves the benefits of this 'sacrifice' we begin to find it dubious. That the 'many' are sacrificing for a mionroty elite. Which - they are right - happens. Power corrups. If everyone is playing by the rules, a cheater will come along and take many of them for a ride. Men and women are cheaters as well as good citizens.

I see that she did not have children of her own. I can see that her actions may well have been dubious, unquestioanbly. But these kids had a mother that loved them, that undoubtedly provisioned for them. It is a personal tragedy - and losing a mother is statistically worse for kids than losing a father - but the twins too are young. Being brought up in a loving enviromnet, and with some degree of blood kin, is almost as good.

but this woman did not die of old age leaving young kids behind/....she died of cancer, just as many other mothers, many young....

that is why mt calls it a storm in a teacup, well, so, I think....

the issue of this woman having ivf beyond acceptable age has nothing to do with this....

the women using their eggs for money...yes wrong....I also disagree with buy a bride, etc....but it is not this one ladies fault....

and I did not think it was a good idea when this first came out a few years ago....but her dying of cancer is just bloody unlucky....and yes, wiht age we are more bound to develope cancer, but with age it also generally doesn't kill quite as much, as cells devide slower

Women are pretty bomb proof until menopause apparently it all starts going wrong afterwards.

A salient point, MT. The community is made up of individuals, however.

So where there is the ability of an individual in a society to make a choice, such as, 'I am post-menopausal and therefore cannot conceive without donor eggs. Since I have to go to an Eastern European clinic to get such eggs and I, as a woman who has had the priviledge of education and opportunity (via legislative rights for women) to pursue such and education/career, which has allowed me to make money to buy such eggs, do hereby take a stand. I'm not going to exploit other women who are driven by desperate poverty to put their health at risk to mature those eggs for money,' and an individual does not chose to exercise such a choice, why should she be excused from others declaring an opinion or even a judgement on her actions?

actually, it would be wrong to under-estimate eastern worlds women education or at least intelligence...

Furthermore, this type of technology, when it's available to women to buy for money or to sell for money, brings up what I consider a level of prostitution.

When a women is compelled by addiction or poverty or both to sell her body for sex, she puts her health and even her life at risk for her punter.

When she sells her eggs she also sells herself, she puts her health and her life at risk for her punter, but this time it happens to be a female.

So why is the argument different? One punter, a male, is doing it to fulfill a need. But so is the other.

The setting and circumstances are different, of course.

But how is it that the one is condemned, because his male desires are seen as base, but the other is seen as otherwise?

They are both buying the services of a woman who is more than likely driven to it by desperation.

it sould never be for money...but I think gb is the only country that feels that way, although not sure about germany....costs should be paid, hospital, scans , even if working out of work time....but other than that it should be without a pay

Of course it's about money, I donating eggs to bring down the cost of IVF, saved about £2k and have very very mixed feelings about it.

Apple...totally NOT the point..because over here rules are very different....and indeed, I assume YOU weren't paid?
What expat meant was that other places people get paid, they don't do it for idealistic reasons, they do it for mney...this is happening because it is allowed t happen....just as ths womans inpregnation was, because, whilset she looked really good for her age ( SAW PICS IN PAPAER AT THE TIME)ooops caps....she didn't look that young and one would check te age, as a medical proffessional, usually...but, money does talk....not disagreeing with that argument...but this woman is not totaly to blame, as such....theoretically she probably would have lived a lot longer, if cancer hadn't gotten her....

My mum had me at 16. She had fairly poor health through her thirties and dropped dead at 43. For almost all my life, while my mother was busy with other things, my grandmother has been there for me and raised me.

I'm now 30 and she's still there for me. She moved to the US with us, helps me out with my three little ones and is currently completing a Masters degree at the age of 77 having attended full time university, flown to a intensive four week course and attained the highest grades in her class. Age isn't the same for everyone.

It was really bad luck this lady died. Yes her risk of getting ill was higher, but by no means a certainty. Yet plenty of younger women embark on high risk pregnancies, often with older children who would be left behind. We can't really argue on those grounds unless you call anyone with a history of serious illness or complications who gets pregnant a 'silly cow.'

I didn't do it for any idealistic reasons, I did it to fund my treatment.
Especially as some, not all women, only get three goes on the NHS (I had to pay for mine) but basically the NHS does pay desperate women for their eggs in the UK.

oh sorry...thanks for clarifying....obviously didn't know that.....because, I think you have 4 children, I think I read on another thread, so, wasmn't my obvious conclusion, iykwim

I'm sorry they don't, Apple, but I really don't think they should (pay women for their eggs). It's not without risk to the donor and no one knows the long-term health consequences.

I have heard this before though, that treatment in ivf is subsidised if you can donate egggs....so...suppose in that way egg donation is paid....