General Chat

A 77 year old woman and her 82 year old husband have had twins.

I wish them and the twins all the very best <3 <3

Correction, the internet says she is 73, it was the TV said she is 77, apologies.

Absolutely ridiculous

The doctor who did the IVF should be struck off

But this was in India

NO WAY can a couple in their 70,s and 80,s have the energy to look after one newborn let alone two

Poor kids will be parent less at still young ages probably too

“Shankar [ her doctor] said many of the women who came for IVF had had children but they were killed in road accidents. “They come for IVF at a later age. We have many women from the 40-50 age group.” The social disapproval associated with not having children was a problem, he added.”

The Guardian.

It sounds as if the *Social Disapproval * was the driving factor in this case. :-(

It is my guess that because of their age Shirley that they will get a great

deal of support from their relations and the medical profession.

(Abraham's wife Sarah at aged 80)

Our paper says 'first-time mother'.

It also says the father suffered a stroke the day after the births.

Selfish, all of them, mad, idiotic, stupid ....

It should never have been allowed. It would have all been different if the doc who agreed also agreed to take care of the children should their parents not be able to do that.

I am hoping that the whole story turns out to be a con.

Presumably this item is on the internet for anyone to read? Give you reason RR'r or move out. :-\

David, what did you write? :-S

Their choice, their cross to bear Joy. Calm down dear.

totally agree with Shirley- im
ivf has got out of hand in an overpopulated world
Poor kids not a good start to life

Island, I am not known for losing it, particularly when it has nothing to do with me.

I do like to proffer my opinion, though, in the same way that you and others do. It keeps the boards current.

posted on the Christian thread where David has also posted re this,

Joy. It seems so pointless to get excited about this item. More to the point, it is in the public domain yet someone here wants it to be removed from our sight. :-(

Here's an idea for you David, why don't you start a
thread of you're own on all subjects that you want to
share with those interested, I for one am not.
Thank you for spoiling my time on the Christian thread.
I did not report you if you are thinking that, never reported anyone
probably because I have a life.

Another weekend another "offensive remark"...they need to remove that silly button and have another way of dealing with this!

Deleted my post on other thread, it really is not the place for some of the posts which make their way there.

FWIW
"sucks in breath, not what I'd choose no, but

In a world where 100s of babes are orphaned every day by war or disease, left to be looked after by any remaining grandparent or stranger, why are these 2 babies making the headlines more than dead babies or their mothers in the Yemen for example?

Yes I know different topic, but this particular birth is one we can all be 'safely' outraged about, whereas the future or lack of it of children in Yemen ( just an example, you could substitute Syria, the US border etc) is less comfortable to consider , are 'we' any 'better' ethically speaking than a poor old dear who wanted a child or the Drs who made the decision to help her?

Commenting here as David has posted about it, and the other thread reported and likely to disappear. I apologise for adding to something 'off topic' to the thread ."

Since posting I was reminded of a friend who died young maybe 26 years ago now, she had various health problems and had suffered many miscarriages, and the loss of a full term baby. She remained desperate for a child and if I were to say now, (were she living) that science could help but that I would deny her that because she was 'too old' I would feel rotten to the core. It's an individual thing isn't it?

Sorry if anything offends, but those are just my thoughts off the cuff as it were.

I agree Island. I don't know why anyone would get excited about anything that does not affect him/her personally. It seems that you do not care for the way I (and others, I may add) gave expression to our views but I, like others, often use a stronger vocabulary than others. While in this instance 'selfish' meant selfish, 'mad' was not to be taken literally.

To put it more simply, I like words, and I can see from the various posts, I am not alone.

If the RRer can't cope with people's freedom of expression, hard cheese!

OMG, another deletion while I am typing!

Some people are just too touchy.

Emma, I agree with you entirely.

As I posted on the other thread in response to David's Sarah at 80 comment: not to be taken literally David.

OMG, Island's comment now ... what on earth was it?

Something totally inoffensive Joy. Clearly I'm not flavour of the month with someone *rolls eyes*
I'm going to have to name those I suspect soon if the rr'r doesn't own up.

edit. something along the lines of 'somebody doesn't want us to see something that is on the internet for all to see?'

Doubtless GR will support this spiteful reporting.