I guess I don't see the connection here between someone chosing to have a baby and knowing the media will be all over her for doing it. I think this story only came to be known because of the means she went through to have the baby...IVF. Now had she just gotten pregnant and had the child, I don't think anyone would have said anything and no one would have cared. It seems that the only reason people are making a fuss over this is because she wasn't able to have children naturally and so people look at her and think, "well, hello...your biological clock stopped ticking, dumbass! aka, you're not supposed to have children now." Ahhh, I don't know where I'm going with this, so nevermind.
One quick thought though. With all this talk about when is the "right" age to have a child and when is the "wrong" age to have a child...girls are starting their menstrual cycles earlier now than they were 10 years ago...and its been said by many to keep going like this. So, my quesiton is...if the girls are coming into puberty earlier doesn't that also mean that they will be reaching menopause earlier in their life and that will in turn lower the age at which they can have children? So what if, in 20 years or so, some women are hitting menopause around 35 or 40? They're still young and still healthy, should they not be allowed to have children anymore just because their menstrual cycles have stopped? |