1. When is an older mother TOO old? Meet the
women becoming first-time parents in their fifties
Extracts from an article byTamara Abraham in Mail Online
UPDATED: 12:20 GMT, 26 October 2011
New generation of parents: A powerful feature in New York Magazine earlier this month drew attention to
the women becoming mothers in their fifties
The fact that first time mothers are getting older is an undeniable truth. Over the past ten
years, the number of women over 45 giving birth has more than doubled in the U.S.
And, the Centers for Disease Control, revealed, there has been a 375 per cent increase in the
same period for births among women over 50.
The rising figure is mostly thanks to improved technology and medicine. Egg-freezing, for
example, allows women to delay motherhood like never before.

2. And, obstetricians argue, many women in their fifties today are as fit and healthy as women
ten or 15 years younger.
Studies have shown that those who have put off having children in favour of a career are
likely to be wealthier and better-educated than their peers, therefore in better physical health.
But the risks are still serious. Mothers over the age of 35 are 20 per cent more likely to give
birth prematurely, which brings with it higher incidences of lung, digestive and neurological
problems in the infant.
A mother-to-be in her forties is at higher risk of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and high
blood pressure, and giving birth to a child with autism (studies show this is true for fathers
over 40 too).
Ann Maloney, who gave birth to her first baby at
50, told New York Magazine how she and her
second husband, John Ross, who she met when
she was 47, conceived using a donor egg within a
year of meeting.
Now a mother of two, the 60-year-old admitted
she had to be brought out of menopause with
hormones to carry her second daughter.
Second chance: John Ross, 66, and Ann Maloney, 60,
with their daughters Lily, seven, and Isabella, ten, say
they are still both very high energy
But despite their advanced ages, Ms Maloney and Mr Ross insist they are dedicated parents to Lily,
seven, and Isabella, ten.'You don't know how high-energy, actually, both of us are,' Mr Ross said. 'I
acted in 32 productions at Harvard, worked with Erik Erikson, graduated near the top of my class.
We are both very intense, and also nurturers.'
As father already to a 35-year-old son from a previous marriage, he admitted that his hope as a
parent this time round was to do a better job.
'I wanted to rear a family in a better way,' he said.
Kate Garros, from Sea Cliff Long Island, missed out on the chance to become a mother earlier in
life, and was 53 when she and her second husband conceived twins Alexandra and John with the
help of donor eggs.

3. Older mother: Kate Garros, 61, conceived seven-year-old twins John and Alexandra at the age of 53 with the
help of donor eggs
While she is clearly a loving mother to her now seven-year-old twins, the fact that she suffers from
arthritis, like many other women of 61, is a constant reminder of her age.
These concerns are echoed by Wisconsin psychologist Julianne Zweifel, who told the
magazine: 'Children are entitled to at least one healthy, vibrant parent.
'Just because you're alive doesn't mean you're healthy and vibrant,' she warned.
1) How do you think the children of these parents will feel as teenagers or young adults?
2) In your opinion, should there be an age limitation imposed by law on women wanting to
conceive a child by medical intervention? What should this limit be? Explain your
arguments.
3) At the end of your discussion, I am going to choose 2 students to explain your subject and
the abstract of your discussion to the group.

4. Embryo Ethics: Does discarding unused embryos
constitute murder?
Extracts from an article by Mariah Wojdacz-Sep 2008for legal Zoom
With growing numbers of couples relying on in-vitro fertilization, estimates place the
number of frozen embryos in America at more than 400,000. During in vitro, doctors
stimulate the woman's ovaries to release multiple eggs - for most women, one round of
stimulation yields 15 or more eggs. Usually, anywhere from half to 90% of these eggs are
fertilized in a process where the sperm and eggs are combined in a Petri-dish. The resulting
embryos are then implanted into the woman's uterus. To avoid risky multiple births,
however, only three eggs are implanted into the uterus at a time. Often, pregnancy is
achieved before all the embryos have been implanted. The extras are cryopreserved - that
is, frozen - and the couple must then decide what to do with them.
Couples have several options, each with ethical implications. Some couples choose to
implant the extra embryos at a time during the woman's cycle when she is not likely to
become pregnant. Others choose to donate the embryos for stem cell and fertility research.
Still others take them home to bury, or allow them to be destroyed at the clinic.
So, in the debate over embryos, where do opponents draw the line?
Pro-life Christians have made clear that embryo destruction is tantamount to abortion.
Father Michael Seger, moral theologian at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Ohio, counsels
couples with extra embryos to have them implanted as soon as possible. "One of the
reasons we are so dead-set against (in-vitro fertilization) is the dilemma (couples) find
themselves in after the procedure, and what to do with the extra eggs that are fertilized,"
says Father Seger. "When they come to me it's post-factum ... and all their Catholic intuition
says, 'Oh my God, these fertilized eggs have a right to life.'"
In fact, agencies have sprung up to create a new avenue for embryos - adoption. Although
there are no laws governing the adoption of embryos - legally, they are considered
"property" - agencies like the Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency have development
application and screening processes that mimic adoption. Their "Snowflake" adoption
program matches genetic parents who do not wish to destroy or implant their extra
embryos with couples who want to adopt them. Since starting the program, Nightlight has
matched 212 genetic couples with 139 adoptive families. Thus far, 79 babies have been
born, with 8 adopting families currently expecting at least 11 more.
Other parents, however, do not consider their frozen embryos to be human beings at all. "A
frozen embryo doesn't mean life," says mother of in-vitro triplets Diane Calcaterra. "It has
to sustain itself through the mother. If someone said, 'I want to adopt your two embryos,' if
they put them in, that doesn't mean they would get two children out of that."

5. JoAnn Davidson of Christian Adoption and Family Services disagrees: "They are life from the
moment of conception," she says of the frozen embryos. "There's only that one unique
moment when the sperm and egg come together, and everything else is just stages of
development."
Most fertility centers limit the length of time they will store extra embryos - usually from
two to five years. After that time, the couple must decide what to do with them. A
University of Iowa College of Medicine study examined couples whose two-year storage
period had expired. When given the option of continued storage, over half of the couples
chose it. Twenty percent donated the embryos for adoption, while 11 percent donated
them for research. Eighteen percent chose to have the embryos discarded.
Sometimes, though, parents are not given a choice. Before closing in 1999, an Arizona
fertility clinic tried to locate the parents of their frozen embryos through a classified ad.
About 50 embryos were never claimed. They were discarded as medical waste.
For Steven and Kate Johnson, who adopted an embryo and now have a daughter named
Zara, what happened in Arizona seems tantamount to mass murder. "Every embryo has a
face," says Steve. "Zara is one of these faces. And it's up to us to shine the light in the
darkness."
1) Would you be willing to adopt an embryo? Explain your motivation.
2) In your opinion, should it be considered a crime to discard a frozen embryo?
Explain your arguments.
3) At the end of your discussion, I am going to choose 2 students to explain your subject
and the abstract of your discussion to the group.

6. Surrogate Motherhood and the Ethical Issues
Advancements in biomedical technology are challenging traditional concepts and norms, sparking a hotbed
of ethical and legal debates. Center in contemporary ethical discussions is the issue of surrogate
motherhood. Surrogacy, one of several reproductive technologies, is throwing into question the very
definitions of mothers and family.
What is surrogacy?
There are 3 types of genetic surrogacy circumstances:
Genetic surrogacy or partial surrogacy: This is the most common type of surrogacy. Here the egg of
the surrogate mother is fertilized by the commissioning male's sperm. In this way the surrogate
mother is the biological mother of the child she carries.
Total surrogacy: Here the surrogate mother's egg is fertilized with the sperm of a donor - not the
male part of the commissioning couple.
Gestatory surrogacy or full surrogacy: Here the commissioning couple's egg and sperm have gone
through in vitro fertilization and the surrogate mother is not genetically linked to the child.
There are 2 types of surrogacy arrangements:
Altruistic surrogacy: In this type of surrogacy, the surrogate mother is not paid for her 'service'. She
'offers her womb' as an act of 'altruism'. Often there will be a pre-established bond between the
surrogate mother and the expecting couple. Typically the surrogate mother is a friend or a relative.
Commercial surrogacy: In commercial surrogacy the surrogate mother receives compensation for
carrying the child. Often there will be a mediating party, a surrogacy agency that deals with all the
practical arrangements for the commissioning couple: finding a suitable surrogate mother and
dealing with all the paperwork etc.
Ethical issues
The dilemmas of surrogacy arise from the fact that there are now two women who are biologically
connected to the child: the genetic mother and the birth mother. Yet who is to be considered the “real”
mother? Is it the woman who gives birth to the child, who raises the child, or who is genetically related to
the child? Besides the minefield of legal conflicts arising from surrogacy, the ethical issues surrounding
surrogate motherhood abound.
For example, there are various reasons besides infertility that a couple might decide to use a surrogate to
have a child. Viewed as “ethical,” surrogate motherhood is used as a means to avoid passing a genetic
defect to a child. What is considered to be “unethical,” is when surrogacy is used as a convenience by
(wealthy) women who either do not want to disrupt their professional lives with child-bearing or who want
to avoid the discomforts of childbirth even though they do not suffer from infertility. Ethical analysts
denote a sharp distinction between these divergent motivations and debate at length whether or not
surrogate motherhood is moral or crosses ethical lines.
Arguments by those who claim surrogate motherhood is ethical include that it is a solution to infertility
after repeated failure to conceive by other means. They advance the position that in-vitro fertilization uses
both the egg and sperm of the couple, tying them biologically to the child. It is unjust that infertile couples

7. should be denied parenthood. Intrauterine insemination allows the child to carry at least the father’s
biological genes. Difficulties inherent in the adoption process are further arguments for the proponents of
surrogacy. Also, the presence of a disorder that would place the mother’s life in jeopardy if she became
pregnant is a strong argument in favor of the process. It is also a way to avoid transmitting genetic defects.
Proponents cite studies of surrogates that confirm that most surrogates view their experience as positive,
meaningful and empowering. (This is contrary to popular expectations that the surrogate mothers would
suffer trauma as a result of having to relinquish the baby.)
Arguments claiming surrogate motherhood is unethical include the physical and psychological risks to the
surrogate mother and the purported long and short-term physical and psychological hazards to the child.
Another is the risk that the process might be abused. Opponents claim a deluge of “compensated
surrogacy” arrangements whereby a surrogate is paid to carry a child to maturity. Opponents denounce
these arrangements as the financial exploitation of women’s bodies. Surrogacy is attacked as an advantage
of the rich over the poor, a means of turning surrogate motherhood into a commercial industry and a
convenience for the well-off to avoid childbirth. It is considered by some to be a devaluation of the
symbolic value of maternity.
There are many other additional ethical dilemmas concerning surrogate motherhood that have been
raised. If a couple divorces before the baby is born, who gets custody? What happens if one or both of the
commissioning parents die before the baby is born? What obligations does the surrogate mother have to
continue with the pregnancy? Does she have the right to abort? What would happen if the infant is born
with a defect and nobody wants it? Should the child be introduced to the surrogate mother? Given that the
level of emotional distress associated with giving up a baby cannot be predicted, can a surrogate ever give
truly informed consent?
Sources;
Birgitte on http://www.positive-parenting-ally.com
http://www.thefreeresource.com/surrogacy-why-is-surrogate-motherhood-an-ethical-issue
1) In your opinion, who should be the legal ‘mother’ of a baby? The egg donor or the
woman giving birth?
2) In your opinion, should surrogacy be legalized or not? Explain your arguments.
3) At the end of your discussion, I am going to choose 2 students to explain your
subject and the abstract of your discussion to the group.