Lucy's Controversies

Who might have been a 'more deserving' recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:01:45 PDT

Image from abc news

'

Hi everyone,

I received an email from President Barrack Obama today. It was about receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. I'll let you read it yourself.

I've no doubt that, like me, there must be many others who are surprised, if not shocked, by the news. A flurry of thoughts and questions went through my mind: Is this a joke? Are they taking the mickey? Why on earth? Could this be an underhanded way of wreaking havoc and animosity towards the Obama government, both nationally and internationally?

Anyway, do read the letter and let me know what you think:

Lucy

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Should you have the 'right to die'?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:08:37 PDT

Image from ABC News : Jake Sturmer

On August 14, 2009, the Supreme Court of Western Australia granted Christian Rossiter the right to refuse food that was being administered to him intravenously. That effectively meant that as Christian edges closer toward the terminal effects of starvation i.e. death, no attempt will be made to revive him.

Christian developed spastic quadriplegic following an accident in which he was hit by a car. Prior to that, he has been a keen bushwalker, cyclist and rock climbers.

"I'm Christian Rossiter and I'd like to die. I am a prisoner in my own body. I can't move. I can't even wipe the tears from my eyes,"

Christian's case is an example of 'passive euthanasia', one in which no intervention is used to support or prolong a person's life. It is different to 'active euthanasia' in which deliberate intervention such as a lethal dose of medication is used to end a person's life.

The 'right to die', also described as 'euthanasia' or 'mercy killing', is a controversial subject. Those who support it believe that a person's life is their personal responsibility and 'possession'. As such, it is their right to end it should they choose to particularly when the person's 'quality of life' is so severely compromised. Often, these arguments revolve around 'free choice' and living and dying with dignity.

Those who oppose euthanasia do so for various reasons. Some contend that life belongs to 'god' and only 'god' has the right to end it whenever 'god' so chooses to.

Others believe that it is simply unethical to end life because there can always be extenuating factors that might influence a person's ability to live longer and even recover from what may currently appear to be terminal illness, non-reversible 'vegetative' states or incurable pain. In extreme positions of this argument, euthanasia or 'mercy killing' is considered 'murder'.

What do you think? Perhaps the following questions might be worth pondering:

What would you do if you were Christian or if you were told you had an incurable disease which would place you in extreme pain and loss of critical functions eg movement, memory, speech, hearing etc?
What would you do if someone asked you to help them end their life? Would you see yourself as commiting murder?

And here's a particular 'heavy' one:

What is life and does it 'begin' and 'end'? Should we think of human life as just a form of 'life' as a whole, something that neither begins nor ends?

I look forward to your response!

Is the media a self-appointed judge and moral arbiter?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:28:44 PDT

Image from Legal Juice

Here in Australia, we have a television program called 'A Current Affair' (ACA). It often picks up stories of the average person on the street who has been 'hard done by'. At least that is what it appears to do.

In the process of telling the story, ACA is likely to show interviews done with 'victims' and the people associated - family, friends, third party interest groups such as lawyers and government spokespeople.

What it also does is show interviews of or attempts to interview the supposed perpetrators of whatever acts of injustice or crime are in question, often catching these people unawares or in protest against being filmed. It is not uncommon to see ACA journalists at their door or chasing after them while repeatedly asking them questions such as "Do you think you should have done such as such?" or "How do you feel about cheating so and so?"

I don't often watch ACA but on the occasions that I have done, I have experienced a mixture of feelings. On the one hand, I am often sympathetic towards the situation of the so-called 'victims'. On the other hand, I am appalled at the way ACA appears to hound people whom they seem to have judged and found 'guilty'.

These people have not been legally found guilty, yet they have been portrayed on national television as offenders, often without the benefit of choosing whether or not to appear on public television. At least, this is how it appears to me as an average viewer. It seems to me that even legally accused criminals are given more privacy - their faces often kept concealed before, during and after a trial.

So, here are my questions:

Do you think the media should be allowed to reveal the identity of people whom they consider to be bullies, cheats and otherwise 'morally deviant' on national television?
Does the plight of a 'victim' justify making public the identity of someone they name as the perpetrator? Whose job is it to determine if the 'accused' is in fact 'guilty'?
Would it make a difference if the 'accused' is a group of people or a larger entity such as a business corporation or a religious institution?
Do you think that the media has become our unofficial and unappointed judge? If so, how do you feel about this?

I am certain you will have other questions to bring to this controversy as well as your opinions. I look forward to them!

LC
Stay sharp!

Should this kind of advertising and pricing be allowed?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:56:58 PDT

Only $199.99

One of my pet peeves, when I choose to indulge myself thus (:-)), relates to the .99 advertising and pricing, you know "Only $9.99" or "Only $199.99".

We know why it's done. The psychological comfort one gets from a price being under a certain (obvious?) amount is huge. It's immediately perceived as an advantage. It makes a person more inclined to purchase an item than if it were priced at the next whole number value (which is only 1 cent more!).

There are many other factors, of course, that influence a consumer but this is the one that I'd like to throw up for discussion this time. The following questions are of interest:

Should this kind of pricing be allowed? After all you never get a cent back in change :-)
Should prices greater than the .70 value (for eg) be advertised and sold at the next whole number value (eg $9.70 and above should be advertised as $10.00)?
Why has this kind of pricing been allowed?
Have you succumbed to it? Would you know if you had?

Love to have you comments!

Should couples have the right to have and raise children?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:58:09 PDT

Image from Cooperative Parents

The right to conceive and give birth to a child is one all adults assume they have. With the exception of same-sex couples who may be subject to prohibitive laws in certain countries/states, this right is seldom denied.

I believe that most of us feel very protective over the rights of children, especially very young children who are entirely dependent upon their caregivers, primarily their parents, for their care and wellbeing.

Having and raising a child is perhaps one of the most life-changing and demanding things a person could ever bring upon themselves. It also impacts more generally upon the rest of society, for there are a range of stakeholders who become involved in a child's life, from extended family members to schools, health care groups, special interest groups and government.

Given the impact that parents have on a child and the ongoing role that a grown child i.e. an adult will play in society, is it not necessary to ensure that a child is given the best possible chance to succeed and live productively and harmoniously as a member of society? If so, how can we ensure that this happens?

Here are some questions to consider. I'm sure you'll have more :)

Should we continue to assume that a couple has the right and the capabilities to have and raise children? Why or why not?

Should couples be evaluated for their suitability/fitness to have and raise children? If so, who should perform such an evaluation?

What criteria should couples be evaluated by?

Should the same or similar procedures/criteria that are currently in place for couples who seek to adopt children be applied to any couple who decides to have a child? How will such a practice be implemented?

I welcome your thoughts and trust that, as always, they will be expressed with respect, tolerance and sensitivity!

Share this at:

The purpose and value of marriage - same-sex or otherwise!

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:39:48 PDT

Image from Marriage Coalition

The Supreme Court in California has today refused to overturn a 2008 referendum banning same-sex marriage. The decision fueled protests within the local community with further protests being organized throughout the United States. I believe that only five of the fifty states in the US currently recognize and permit single-sex marriage.

In Australia, the Federal Government has begun the process of removing same sex discrimination from 100 Commonwealth laws relating to such things as employment benefits, superannuation and health care. It will, however, keep the ban against same-sex marriage intact. As far as the Australian government is concerned, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

The issue of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized is indeed a controversial one. Proponents maintain that a person should be permitted to marry someone of their choice. That the person they choose is of the same sex should not be reason to deny the couple the same rights that a heterosexual couple would be entitled to through marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue, however, that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a position that many believe has its roots in most of the major religions including Christianity and Islam. For instance, an article by Robert Gagnon arguing against same-sex marriage refers to marriage in the Christian and Jewish sense as being a union of sexual 'merger' or 're-merger' of 'maleness' and 'femaleness' - qualities that were differentiated from an originally undifferentiated 'Adam'.

Across a range of cultures, the institution of marriage sanctions not only sexual union but also a swag of other common interests including children, property and social networks and associations, all of which affect the life and wellbeing of a community. In this regard, there is plenty to write about, scrutinize and debate. I am therefore inviting discussion through your comments, reminding all of us to engage with respect, tolerance and sensitivity.

If some of the content above has not already sparked some response in you, here are some questions that might:

What do you see as the value and purpose of marriage?
Should same-sex marriage be made legal? Why or why not?
If a couple truly love each other and are prepared to commit to each other, is it necessary for that commitment to be legalized by way of a marriage contract?
Are there alternative forms of union/commitment besides 'marriage' that you would support or participate in yourself?

Stay sharp!
LC

Share this at:

AIDS - What do we really know and how do we know it?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Mon, 25 May 2009 05:11:41 PDT

Image from Top News

"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world."

Dr Charles Thomas, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and John Hopkins Universities quoted in the Sunday Times, London, 3 April 1994

I remember the first time I heard about AIDS, I think it was in 1990, I had no doubt that this was the modern day plague. It never occurred to me that what I was reading and hearing might be the insidious rolling out of a modern day propaganda. After all, like perhaps 99% of the population, I had been encultured into fear and into trusting the authorities of science, media and medicine to know better than me about all things including my health.

It was only in the mid-90s that I began to wonder about the accuracy and, dare I say it, the truth of information I was receiving, not just about AIDS but also about a host of other 'diseases'. One of the incidents that prompted this healthy doubt was in relation to my children. Both had been diagnosed with asthma and prescribed preventative and steroid based medication as well as relief medication. The former, I was told, would be a life-long requirement.

Intuitively, I felt uncomfortable about medicating my children daily but did not dare put their lives at risk by ignoring the doctor's and in this case, a 'specialist's', advice. So I went along with it. One day, a yoga teacher suggested a breathing technique that would help alleviate the symptoms. I tried it with my children and it worked. It was a significant turning point for us because it opened up to me the possibility that I might encourage my children to rely on this rather than on the medication they had been prescribed.

I sat them down, then aged 4 and 7, and suggested that they practice the breathing technique with me everyday. I explained that it would be a useful thing to do even as they continued taking their medication. I said that it might come in handy should they ever be in a situation where they may not have their medication with them nor have access to medical service, deliberately painting distant future scenarios of them as young adults. I was careful not to let them entertain the possibility of it happening while they were in my care as I was not interested in motivating them by fear but in encouraging them to be proactive about their health.

Fortunately for me, my children agreed that it was a good idea and so began the daily 1-2 minute practice. It wasn't long after that I stopped providing them with medication altogether. Since then, some 14 years ago, they have had, between them, three episodes of breathing difficulty, all of which were quickly alleviated by conscious breathing. All three episodes occurred before they turned 10. Although I will not elaborate on it in this post, I do want to say that I believe it was as much the new mindset of control over their situation that helped my children as it was the breathing technique they had learned.

My experience with my children encouraged me to take more responsibility for my health and theirs. It also encouraged me to trust myself and my inner wisdom, the latter having somehow got buried as I went through school and university where I did a Science degree. I began doing my own research by selecting what to read and where to source my information. As a result, there have been a number of significant decisions that I have made about my health and the health care of my children, all of which have enabled us to remain healthy and grow in confidence in our ability to care for ourselves.

So, to return to the matter of the AIDS controversy. Over the years, I have learned to be discerning about what I read, see and hear and what I believe about what I read, see and hear. The issue of AIDS is one of many over which I have applied greater discernment. Consequently, I have come to some conclusions about it that do not match those of mainstream media. Rather, they tend to match more closely the comments of Dr Charles Thomas and many others like him.

Briefly, these are some questions I think we need to ask:

What sources have we been informed by with respect to AIDS (and any other disease for that matter including the most recent 'swine flu' 'pandemic')
Why are we prepared (or not prepared) to believe them?
Have we looked for alternative sources?
Have we encountered/heard/read about 'exceptions to the rule' i.e. people who have recovered from a terminal illness? If so, what conclusions have we formed?
Are you confident about managing your own health? Why or why not?

One of the greatest disservices we have brought upon ourselves as a society is the loss of confidence in our ability, indeed our need, to use our inner wisdom. This confidence has been overridden by our fearful reliance on the authority of so-called 'experts'. We seem to unquestioningly accept that someone who has spent some years in study and practice in a certain field must obviously know better than someone who has not.

Whilst I agree that these people may have a certain body of knowledge that the rest of us don't, that in itself does not make them more competent at handling our health problems. The fact that there are experts within the same field who do not agree with each other must itself suggest to us that no one's knowledge on any matter is absolute or beyond scrutiny.

I am not advocating that we do not use the help of 'experts'. However, I am suggesting that we choose very carefully who we seek advice from and what we do with the advice we get. I am also suggesting that we explore and research for ourselves. I realize not all of us have the time or confidence to do this. However, if we are concerned about our health and the health of those we care about, we must find the time.

As for confidence, in my experience, that grows as I keep myself richly informed (I mean in terms of quality rather than quantity) while learning to tune into my innate wisdom - my mind-body-spirit knowledge. In my opinion, our innate wisdom is a vastly ignored source of perhaps the best knowledge we have.

Well, I would love to read your thoughts about this. Perhaps you'd like to throw in a few questions yourself.

Stay sharp!
LC

Free health books' summaries

Share this at:

An eye for an eye

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Wed, 20 May 2009 09:25:18 PDT

Image from The Sun

About four years ago, a young Australian man, aged 25, was hanged in Singapore for bringing drugs into the country with the intention of trafficking them. At the time of his arrest, he was 22.

When I first heard about the case back in 2002, I admit I was dispassionately dismissive of it. Somewhere in the back of my mind an old, moralistic conclusion about the evils of drug trafficking rattled. I took no particular interest in it although I would occasionally, by chance rather than intent, hear on the news about the growing interest and support for clemency from his friends, his solicitors, local and international interest groups as well as our then Prime Minister, John Howard, and the government of New Zealand.

So why am I writing about it now? Well, the power of the media is great and tonight, I happened 'by chance' to catch a documentary about the sad story on television. Watching the young man's mother go through the 3-year turmoil across the two countries was, to say the least, heart-wrenching.

I have never supported the death sentence. I see it as an abhorrent misuse of power and a brutal form of revenge disguised as 'justice'. To feel somehow vindicated by the legalized murder of another human being, however beastly their actions may have been, reflects an unforgiving and vengeful attitude. I would not be able to sleep better or feel avenged by the deliberate killing of someone who has wronged me or wronged those close to me.

The issue of capital punishment is a long-standing, weighty and controversial issue. To willfully take the life of someone when they can no longer be a threat as a result of imprisonment is murder. It is brutal. It appeals to the dark and destructive side of human nature and it cannot possibly take us, individually and collectively as a society, to more enlightened ways of being. As Gandhi so candidly put it, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

It also distances us from our personal responsibilities and roles as members of a society where the demand for drugs and, consequently, its availability exist.

A rare comment, spoken with inspiring simplicity by the mother of the young man in this story seemed to shatter reason with realization:

"They (referring to the drug lords) only do this (recruiting) to stupid, young people. They don't do it to me, to people like me...older...not stupid. They do it to stupid, young people. And they will never get caught. But my son, young and stupid, he has to die."

There must be countless mothers who have lost their children to drugs or drug-related activities who are equally shattered and scarred for life. I would hope that their pain will be alleviated by acts of love and support from society rather than acts of revenge. I hope that their pain will not be in vain and that it will encourage all of us to seek a more enlightened approach to an issue that many of us may well consider personally irrelevant.

I wonder what you think about this? How relevant is the issue of drug abuse and drug trafficking to you personally? If it is, what have you done about it? If it isn't, do you think it should be?

Also, how you do feel about the death sentence? How and why do you justify or denounce it?

Can we be 'fair-minded' about abortion?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:56:57 PDT

Image at ABC news

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions." Barrack Obama

The controversy over abortion and a woman's right to choose the continuation or termination of her pregnancy is not a new one. It is an issue that strikes at the heart and soul of every person who engages with it, whether in the privacy of their unspoken thoughts or in the arena of public debate.

In his commencement speech at the Catholic University of Notre Dame, Barrack Obama related the incident of how, prior to election, a potential voter for Obama had been reconsidering his support because of some words that Obama's campaign staff had posted on the Obama campaign website. They were to the effect that Obama would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose."

The would-be supporter wrote to Obama saying "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

That puts our reaction to this issue into perspective for me: How do we speak in 'fair-minded words' about something that we feel so strongly and deeply about even as we sit on opposite camps, feeling an awkward tug every now and again to move over, or at least closer, to the other, only to be almost violently hauled back by our individual and collective beliefs?

Why is the issue of abortion, often deliberately cast in the controversially loaded expression 'pro-life', so polarizing? When something makes us feel a need to retreat to a position as far away as possible from another position, it suggests fear; fear of the murky ground in the middle, the only place where meeting can take place, where union is possible.

But how can we be persuaded to come to that murky middle? What questions must we ask ourselves in order to open us up to previously dismissed possibilities? What answers must we be willing to accept in order to allow love to transcend ideology?

Below are some questions that I feel are important to ask. I invite you to add your own and share your answers, keeping in mind that the only 'correct' answers are the honest ones!

*When does life actually 'begin'? Or does it?
*When does life 'end'? Or does it?
*Do the 'rights' of a child also include having parents who are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically fit to raise them? How do we determine 'fit-ness'? How many of us would qualify?
*Why is the 'pro-life' stance not applied to killing in war and to the born children who are themselves killed or whose parents are?
*Does 'unborn' make something less real, less 'living'?

I could go on but I am sure there is enough here to feed some thinking. I look forward to your comments.

Oh by the way, in case you were wondering, Obama did have the less than 'fair-minded' words removed :-).

Stay sharp!
LC

These twin boys have different fathers

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:34:11 PDT

Image from Fox News at NewsOne

Does this raise a bit of controversy in your mind, never mind incredulity? A young woman and her partner have recently discovered that their twin boys, born seven seconds apart, are in fact from different fathers!

Medical science, always so wise and forthcoming after the event, has confirmed (aren't we all relieved) that it is indeed possible for this to happen (yes, aren't we so fortunate to have Science confirm for us that what has just happened can actually happen) although the odds are about one in a million (mmm...whose research and whose conclusions specifically?).

The couple, who, technically, I suppose constitute only two of the three parents, had decided to have the boys' DNA tested as they found their facial features too different from each other or rather, too similar to the two men involved.

The 'invisible' other father has so far decided to remain so, and according to the all-knowing media, is trying to come to terms with this somewhat bizarre turn of events in his otherwise placid life.

So, what goes through your mind as you read this? One of the first things that went through mine was: Anything is truly possible!

Stay sharp!
LC

Wolfram Alpha - Is the future here and is Google history?

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Mon, 18 May 2009 06:11:00 PDT

Image from cnet news with credits to Wolfram Research

Wolfram Alpha will be officially launched today. What is Wolfram Alpha? Perhaps the following will help. It arrived in my mailbox today:

The world's first computational knowledge
engine, a free online service, has become one of the most eagerly
anticipated international product launches of 2009.

A full press release follows. Additional materials are available at:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/media/

Here are some data points and observations from Wolfram|Alpha's
pre-launch testing period May 15-17:

* During the weekend, Wolfram|Alpha processed 13.7 million queries.
* Our request for feedback has elicited nearly 27,000 responses.
* Within minutes, there were queries from six continents.
* Queries were surprisingly diverse. People quickly moved from
using the examples page on the site to using their own inputs.
* Twitter users discovered that Wolfram|Alpha could immediately
provide information on a small California earthquake that
happened Sunday.
* Finding Wolfram|Alpha Easter eggs has already become a popular
topic on Mashable, the social media news guide.
* Facebook users have been helping each other suggest and correct
inputs.

So, what's the controversy here? Well, for starters, how confident can we about the answers we get from Wolfram Alpha? After all, its answers are not generated from a static database but through computation. It is thus argued that WA is susceptible to the biases of its handlers and we are told there are quite a number of them!

I suppose it begs the question: Is any information free from some degree of bias, whether actively in the minds of people generating and interpreting it or passively in the methods and means by which such information is gathered?

The man behind Wolfram Alpha, Stephen Wolfram, has modestly dismissed comparisons of this knowledge engine with Google, a search engine, repeatedly explaining that WA computes answers to questions whereas Google retrieves matching keywords from an ever-expanding database. On the other hand, he has boldly suggested that WA might be the new paradigm in accessing knowledge, perhaps even creating it...???

The difference, as I, a lay person, understands it, is that not all answers are already available on Wolfram Alpha. Many will be, as for example, answers to factual questions - What is the capital of Spain? But a question such as, What is the best way of growing potatoes in a pot in inner city Brisbane?, will probably require something more than a recognition and retrieval of key words. And it will be presented in an impersonal way, more so than we have been used to. By that I mean, the answer to the latter question will not come from a blog, Passionate about Potatoes, written by a personable Mary Jo.

How will this knowledge engine affect us? How will it change the way we learn? How might it affect the way we make decisions and choices? Is it capable, for instance, of answering questions such as "Should I leave my wife now?" Will it encourage us to be more reliant on external authorities and less trusting of our intuitive wisdom?

What do you think? I'd love to know!

Oh, and by the way, congratulations to Stephen Wolfram and his quite sizeable team!

Having a baby at 66

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Mon, 18 May 2009 05:21:42 PDT

Too old??

There is nothing especially titillating about this lady's story, certainly nothing that would not be par for the course for countless other women bar for the fact that she is eight months pregnant and for the first time and at the age of sixty-six, reputed to be Britain's oldest mother-to-be.

It is not my intention to feed gossip either in this post or future posts, which is why I have refrained from providing a name, a picture and other morsels that some might be hungry for. It is my intention, however, to stimulate discussion.

The idea of older women having babies is mired in controversy. Should they be using 'artificial' intervention to conceive and are the costs involved justifiable? Are they fit enough to carry a child, some for the first time? Will they be fit enough to care for the needs of a growing child? Will the child suffer social stigma as a result of having a parent who is likely to be quite a bit older than the parents of most of its peers? How much time does the parent really have with the child? Will the parent be 'gainfully' around to see the adult child through some of its more significant 'life events' such as marriage and the birth of grandchildren?

It's true that heads have shaken, tongues have clicked and eyes rolled at older men having children but nowhere near the degree they have with older women. And what is 'old' anyway? Why do so many of us feel so uncomfortable about women over forty (and that's a moving benchmark!)having children? Are the medical risks to the child as high as is sometimes reported? Are they significantly higher than for younger women?

Not only does the older mother have to contend with social indignation, depending on which country she is from, she is also unlikely to secure medical assistance as a result of prohibitive laws, hence the need for expensive offshore treatments. For instance, in Australia, the legal age limit for medically assisted fertilization is fifty-five.

There are many questions to consider here, some I've already raised and others I am sure you will. So I am curious to know what you think. I eagerly await your comments.

First and only uncontroversial post!

noreply@blogger.com (Lucy Lopez) — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:08:43 PDT

Hi all! I am just so excited about my latest blog. Controversy is the spice of life and here I wish to provide a post and comment forum where we can have a free for all as long as we keep it respectful and sensitive. So, welcome and jump in!

Stay sharp! LC