Giving birth at 100?

Why not?

Just as I thought in my previous post, the issue of a 66 year-old giving birth via IVF then dying 3 years later would raise many questions.
CNN now asks among others: Should you get pregnant if you're 50 or older? (H/T CMR)
Of course the answer to the basic question for Catholics is definitively decided when it comes to the acceptability of In Vitrio Fertilization (IVF). Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae cannot be more explicit in its teaching.

In the CNN column, Dr. John Jain, a physician at the Santa Monica (California) Fertility Clinic tries to justify: "The 40 and 45-year-old of today is not the 40-year-old of the past; the 50-year-old [today] is not the same of the past,"

If so, why do they even discuss an age limit? If the possibilities of science are endless and unrestricted, then the talk about regulating the age of women desiring to give birth via IVF is irrelevant. Who knows if females (make that males, or even animals!) with the aid of science can carry IVF embryos to term at age 100++ in the near future? A true prochoice advocate should have no qualms in this respect, otherwise they would only be contradicting their own purely scientific, amoral, secular, right-to-my-own-body, its-my-life-my-choice worldview. It is also astonishing that the entire article never mentions the need for a father, or even remotely a father-figure. Along the prochoice line, anyone should have the right to either abort or manufacture human beings at will as far as science permits.

But of course science does not understand the concept of family, which has kept civilizaton going for ages on end, and its impact on the future. The very future of humanity, as Pope John Paul II says. And it is being attacked.

I think even George Lucas had an inkling.