A moral question: How old is too old to have children?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
So I'm watching the TV show Modern Family and Gloria discovers she's pregnant by Ed Oneils character.

In the TV show, Oneils character is turning 65.

Now the thought that naturally comes to my mind is: when his son is 27 - my age - his dad will be 92 - and if not dead, will probably be old and somewhat decrepit.

So the question is: is it moral to have children at that age?

To be a father means more then simply providing the sperm that contributes to the creation of a human being; it is also a moral responsibility, not just to the child's immediate youth and his/her early 20's, but to be with them as long as possible. A mere 27 years of living, and having your father die - leaving the next 55 some odd years (the average lifespan of a man) is quite a thing to deprive your so or daughter of. To knowingly have kids at such a late age, and condemning your child to such a circumstance, is I think very unfair.

So while I understand that mistakes like this can happen, I think it is categorically immoral and selfish to actually intend to have kids at an age where you couldn't be present in your child's life beyond 20-30 years at most.

As for a cutoff, what age people should stop having children? I think if an age should be picked, it would be in the 55 area, so I would agree with Plato here (although his reasoning is because ones 'mental prowess' begins to diminish after this age, so for eugenic reasons, men should stop having children after 55)

At 55 - and even this is somewhat later, you could insure that you would be present in your son or daughters life at least until middle age.

Anyways, I guess it depends upon values; for me, I love my parents, and I love that my parents are still in their 50's. Watching my own mother - 56, relate with her mother - 81, and seeing how multiple generations interact and grow - I can see why human beings by nature seek to have children at a time in life in which they can be present with them for as long as possible.

I would want my son or daughter to have this as well.
edit on 29-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Personally these are my age limits. (very personal, i don't expect everyone to agree
)

As a mother, the ideal age would be 25-35, with absolutely no plans after 40.

As a father, it may be a bit higher. Ideal age would be 25-35 as to have some sort of decent "active life" within your child's growing years. But anything after 40-45 is (in my opinion) pushing it, because by the time the kid is 10, most men at that age are letting it go a bit, and small things start to bother them (hahaha). Now mix that with a kid going through adolescence.

If i don't have kids by 35, i probably won't bother at all. Because when i hit 50, the kid will 15, and moving into his early adulthood/making decisions for himself.

Besides, i want to actually be able to run around with my children, and do a lot of outdoors stuff with them. Seems it can be a bit hard post-50

My 2 cents worth
edit on 29-9-2012 by xxdaniel21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


if you have to ask the question...it is too old.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I think the body pretty much determines when it is time to no longer reproduce.
In my mind, that would be the age limit.

If it is meant to be, it will happen.
If not, then it won't.

No one has the moral right to tell someone otherwise.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
IMO - - No One should bring another life into this world with out plans and ability to raise that child to independent adulthood.

Plans and ability can vary. IF an older child agrees to be close to and help raise the child - - and take that child into their own family if necessary. That could be a workable plan.

I don't necessarily think age is the moral issue. But a workable pre-plan in place is.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
According to the Book of Genesis, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, and Sarah was beyond childbearing years.


Just saying

edit on 30-9-2012 by samsamm9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
You may find this article interesting:

Children of Mothers over 40 are healthier and more intelligent

On the opposite side of that scale, some studies have indicated that the younger someone is when they have children, the higher probability for their children to be involved in high risk and even criminal and violent behavior.

In other words;
birth at youth creates low intelligence criminals.
birth after 40 creates healthy smarter brilliant children.

These, of course, are studies and only indicate results based on accumulated data.

Data suggests that older parents create healthier, smarter children.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Data suggests that older parents create healthier, smarter children.


Interesting article, but I doubt they "create" healthier, smarter children... more likely they are just wiser in life by this point and RAISE smarter, healthier children.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
You seem like a really nice person... you are forgetting the abandoned kids in foster homes, those put up for adoption, kids messed up by their parent's yelling and poor moral skills, and the teenage parent crowd. I think age 26 to 42 is an ideal range for parenting. It pays to have mature, financially stable, educated parents, and those that can do the physical job of lifting, diapering, feeding. laundry, bathing, teaching, disapline, etc... The main thing is to love, nurture, and educate your child the very best you are able. Also know your limits on how many you can do this for. My Grandmother had twelve kids. My limit was two. I also depends on if you have boys or girls. Boys are a more physical job. The are more active and need more rules and disapline and patience. They are also messier and eat more as teenagers.

Don't you know kids at sixteen think they don't need any parents? Ha. That's when the parent job is really about endurance and patience. You have to be young enough to endure all their shocking behaviour even from the really good kids. Don't forget all the grandparents who end up parenting their grandkids......



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I think that it is unfair to the child for the parent to plan a pregnancy past, say, age 45. That child will need parents throughout his/her formative years and well into adulthood, but this is an unlikely scenario when the parents are too old at the time of the child's birth. That's not even factoring in the higher chances of birth defects and other genetic abnormalities that the child may suffer from due to the degradation of the parental reproductive DNA at the time of conception.

That said, there are truly incredible things that happen. I don't think it matters how old parents are if they love and care for their children. The fact of the matter is, there are many grandparents who are raising their grand-kids due to the irresponsibility of their own children. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since the grandparents would be able to provide a much more stable environment than the missing parents.

For myself, I would like to be retired by age 45 with my kids out of the house or close to it. At this point, my youngest will be out of the house around the time I turn 45, so I'm right on track (also 27).
However, I would welcome any children that come my way even after that age, whether by biological reproduction or not, because I don't mind taking care of other people. I just wouldn't purposefully plan it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 





No one has the moral right to tell someone otherwise.


So, one should than ignore what will necessarily happen to the son or daughter of the 65 year old? That he or she most likely will not have a living father after they graduate highschool, or college?

Why? How can you justify that?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
My uncle is in his late 60s and he had a child a couple of years ago with woman in her 30s. I personally think that isn't fair to the child considering he probably isn't going to be around when the kid is in his teens.

I'm 40 and I have a 2 year old and that is almost too much to deal with at this stage in life, so as for your question OP I would say mids 30s.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

Originally posted by Druscilla
Data suggests that older parents create healthier, smarter children.


Interesting article, but I doubt they "create" healthier, smarter children... more likely they are just wiser in life by this point and RAISE smarter, healthier children.

Yeah I was thinking this myself. I don't think it has anything to do with genes, but rather the parenting skills are more refined because the parent is older and has more life experience. I've noticed that when people have children under the age of 20, the child usually has behavior problems. This isn't always the case, but more often than not I find it to be true. I'd say it's probably because the parents themselves are still young and foolish.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


That's actually completely counter intuitive.

Why would Plato and Aristotle recommend men stop having children at a late age because they are 'growing weaker' in intelligence - and so bodily energy - but when people are in the PRIME of their life, somehow, they produce fickle children?

I mentioned Plato and Aristotle because they were both natural scientists who based their judgements on experience. If it wasn't known by their age that old people tend to have children that are in some way mentally inferior compared to children born in a person's prime (18-35 for women, 21-45 for man) than it wouldn't had become such a commonplace belief.

Even today, I'm sure there are scientists and studies that contradict your claims that older woman produce better children. It doesn't make a shred of sense.

I wouldn't be suprised if it was a politically motivated study designed to encourage people to 'put off' parenthood till later in life.

Would certainly satisfy their political goals of reducing the world's pop.
edit on 30-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 





That said, there are truly incredible things that happen. I don't think it matters how old parents are if they love and care for their children. The fact of the matter is, there are many grandparents who are raising their grand-kids due to the irresponsibility of their own childre


True, no ones doubting the love the parent would have. But the final question is: is it best for the child. Only one consideration enters the equation when you have to make a moral decision, and that question is the fate of the child, and not simply what you could provide, or what a loving grandmother or grandfather can also provide. These are irrelevant considerations overall, since when you make your final decision, the only factor that really counts is how the child will live.

Like I emphasized at the end of my post, I would want to provide the best circumstances for life for my child. I wouldn't want to condemn him to not being able to play with his father because his father has serious arthritis and osteoporosis; and when he or she reaches adulthood, I wouldn't be sure if I could be able to walk them down the isle, or be their for the birth of their children, or to play with them.

One of my greatest sadness's in life was not having a grandfather. My dad's father left him as a 13 year old, and my moms father had a major stroke a year after I was born.

Knowing your parents, and knowing your parents parents, is too rich an experience to simply sweep away for the sake being able to provide love and support for 20 or so years. I just don't think it's fair, and I think there should be a very defined certainty that this is objectively immoral.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

Originally posted by Druscilla
Data suggests that older parents create healthier, smarter children.


Interesting article, but I doubt they "create" healthier, smarter children... more likely they are just wiser in life by this point and RAISE smarter, healthier children.


It certainly brings into question the old Nature vs. Nurture debate.

On the Nature side of the argument in relation to the cited article, in my previous post, there's indication of genetic memory where an older Mother's age and experience effects higher probabilities for greater intelligence.

On the Nurture side of the argument in relation to the cited article, it's indicated that an older mother is likely more established, wise, and successful such that they can provide a more engaging environment conducive for the nurturing and growth of higher intelligence in children.

I'm personally partial to the Nurture side of the argument, being that the Nature side of the argument has little by way of evidence to indicate such things as 'genetic memory', or 'ancestral memory' is a possibility beyond such indicators as horses and deer walking and running mere hours after birth, and other seemingly programmed survival, autonomic, reflex, and muscle 'memory' attributes.

Advances in bioscience and biotechnology such as:
Harvard Stores record 70 Billion books on thumnail sized Bio-library (using DNA)
would seem to indicated that it's possible for genetic or ancestral memory to occur, but, possible vs. actual and natural vs. artificial are different arguments altogether.

It'd certainly be interesting if information could be learned, and passed on through genetic storage.

edit on 30-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
So it's better to have never been born at all than to have a parent die before you reach adulthood? Ok, got it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Yes, I agree with you.

Unfortunately, "first world" countries tend to emphasize selfishness. When someone decides not to have children until around age 50,"Because I've done everything else.", it is pure selfishness. It is unlikely that someone who is considering having children so late is motivated by the biological clock - s/he wants to have children just to experience having children, regardless of whether the child will end up being parent-less at a relatively young age or not. It is very unfair to the children of these circumstances. Though, again, at least the children would be loved while the parent was alive to love them. :-/



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
So it's better to have never been born at all than to have a parent die before you reach adulthood? Ok, got it.


No, of course not! But, it's still the kid that gets the short stick in this scenario.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 
I think the kids would turn out better just dont die on em.

prob 65





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join