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

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


no problem, I was just speaking to from a biological point of view.

Women have more calcium in their bodies at younger ages rather than at older ones. Men have more active sperm and are more fertile at younger ages. Too young and our own bodies have not developed yet to their full potential. I don't think that would be good for women. Too old, and your child will risk being slightly smaller and weaker than a child born to a robust 20 something.

I am not arguing against the sociological stance of building security so you CAN have a family. I am saying that for you and the children's health, it is better to do it at the ages I ascribed to be prime for it.

Taller,stronger, less sickness prone children are born to young adults....that is just true. Physically your child will be less active as well if you are not able to keep him active physically due to your own fatigue. At their adolescence, you will be behind the times so to speak, and will not pick up on the nuances of youth culture the way you could at your 20s....that to me is simple truth as well....

that said, I did mention that a case specific approach is best when assessing prime age..

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




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


A better question...

Why are you even watching the Modern Family


That stuff rots the brain!



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


My dad died before I was out of high school....
my parents weren't that old when they had me.
your plans are never gonna be 100% spot on....

are you suggesting that if someone finds themselves pregnant in their later years that they should abort, just so the child won't have to risk the possible loss of a parent??

I highly doubt that anyone plans to have a kid in their 40's, it's more like sometimes crap happens!



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I think it's none of our business to dictate other people's morals. It's not even up to me to say what is moral for someone else. To each his or her own. It's a reproductive issue and should be the choice of the people involved and no one else. Nature takes care of it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


My mom thought she was starting menopause when she became pregnant with me


Obviously I have always known I was an accident....... I dont think age matters as long as you actually WANT the kid... I never felt wanted and it had nothing to do with my parents age.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Bluesma
 


no problem, I was just speaking to from a biological point of view.


If that's the case, it would have been more clear to leave this comment out-



40+ is too old. You should have skipped the vacations and living like Romeo and Juliet and hunkered down and made a family. You can't live the good life and then one day think, ok.....now I will raise kids



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
morally, I bet the kid is just grateful to have been born



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


They say kids make out better with older parents but they also state
they are more likely to be bipolar.

My has a 39 year difference then me.

It makes adapting and social situations sometimes a nightmare.

If I was 27 and faster 92 I wouldn't mind if he was a good father.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I had my first child at 41 after decades of infertility. My two younger brothers have had children over 40, one who also had infertility problems.

We had gone through a lot of failed fertility treatments and we gave up when I turned 40. My brother and his wife have the same story. Apparently, we don't reach fertility in my family until we hit our 40's.

Sometimes I worry about being an older parent. I don't smoke, don't drink and try to eat as healthy as I can. I owe it to my family to live another 50 years. My biggest fear is dying early and not being there when my kids need their mother.

That being said, I am infinately more patient than I was in my 20's, we have enough money I can stay home and raise my kids, not have a day care raise them. I can volunteer at their schools and teach them educationally and morally.

If I can conceive naturally another one, I would happily get pregant again at (almost) 47.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ottobot
 


Your arguments are sound, but, at the same time, there are a category of people who simply don't settle down until later in life due either youthful irresponsibility (without having children), and/or a strong orientation toward career involvement such that they never form relationships that could lead to offspring, or make time for finding a mate until they've established security and personal leisure such they feel marriage and raising children is within their responsible means, as well as those who simply have the dumb luck of never successfully pairing off until later in life.

I agree, I know there are responsible people who do not have children until later in life. That's not the point of my stance. What I am saying is that the child will be the one to suffer in these circumstances - if something goes wrong and the parent is severely disabled or dead in the child's youth.



Putting a foot down, and stating that just because someone is older they've missed their 'chance' to procreate, is absurd.

Everyone should be free to pass on their genes with at least one child.
Sure, there's the emotional argument for the vacancy of an older parent after passing and the points you've made, but, if someone desires to procreate, if only just one child, why deny anyone such just because their age?

Should everyone whelp out half a dozen squalling brats in their youth and live off of government subsidy just to ensure they've successfully qualified for genetic immortality through their children in a race to beat some clock?

Yong parents can die just like older parents. Young parents are increasingly more so single parents. Young parents can be irresponsible and either run off with different partners abandoning their previous offspring, or engage in youthful risks like drunk driving on a night out to blow off steam away from the kids that cuts one, or even both young parents out or leaving the children to care for massively debilitated parents.

There's lots of what-ifs on both ends of the spectrum.

No one should be denied the chance to have at least one child, regardless their age, so long as they're of legal age.

If anything, people should be restricted from having too many children.
People having 3, 4, 5, 6, or even more children are a greater plague on the earth, drain on resources, contribution toward over population, and larger example of irresponsibility than anything related to older people desiring to have a child.

No one should be denied having a child.
Too many children, on the other hand, now, that's an issue that should be addressed.

As I said in my initial post, I don't think it matters how old the parent is, as long as the child is loved. So, denying parenthood based on age is silly.

Alternatively: Yes, there are some people who should be denied having a child - pedophiles, rapists, child molesters, abusers, people with anger control issues, to name a few categories. This would be for the safety and well-being of the child, of course. Not that people would go in for that, "restricting the rights of people to have kids", or whatever. But, having grown up, raising myself and several siblings and being habitually beaten and otherwise abused by "my parents", I can say with authority that being a child of a bad person is not pleasant. I wish my parents had died a long time ago. And, I would not wish that feeling or type of experience on anyone, especially for the sake of the "parent" to have the experience of "being a parent".

Age, though, doesn't really matter in terms of parenting ability, because there will be responsible and irresponsible parents in any age group.

I agree with the above poster who said that most "older parents" are older parents due to an unexpected pregnancy. That is going to be the most likely scenario. And, there is nothing wrong with that.

As I've said, I would not PLAN a child later in life because it would suck for the child. But, if it was unexpected, I would do whatever I could to raise said child well. Just as I raise my current children. I will still be the same person who will be responsible and who cares about children, regardless of my age.

People are not uniform, though. So to say that all older parents will be good parents is not accurate, just as saying all younger parents will be bad parents.

People are people.

The question in this thread, though, is a moral question. It applies only to you, the person you are, and the people your potential children will be.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I can see why no-1's flagged this thread but 1... I don't see how anyone can view having a baby whether a woman of 18 or 48 as a moral issue.

Maybe that's what's wrong with the people of the U.S. Not only do they NOT practice a moral and value system these days but apparently they don't even know what they are.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
In past Tahitian culture - - the young were allowed to be young - - experience life - experience love.

The elders as a group raised the children - - taught them to dance and the history of their people.

Maybe we're just doing it all wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
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?


"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Unless it involves you it's simply none of your business. We all have opinion and that's all we're entitled to.

No justification is needed!

.
edit on 30-9-2012 by henrybowman because: clarity



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1
I can see why no-1's flagged this thread but 1... I don't see how anyone can view having a baby whether a woman of 18 or 48 as a moral issue.

Maybe that's what's wrong with the people of the U.S. Not only do they NOT practice a moral and value system these days but apparently they don't even know what they are.


What do you mean?
Morality is ones system of catagorizing right and wrong, or good and bad, for choice making.

Though in the case of people who become pregnant on accident, they didn't apply any morality because there was no choice made- but for people who have not already done that, it makes sense for them to consider and decide what they think would be a right or wrong thing for them to do, no? That's got to include reflection on when they shall choose to have children!

The OP doesn't focus on the age of the mother though, he mostly focused on the age of the father in particular, which up to recently, we didn't think it mattered, biologically speaking.
edit on 30-9-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



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


If you have to ask, you're too old.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


That is such a ridiculous attitude.

If someone were to kill your sister, or brother, or someone close to you, wouldn't you want some sort of requital?

And why would you want a requital? Because the person responsible committed a crime; and a crime is something universally agreed to be wrong. And to regard something as wrong is a moral judgement.

For you to be consistent in your 'heresy' and revolt against rationality, you would have to shut up and accept what that person did, because you have no right whatsoever to critique another person's choices.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Honestly, this question reminds me of the Chinese governments mentality in regards to only having one child.

Logical solutions that just don't seem morally right in the least,
at least not in the way I see things.
But then, I do not judge, I observe.

I'm glad we are not ruled like that here, well for the most part,
as freedom is still alive and well, but being eroded
by people in high places who act on personal morals to make laws.

IMO


Carry on.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkblade71
Honestly, this question reminds me of the Chinese governments mentality in regards to only having one child.


Are you saying China is wrong?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by samsamm9
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)

andArc builder"Noah" was supposed to be over 900...



just sayin'
edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No and yes.

I understand why they do this, however to me it is wrong to force it on someone.
At the same time, it is right, because they could not support a larger population.

I have issues with China though...lol
Not the people, just the Gov.

2 sides to every coin.



new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join