It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Bluesma
no problem, I was just speaking to from a biological point of view.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Darkblade71
Honestly, this question reminds me of the Chinese governments mentality in regards to only having one child.
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.
edit on 30-9-2012 by samsamm9 because: (no reason given)