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

reply to post by Darkblade71

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

Holding to a moral view is not synonymous with China's policy of restricting couples to having one child - which BTW, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with morality, but with practical population concerns.

As I see it - and really as most people see it (even if they don't consciously acknowledge it) - this would be an immoral act simply because what you're creating for the child is a situation and circumstance in which most people wouldn't want to be in.

Do you value the relationship you have with you parents? Do you value the relationship you have with your grandparents? Do you love that three generations interact, yourself with your parents and grandparents, and observing that special connection that binds all three together? This is surely a richer experience than having been deprived of it.

This morality is essentially bundled up with that traditional experiential knowledge. If you don't find anything of special value in knowing and having a relationship with the people responsible for bringing you into the world, and with the people who brought them into the world - and if you don't appreciate the spiritual closeness of this relationship, than of course you would not see a problem with having kids at 65 or later despite the fact that you would be leaving your child bereft of a father after they reached a still tender age in life.

Ultimately, I'm saying this should be something closely considered before deciding to bring a human being into the world.

In any case, I'm curious as to how one could possibly think not having a relationship with one's father beyond 25 wouldn't be an issue for people. It would be a loss. And comparatively so; most people have that connection. Most people have living parents well into their 40's, and some even have grandparents at that age. Just thinking about this show, it occurred to me that my own Grandmother - who is 81, who I thank my lucky stars to have known for 27 years of my life, is still 13 years younger than my father would be if he decided on having me at 65. Think about that.

And again, I feel the need to reiterate the spiritual significance of seeing your parents present during the birth and rearing of your own children. This is something incredibly special. I still have not experienced this, but I can see and I realize just by observing other's how precious this experience is.

Originally posted by Darkblade71
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.

Provide one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.

reply to post by dontreally


Well, I know people who believe just bringing a child into the world is wrong at this point, however, I don't believe that.

My whole point originally that it is morally wrong to put your morals on someone else
unless it is your own children and it is how you raise them.

Morals are morals, and are nothing more than opinions that are based on ways of lifestyle and living.
To put those rules on everyone of a gender, like in this case, a woman that is older and has a child, is silly.

You can say, well they are gonna die before the child is grown..etc...but so what? The child will learn grief and sadness JUST like everyone else. That does not mean this child will be ruined or corrupted or cannot do great things, so to me, it is a silly question.

As to what it had to do with China, I was pointing out that already something like this is in place, only it is not age, it is children in general. 1 child per family. Yes, it is for population control, but in my mind, it is the same moral question, is it right to do that to an entire population of people?

in China's case it is, however, they also have 2 billion+ people.

I don't know, just deep down inside I feel it is not right to tell someone they cannot have a child for any reason if they can physically have one.

A 65 year old man having a child would be perfect i think. He is retired or close to it. He can be involved in every aspect of his life and share his wisdom on a daily basis. Go fishing, whatever. Sounds perfect to me. I would bet the father would remain healthy just keeping up with the kid.

reply to post by dontreally

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

of course it is and since when is having children (at a legal age) a question of morality ??
when was the act of procreation reduced to question of morality ??

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.

while i can appreciate your opinion, thankfully it is ONLY an opinion.

question: if you're terminally ill and not expected to survive beyond age 18, is it immoral to procreate at the first available opportunity, regardless of age ??
(especially knowing full well, in advance, that your survival is extremely limited)
--> yes, i would agree it could be considered selfish but immoral ?? i cannot believe that.

As for a cutoff, what age people should stop having children?

when nature naturally eliminates the possibility, whatever age.
(if the male is as healthy as Jay Kordich, 80 is ok by me)

another question: since many ppl are now living into their 100s, why would you presume a parent at 60 wouldn't be around beyond 20-30yrs ??

personally, i wonder why you find it necessary to force your morals on any other person ??
wouldn't this obsession with control of others be a trait we should aim to eliminate ??

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Darkblade71
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.

Provide one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.

Had to think about that for a second or two

Most children are not planned,the parents hopefully are in an act of love with each other, and that in itself to me is unselfish, but then, that would also be a question of sexuality and how one views love making. If you think sex is selfish, then that point would be moot. I however do not see it that way.

So that is one as I see it.

reply to post by Annee

Provide one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.

ummm, it's what we were born to do.
it is the primary purpose of the human existence.
and, it is the ultimate expression of that which is recognized as divine.

reply to post by Darkblade71

My whole point originally that it is morally wrong to put your morals on someone else unless it is your own children and it is how you raise them.

That is a RADICAL viewpoint, though.

You talk as if that is an obvious inference. To hold to that view - you have to hold to it across the whole moral spectrum; murder, theft, rape, arson - none of these can then be wrong because as you said: " morally wrong to put your morals on someone else"

You can say, well they are gonna die before the child is grown..etc...but so what?

What a horribly unpersuasive argument. Seriously.

I think we've gone as far we can go in a conversation. You are a moral relativist to the extreme, while I believe we should consider consequences before we act.

I'd hate to 'anger you' one day so badly that you don't bother considering the consequence of killing that person, because, as you say, "so what"?

It's probably not really our business to dictate when others have children , however I agree its not the best idea. Yes the aging parent may die, but that can happen anyways like it did with me. I lost a parent at age 9.

In the case of the female who will carry the child, age 40 is usually the cut off age. This is because its best to have your first pregnancy while you are young, about early 20's, even late teens, or complications can arise or the child could have birth defects. Medicine may have advanced now where this isn't the case anymore, I don't know.

reply to post by dontreally


My morals change as my views change. I don't have to hold anything to anything, I like to just be.

And I am ok with it

Originally posted by Darkblade71
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.

To me, this says it all.

Good day

reply to post by Honor93

question: if you're terminally ill and not expected to survive beyond age 18, is it immoral to procreate at the first available opportunity, regardless of age ??

I would think so. Is this honestly your example for morality? LOL

Clearly, this is immoral. For what reason are you bringing the child into the world. How will he/she be taken care of?

This applies across the board. If you are not financially or mentally prepared for bringing a child in the world, you shouldn't do it. Likewise, if you're living in a war zone, it would be immoral i.e. an irresponsible act, to have children, knowing you would be bringing them into such a dangerous environment.

If you can't provide the best circumstances, than you should reconsider.

Yes, living is not easy. I'm sorry you lack the maturity to see that.

reply to post by Darkblade71



Excuse my french, but that is a remarkably stupid way to live.

reply to post by violet

Yes the aging parent may die, but that can happen anyways like it did with me. I lost a parent at age 9.

People often bring up this example, despite it's irrationality.

A parent may die. So may you. But we don't act according to what may happen in rare circumstances. Rather, we base our decisions on what USUALLY happens. People don't usually die before 82 - hence the average life span. Thus, the question of having kids at 65 + really does force into the equation the question of whether you'll be alive to see him get married, have children etc.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Darkblade71

 

Excuse my french, but that is a remarkably stupid way to live.

Nice

Enjoy!

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by violet

 

Yes the aging parent may die, but that can happen anyways like it did with me. I lost a parent at age 9.

People often bring up this example, despite it's irrationality.

A parent may die. So may you. But we don't act according to what may happen in rare circumstances. Rather, we base our decisions on what USUALLY happens. People don't usually die before 82 - hence the average life span. Thus, the question of having kids at 65 + really does force into the equation the question of whether you'll be alive to see him get married, have children etc.

I don't believe my remarks were irrational at all, thank you. It was a fair comment addressing what you wrote in your opening post in regards to a parent not being there for the child's younger years. I'm not going to tell you a story about it to boost your theory. I mostly agree its best to have children while you are still young. Grandparents are nice to have aren't they?

You just don't like I said sudden unexpected deaths can happen anyways.
But of course you are correct that we can't live on what ifs.
Make up your mind what your reasons are

reply to post by dontreally
when did i give an example for "morality" ??
quote it please.

your morals are your own, not mine, why try to make them something they aren't ??

so, why would it be immoral for the exampled person to procreate ??
isn't that their purpose in this life ??
(given physical ability is intact)

if it is so clearly immoral, please explain why because i do not agree.

if i deliver a child in the wilderness and it never experiences civilization as you understand it to be, how is that immoral ??
(if you've never watched the movie "Nell", perhaps you should)

children are born with all of the knowledge they will ever need, so how is anything more (1 parent, society, family, social support), immoral ??

If you are not financially or mentally prepared for bringing a child in the world, you shouldn't do it.

in a perfect world, i would tend to agree but we certainly aren't living in a perfect world, are we ??

Likewise, if you're living in a war zone, it would be immoral i.e. an irresponsible act, to have children, knowing you would be bringing them into such a dangerous environment.

ummm, pardon you but plenty of ppl in my generation were born in/of and amidst war zones.
(do you really think the present world conflicts are new or something ??)

so, according to you, 2/3 of the current population, shouldn't have been born at all ??

Yes, living is not easy. I'm sorry you lack the maturity to see that.

as a grandparent and the 3rd generation of 5 living generations, i think you are far too young to make such foolish assumptions.

reply to post by violet

I don't believe my remarks were irrational at all, thank you

The thankyou indicates that you were offended. I meant nothing offensive by it. On it's own, the idea that one can die at any age is an irrational point to make when what is of immediate moral validity is not what could happen, but what usually happens.

Similarly, one shouldn't not go driving because people sometimes die in car accidents. That would be irrational. But, one should NOT go driving if one is drunk, because drunkenness usually increases the likelihood of getting into a car accident. Therefor the principle emerges: driving is generally safe, whereas driving drunk usually results in serious car accidents.

To return to your statement. It doesn't matter whether or not you may die during your child's youth or early adult years, because USUALLY, people reach the average life span of 82-83 years of age. Whereas in the case of an old person, they are already nearing that life span, so the likelihood of them being dead or immobilized by the time their child reaches their early 20's is extremely likely.

This means that it would be immoral - if you care to provide your child with the type of environment that you most likely had - parents, grandparents, being present at their wedding, childrens birth, etc to bring your child into a world in which they would not have those things.

This seems to be the question people are stalling at: is it necessarily better to have a parent at 25, than not? Is it necessarily better to have your father present at your wedding, or at the birth of your children? For him to be an influence in your children's growth and maturation?

If you don't address these questions, you probably wont say outright like I am that it would be immoral. If you do, and you answer in the affirmative, that it would be a shame for your children not to have this, than I think that indicates the morality of how you should act.

Grandparents are nice to have aren't they?

They are. Like I said earlier, one of my lifes disappointments was not having a grandfather. My dads dad left his family, and my moms dad had a stroke a year after I was born, so I was never able to actually communicate with him.

I don't believe in restrictions on children, nor am I an anti-abortionist, although I'd say it's fair for a child to live a rich life, one or more parents would really have to live to see the child reach his/her eighteenth year at least.

reply to post by dontreally


Yes I was somewhat offended.

One one hand my comment supported your argument it's best to be present in your child's life, but on the other it was saying we really can't plot our life out under the assumption it will go according to plan. Life just doesn't work that way.

Ultimately it comes down to are you going to be a good parent who takes an Interest in their child's life or not. Some people are so young, they aren't committed to what it takes to do that. I have grandchildren and I'm not sure I will live long enough to watch them get married. My health isn't good. I'm of the opinion this will bother my children more than it will their kids. That's just my family dynamics. If its important for you to have every single person in the family to be at a wedding, then that's about you and what you want.


By the way if you're a good driver you should always keep in mind there might be a time when you aren't paying attention and get into an accident. Its a reminder to keep your eyes on the road. Never ever think you won't because you don't drink and drive.

As for being present at births, again this is for your own family if this is important or not. I was at my grandchildren's birth, but for my own deliveries of my children I didn't want an audience. We made phone calls announcing the births. It wasn't practical for the parents to be there for the births if it involved travelling long distances as one never knows when it's time. So again I say you cannot map out your life like this. My son tried to do that when his child was born because he's a sensitive boy who argued it was important. In the end only some of us could be there. As it turned out he had to be ok with that.

I have no comment regarding morals. Do what you want.