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

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
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.


Nice in theory.

Give me a young child with patience enough to fish. Yes - I'm sure there are some - - but few and far between.

Wisdom - - hmmmm. If he can keep his mind sharp while watching the same Nickelodeon show over and over millions of times. Unless you plan on raising a "mini adult" - - - skipping the child's social needs (having to make them up later in life at an age society doesn't accept such immature behaviors).

I do hope he teaches the child early on to pick up his toys. At 65 that floor seems further and further away.

Oh - - and having your feet stomped on. For some reason nerve endings seem to be closer to the surface at age 65.

If he can hang in there a few years - - the child might actually have a few years where he's interested in his elderly father's wisdom. That is until he hits about age 13 - - - no explanation necessary.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Nobody over 248 years old should be allowed to have kids.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by violet
 




Yes I was somewhat offended.


I don't know why, my criticism wasn't of you, but of what you said, that particular idea you mentioned of people dying as being somehow relevant to the greater discussion of the morality.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by violet
 




Yes I was somewhat offended.


I don't know why, my criticism wasn't of you, but of what you said, that particular idea you mentioned of people dying as being somehow relevant to the greater discussion of the morality.




If you can't figure out why I was 'somewhat' offended I can't help you with that.

You are the one who used dying to argue your beliefs
edit on 30-9-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I am one that thinks that can be considered a moral question, but along the lines of personal morals, what you feel is right or wrong, but not what you can insist anyone else adhere to!

Of course all societies have limits of collective morals, but those need to be wider than that!
If you were to decide to make laws with the intent of avoiding kids ever facing loss or sadness, then you'd have to go into a whole territory of laws- they cannot have pets, they cannot be held back a grade, they cannot have a toy thrown away, they cannot be told "no" when they want something.......

The percentages of marriages that end in divorce is so high that you'd have to make it illegal to have children if you are married. But then the chances of the father abandoning the child when there is no marriage are even higher, so having children unmarried would have to be illegal too.



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



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by violet
 





If you can't figure out why I was 'somewhat' offended I can't help you with that.

No, I can't help you from taking things too personally.

If someone said something I thought was irrational and showed me where I went wrong, I would appreciate it because the only thing which ought to concern any reasonable human being is the question of truth. If something can be explained in such a manner as to make the intrinsic reason evident, than any truth-seeking person is obligated to submit to the truth and thank God that he has the humility to do so, otherwise he would be ignorantly walking in error.

I meant nothing about it to you as a person. The thought was irrational. And your continued focusing on your own subjective perspective is keeping you away from appreciating the reason in my explanation for why I considered the idea irrational.




You are the one who used dying to argue your beliefs


And whats wrong with that?
edit on 30-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I heard that the older you are when you have children, the healthier your children will be. Older people are also generally more mature than younger people. Therefore, they are better teachers.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 





I am one that thinks that can be considered a moral question, but along the lines of personal morals, what you feel is right or wrong, but not what you can insist anyone else adhere to!


That's exactly my opinion as well.

I am a liberal democrat, I hold my own personal beliefs, but I recognize the need to keep my personal beliefs, especially those which perceive a moral in this particular question (which there undoubtedly is, by the way) to myself, and away from the public domain.

This is not a subject I would bother forcing on someone else. I will at most feel annoyed at their inability to see things properly (that is, considering things according to the nature of their likely consequences, and acting in a way that comports to that knowledge), but I wouldn't see it as so important as to outright prohibit the person from doing that. That would be extreme.




The percentages of marriages that end in divorce is so high that you'd have to make it illegal to have children if you are married. But then the chances of the father abandoning the child when there is no marriage are even higher, so having children unmarried would have to be illegal too.


That's an interesting point.

While I agree that the nature of marriage nowadays seems to condemn children to the pressures of seeing your parents get divorced, I don't think there is an essential likeness between the people who get married and divorced and a 65 year old man who reaches the average life expectancy of 79, and so enters a scenario in which his progeny will in all probability be deprived of a father. The former is determined by the people involved, for instance, their beliefs; do they take marriage seriously? are they religious? It's these types of people who increase the likelihood of a marriage that lasts. In the case of a 65 year old, there is little chance for him to really go any more or any less beyond the average life expectancy, meaning, he may be present in his child's life for 10 years (till 75), or much later at 30 years (95), but since we can never be certain, we logically adhere to the average life expectancy of 79 years.

My discussion of this subject is not unusual, since the TV show Modern Family is DESIGNED to not only condition, but also provoke conversation in tentative areas like this. Should a man of his age be having children? Why or why not? I think the conversation is in itself healthy, but I still see a definite wrongness in deciding to have children that late in life. Its a moral, personal wrong that the law has no right of adjudicating on.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Should a man of his age be having children?
yes if he chooses and is able.


Why or why not?
answers provided in previous posts


I think the conversation is in itself healthy
it is, unless the sole purpose of that conversation is to brow-beat the participants into accepting or believing that your opinion is the only right or wrong one.

if it is a conversation you desire, expansion of your own horizons should be the goal.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





if it is a conversation you desire, expansion of your own horizons should be the goal.


So anyone who embarks on a conversation should seek to be convinced of the other persons view?

What I think good in talking about it is that we have a society that is able to foster that conversation in a peaceable and friendly manner. It doesn't force any one view - mine which inclines to recognition of a moral claim - or another person who disagrees. Part of the freedom we enjoy living in a liberal democracy is that it provides as many people as possible a place to express their views - and that means views you disagree with.

In any case, you are entirely unable to challenge on logical grounds my case for why someone should act in accord with his knowledge of the consequence.

You just don't like that idea. You actually jettison the argument all together, reducing the act of judging an action according to it's ethical merit to a question of why the question even matters.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

So anyone who embarks on a conversation should seek to be convinced of the other persons view?
no.
that is not what i said.
generally, acceptance and consideration of an alternate theory is usually the purpose of a "conversation".
dialogue used to force your opinion upon others, regardless how immoral such an act truly is, does not equate to a conversation.

asking for input (why - why not) then proceeding to berate others simply because you disagree is not a "conversation".
not sure where you are that you live in a "liberal democracy" but i'm in the USA and we don't foster that here.

there is nothing immoral about bearing children.
even for those who "cannot afford it" ... we've been doing it for centuries, with or without financing.

logical ?? what is logical about your assertion or question ?
it is not logical to presume the creation of life is immoral in any way, shape or form.

you cannot assume "knowledge" based on circumstance.
in the days of Plato, ppl lived well into their 80s, 90s and beyond.
who's to say that without generations of war, we'd be pushing 200 by now ??
so, if average life expectancy were say 150, would it be immoral to begin procreating at 20 ??

ppl die prematurely every day, what makes you think your "presumed consequences" will follow your outline ?


You just don't like that idea. You actually jettison the argument all together, reducing the act of judging an action according to it's ethical merit to a question of why the question even matters.
i didn't start this thread, it is not me who is judging ... please put the mirror down before you type.
i am human, it is not my place to judge or yours for that matter.

and, for the record, it is you who is avoiding my questions, not the other way around.
you've answered one (kind of), what's the problem ??
can't argue sound logic or are you more interested in fishing for any logic so long as it agrees with you ?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I agree there is no reason not to discuss the issue.
On the other hand, I have found that it is useful to pay attention to who is interested in debate,
and who is interested in exchange.

These are not the same types of dialogue and trying to engage someone in debate who is not into that sport is useless provocation that they will not understand.

Here's what I would offer on the distinction between the situations where a child has a high risk of having their father abandon them versus the very high risk of their father dying when they are either a teen or young adult-

An adult doesn't NEED their parent. I mean, for survival. In our society a person reaches majority at 18, and has full rights and responsibilties. (except to drink alcohol, depending upon state
)


You are talking about a young adults emotional desires- not essential NEEDS.
If the child is still a teen and the mother is still alive, they still are less in need as much as desire.

I sometimes think that the imagination can make things more scary than they really are!
In France, people's eyes grow wide and they imagine horror if you tell them you ever worked a job while still being a student at the same time(oh mon dieu! You have been exploited and abused!)
They freak out if they hear you had to cook your own meals as a teen, and pass out if you tell them you once went through a rough patch while starting yoru company and had to sleep in your car.
They've never lived such difficulties (they have a very maternal culture) and these things are absolutely horrible to imagine another living them.

But those of us that have just can laugh at that- we made it through fine! We even grew and learned a lot from those experiences! We learned how much we are CAPABLE of doing or surviving without help..... which made us ultimately much more couragious in life and able to overcome bigger obstacles later!

I describe this to liken it to this subject-

If you are an adult that has your parents, it might be horrendous to imagine some people don't.
But that is your imagination, which tends to not add in the positive part of possibilities that balance things out and make them as valuable as they are difficult!
edit on 1-10-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 




On the other hand, I have found that it is useful to pay attention to who is interested in debate, and who is interested in exchange.


I have a nasty habit of that. It's because my main subject of interest at ATS is politics, particularly Israel, and with all the crap and lies spread in that department I tend to feel the need to refute each and every point, if at least for other's to see.

But here I see your point.



An adult doesn't NEED their parent. I mean, for survival.


Technically speaking a child doesn't need a parent either. We have foster homes to take care of orphaned children.

Obviously, my argument is a little more subtle than basic biological necessity.




You are talking about a young adults emotional desires- not essential NEEDS.


Well, the quality of his life - and we are all emotional beings - pivots on whether or not he will have some basic social mores in life.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a person could adapt and live happily without a father in his life. My question is, isn't it better that he have one for as long as possible?

People cannot help but to compare their state relative to others. When I for instance see a friend, or saw a friend when I was younger, interact with their grandfather, I was somewhat jealous, or at least somber at not having a grandfather in whom I could learn from in life. The dynamic between grandfather and grandson is special, all it's own and different from that of a father-son relationship.

If I am able to recognize this and feel some lack in not having a grandfather, I can only imagine the malaise one would feel in not having a father at 20 years old, because your dad lived 6 years past the average life expectancy of 79.




They've never lived such difficulties


Sounds like the French live pretty comfortably.




If you are an adult that has your parents, it might be horrendous to imagine some people don't. But that is your imagination, which tends to not add in the positive part of possibilities that balance things out and make them as valuable as they are difficult!


That's a much more existential question. Can people be happy at any cost? I think the Jewish people are a prime example of that. YES!, they can, we can adapt and feel happiness in the most objectively horrendous situations. It's actually hilarious - and believe me I know - how we can be simultaneously steeped in a difficult situation and still be relatively happy.

But my concern is, why - why take the easy way out? Why at 65 would you forgo the concern over whether you would be present in your sons life - beyond the 'expected' 14 years?? It just seems gratuitous, and selfish, and putting far more thought on the immediate benefit - your happiness, bringing a child into the world - while ignoring the long term consequence of your child likely growing up without a father.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I'm going to agree with the poster you’re replying to and say we don't have the moral right to tell someone otherwise.

If you do so, then to what end?



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?


Should we ignore what will happen to the son or daughter of an uneducated financially non-self-sufficient teen parent? Should we ignore what will necessarily happen to the son or daughter of a drug addicted parent at any age?

Why? How can you justify that?

If an older parent can raise a child where the child is in college or high school and healthy and will be self-sufficient isn’t that better than a 26 year old drug addict who would raise an emotionally damaged child who could possibly end up dependent on the state?

You may say that not every 26 year old will be a drug addict. But I say the same to you. You’re assuming that a child wouldn’t be happy to be alive and healthy and productive, however sad it may be to lose a parent at a young age. We all lose our parents and the age is irrelevant. A thirty year old parent can just as easily die.

I agree that not everyone should be parents but I say so regardless of the age. And I believe you mean well. However,

We cannot and do not regulate human reproduction so passing judgment, however satisfying, is moot.

I have a friend that has a much older father, like in the scenario you presented in your op. How do you think he would feel or react to your judgment of his father? And that friend is happy and healthy and self-sufficient, a productive member of society and is glad to be alive.

Anyway, just my opinion...
edit on 1-10-2012 by kisharninmah because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join