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 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.
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
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!
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.
yes if he chooses and is able.
Should a man of his age be having children?
answers provided in previous posts
Why or why not?
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.
I think the conversation is in itself healthy
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?
i didn't start this thread, it is not me who is judging ... please put the mirror down before you type.
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.
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.
An adult doesn't NEED their parent. I mean, for survival.
You are talking about a young adults emotional desires- not essential NEEDS.
They've never lived such difficulties
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!
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?