Mom at age 60: 'Age has been redefined'

dolfette

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
11,303
Media
0
Likes
108
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
at 31 i already question whether i'd be able to keep up with another hypothetical child...

i'd be interested to see who has kids and how it influences their opinions on the matter.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
at 31 i already question whether i'd be able to keep up with another hypothetical child...

That's my reasoning, it's a personal judgement. Certainly medial factors are relevant, more so as age increases but name calling seems rather shrill.

i'd be interested to see who has kids and how it influences their opinions on the matter.

Not of an age where physical or legal dependency is a consideration. On age v capability I'd go you with you're first statement, I like my sleep! But on that I can only speak for myself.:tongue:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Do read the article before commenting.

"She and her husband, Ken, a New York City attorney, have been married for 38 years and have three other children — sons ages 33 and 6 and a daughter, 29."

There's no mention of the 6 year old having been conceived by other than natural means, and it seems that their reason for having another child (oops! twins) was so their youngest wouldn't grow up alone. That's who the twins can kick the ball around with.

Yes, this will be physically demanding given the age of the parents (though they could be in excellent condition)

Yes, this will likely mean that the twins won't have the same opportunity to form an adult bond with their parents the way most of us do, but the six year old was already facing that likelihood alone.

I would imagine that the older children would be executors of the will and have power of attorney until the young-lings are of an age to make sound financial decisions.

I can't speak to why they chose not to adopt. One reason I can imagine is that an adopted child might feel resentful that he was adopted solely to be a companion to the six year old, regardless of the love they would receive, where a child born into the family would know that they were a natural part of the family even if for the same reason. Just a supposition.

I do see this as an odd choice but I can't say it's a wrong choice.
I can say it's not my business to judge.

I agree that it was an odd choice, but looking at it from the full view, I also agree that it was their decision to make as a family, and not mine. I also saw an interview, and these people wanted their babies very much. Any child born into a loving family is already at an advantage, so who am I to say what's right for someone else?

I am hoping that these people talked to their grown children about the possibility and likelihood of their having to step in as back-up parents in the event of their disability or death. They seemed like intelligent enough people to have done so, and clearly have the financial stability to afford assistance should they need it.

Yes, it's selfish. I'd rather be born to someone who wanted me desperately, and being selfish in the desire to have me than to be born to someone for whom I wasn't exactly a gift. We all express our love in different ways, I can't call their decision wrong- just interesting.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
Or, maybe it's just the rain making me grouchy.
Damn, send some of that my way. It's so terribly dry here, I don't think we've had 4 inches of precip since January 1. :biggrin1: Having to water my flower beds every day or so makes me grouchy!

And to your previous point: I agree with you. That's why I worded my post the way I did. (I'm rambling, not saying you disagreed with me)

It's fine to say, "I wouldn't do it," it's ok to say "I wonder about her dying when the children are very young," but it's something else entirely to say "I think she's a horrible person for doing something that I wouldn't."
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Damn, send some of that my way. It's so terribly dry here, I don't think we've had 4 inches of precip since January 1. :biggrin1: Having to water my flower beds every day or so makes me grouchy!

You're welcome. It seems like we're having April in May this year. Probably snow next month.

It's fine to say, "I wouldn't do it," it's ok to say "I wonder about her dying when the children are very young," but it's something else entirely to say "I think she's a horrible person for doing something that I wouldn't."

I'm glad you can appreciate the distinction.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
How old are you ManlyBanisters? I ask because your statements appear based in youthful inexperience and righteous indignation.

njqt466
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
How old are you ManlyBanisters? I ask because your statements appear based in youthful inexperience and righteous indignation.

njqt466

youthful inexperience - no / righteous indignation - yes

Well , if that's what you choose to call it.

I made my point here - I assume that's what you referring to. I disagree with IVF - full stop, on moral grounds. I believe this case to be a gratutitous misuse of science. Barrate me for that if you will - that is what I believe.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
I haven't read the thread, but I have read some fairly serious stuff about the dangers of reproducing with old genes.

Old for humans is over about 35.

Science has moved us a lot faster than our genetic evolution can keep pace with.
 

thirteenbyseven

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Posts
2,424
Media
0
Likes
1,519
Points
333
Location
Orange County, SoCal
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I haven't read the thread, but I have read some fairly serious stuff about the dangers of reproducing with old genes.

Old for humans is over about 35.

Science has moved us a lot faster than our genetic evolution can keep pace with.


It seems once a week there is a news article that "age 100 is the new 65" or some old geezer trying to enter a triathlon in his ninth decade. It blends a little reality in that the definition of middle age is gradually increasing with the advance of medicine and good lifestyle practices, with a little whistling past the graveyard. When the mother reaches age 35 there is a dramatic increase of babies born with birth defects like Down's Syndrome and there is evidence that old fathers carry genetic deficiencies in "old sperm."

Medical science has a long way to go before it can defeat the aging process.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I just think that it's sad that her now-orphaned son is just three years old. She was dishonest and selfish and now he's paying for it.

I couldn't agree more. Of course she couldn't have known she was going to die this soon, but whether she'd lived even 20 years more, the concept remains.