How Old is Too Old...

Life sucks in general, you're splitting hairs. This child has the potential to be happy, and has a Mother that loves him. That is more than enough.
 
Phaedrus said:
You are arguing potential, and using ends based logic. Can you deny she would love her child the little time she was with it? Can you deny even if she had died in child birth she loved the child? Is not love worth more than anything else in this world? Am I being overly romantic? Regardless of whether she had the child or not, there are plenty of children who do not even have this. Regardless of poverty and situation, this child is far better off than those poor children. Certainley there is a burden implied, but life is a burden, and it's your choice to shoulder it or not. Would you deny the child care? Would you deny the Mother care? Would you deny anybody care?

Don't you dare bring up mercantilism, there is room.
That was my point.

As far as what this woman's motives are, I don't know. Maybe she was encouraged by the doctor for him to be able to say "look at what I did". Maybe you should ask her other children if she was a good mother. They could be in therapy. But needless to say, the child is indeed a fact, now. But since she had a choice, I believe it wasn't the best. I also have a right to my opinion, as do you.
 
While I can see both pov's, I think it's really selfish for someone to have a child at that age...man or woman. Pure selfishness.

On the other hand, you never know who's old and who's young by way of how many years they have left.
 
I'm not saying she wasn't irresponsible, simply that you have no right to say she shouldn't have child.
 
Maybe she was irresponsible. But then who knows maybe she is going to be the mother of some man or woman who will change the world.
 
Phaedrus said:
I'm not saying she wasn't irresponsible, simply that you have no right to say she shouldn't have child.
God already made that discision for her. She was past being able to concieve of her own!! She had to seek out medical and scientific help so the descision was I feel very selfish.. This for her and her alone not the child that she will never see to full adulthood let alone grandchildren from the child.. :baby: :baby: :baby:
 
Many people have fertility issues, not just the elderly. Would you deny them a child? Any child is a gift, whether from God or not. The purpose for having children is subjective, but IMHO her's was love, not to see grandchildren. I'm sure there was even quite a possibility she wouldn't survive childbirth, so how selfish was she? She loved this potential child so much she was willing to risk her life, and I'm sure the child doesn't regret being born.

BTW, if God didn't want her to have a child, it wouldn't have happened.
 
She might have some right to have a child at the age of sixty-three, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

She is at the age of a grandmother, not a mother.

Probably around the age of 45-50 is the top limit, for both men and women.

After that, adopt a small dog to love.
 
Phaedrus said:
Please read before posting.

When is it people will learn to read? I never said she wasn't irresponsible, simply that you have no right whatsoever to say she cannot have a child. In her position, I would not have done what she did for obvious reasons that you seem to enjoy repeating.

However, you have no right to enforce your view on others, I am simply drawing that distinction. Posed as a rhetorical question, you already have my answer, but some people here have taken this well beyond rhetoric.

I tried answering UnAmerican's utter BS with my own BS. I recognize it as such, and "suprise" so do you. I apologize if you find it offensive, but it almost appears you are looking to be offended, in which case I have no sympathy.

I suppose I should couch this as simply as possible, you are in charge of nobody's life but your own. Back off, she has enough to deal with without you jumping on her back and howling like monkey.
 
My beliefs are no more valid than anybody else's. If my tone gets more annoyed during this line of posts, it is simply because people are trying to deny her the natural rights and freedoms granted to her under the Constitution.

People do not seem to be reading what I say, or what others say, and are simply stating their opinion. I believe in Hegelian synthesis in terms of rational thought, If you actually pay attention to what another person is saying, you might learn something.

That said, I do realize the arrogance in my last post, and apologize. As I said, my opinion is no more valid than anybody else's.
 
Phaedrus said:
My beliefs are no more valid than anybody else's. If my tone gets more annoyed during this line of posts, it is simply because people are trying to deny her the natural rights and freedoms granted to her under the Constitution.

People do not seem to be reading what I say, or what others say, and are simply stating their opinion. I believe in Hegelian synthesis in terms of rational thought, If you actually pay attention to what another person is saying, you might learn something.

That said, I do realize the arrogance in my last post, and apologize. As I said, my opinion is no more valid than anybody else's.

Nobody wants to take away her natural rights. We're just using our natural rights to call her on being a dumb, selfish devil woman. It's called freedom of speech.
 
nukeman said:
God already made that discision for her. She was past being able to concieve of her own!! She had to seek out medical and scientific help so the descision was I feel very selfish.. This for her and her alone not the child that she will never see to full adulthood let alone grandchildren from the child.. :baby: :baby: :baby:

While I agree she's a selfish old cow, many younger people need scientific help to have a child. I think that's a great thing that they can be helped that way. Don't you?
 
roomy said:
I accept your apology, now run along and kiss someone elses ass for some points.

I've spent several days wondering how to respond to this, and it seems to me it would be best not to. However, the best way isn't always the right way. I'm truly confused at your perspective, and how these supposed reputation points fit into it...

I honestly don't give a damn, and would prefer you didn't respond to this, as it's the end my involvement in this thread. But, you truly must have a jaded perspective on life to respond to an honest apology in such a way.

Edit: I'm in no way faulting anybody for voicing an opinion, but I prefer pro-active posts to simply calling her a "selfish devil woman" repeatedly. She's human as we are all, and everybody seems to want to get angry at her, which helps nothing. Where's the love?

Does a person have to admit a mistake before you help them? Mistakes in no way require lapses in judgement, and I will personally help anyone. Everyone has their right to an opinion, but when does that opinion cross into judgement? I don't feel like quoting the Bible atm...
 
Hobbit said:
...to have kids?

No matter what your answer is, I think we can all agree that 63 is too old. It's not like it was an accident, either. This woman was undergoing fertility treatment.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/04/britain.mother.reut/index.html

Think about this poor kid. This mom will be...EIGHTY-FRICKIN'-TWO when the kid graduates from high school. Can you imagine being sixteen and having to help change your mom's diapers. This poor child may have to put his mom in a home before he even gets married, and may grow up wondering why his friends never want to play shuffleboard and canasta. It is just me or is this just a really stupid idea?

Was what she did illegal? No. Was what she did in poor judgement? Yes.

63... WAAAAAY to freakin' old. I pity the child. Mom could die before he even graduates high school.
 

Forum List

Back
Top