holly Posted 8 July 2006 Posted 8 July 2006 think its auwful tbh cant beleive it was even possible to happen poor kid will prob grow up being bullied etc, surely the women thought about the child rather than herself?? it actually is wrong or so i think
lcfcalan Posted 8 July 2006 Posted 8 July 2006 It's indicative of the selfishness that breeds in society. I saw the text on Sky News whilst at the gym, and apparently she did it because he'd never had the chance to be a father before. Now I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me. If he was that desperate to become a father, then he could have done so. If he left it too late (ie. trying to find the right woman etc), whilst his intentions might have been noble and all that, there comes a point when you have to say "that's that". I'm sure he wasn't thinking of how he'd cope with a stroppy lad in his late teens when he was pushing 80, and if he was then he must have thought "if I can't cope then someone else will". Either that or he really hasn't got a clue, and that doesn't bode well. Selfish idiots. I agree Leesoh (in my best leics accent) Selfish and I add foolhardy to the description. This does bring a new perspective to the discussion though, a MALE that has the MATERNAL clock ticking ? I think not , IMO , this couple are (and only judging by the tv pics of the house) , relatively wealthy , and curious as to the medical science that allows these things to happen. I cant imagine any person in my 'circle of friends' working away in the factory, laying a wall of bricks , selling/dealing with the general public , actually having conversations in a serious way , about having children soon at an age of 62 plus . Its a scarey unatural thing to do at that age.
lookwhaticando Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 Too old. Way too old. Simple as that. The age gap is just far too big. Most parents have around 30 years age difference with their kids. This couple have over 60 years difference. Two generations. They've just given birth to their own bloody grandchildren they're so old Here's another spin on it... Most people (women, mostly) are prevented from having children later in life by nature. Surely if you are rendered unable to have kids of your own (by nature, over the course of 50 years or whatever the going rate is these days), you perhaps shouldn't have kids? IVF is for people who can't have kids, not for those that shouldn't have kids.
Daggers Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 I think that if biology says 'no', then NO it is. Having said that, there's a part of me (the part that goes shopping in Asda) that says - almost all the parents I see there (or outside school) seem pretty bloody shit. Who is to say these two won't be great parents? I bet they won't let their 5yr old child play on a pavement next to a busy road, unsupervised, like my new neighbours do
Guest Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 It's in 17 years time when they can't control a rebellious 6th former the trouble starts!
Daggers Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 Though isn't a rebellious 17 year old just the product of 16 years shite parenting...and age is no decider on that one. If we can point to any determinant then it is the support, love and confidence building the child has experienced during its early development. Kids just don't get to 17 and get all arsey for the hell of it. Kids that have rules and boundaries may sulk a bit, but they do not go off the rails ~ that happens to ones with too much or too little freedom to dictate their lives. What about all of the children who are raised by their grandparents? Are all of you saying that these people can not do a decent job? I don't agree. I am not in favour of messing with biology to create extra children when there are enough in need of love and care already - but decrying someone's parenting ability based on age is not right.
Steven Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 Though isn't a rebellious 17 year old just the product of 16 years shite parenting...and age is no decider on that one. If we can point to any determinant then it is the support, love and confidence building the child has experienced during its early development. Kids just don't get to 17 and get all arsey for the hell of it. Kids that have rules and boundaries may sulk a bit, but they do not go off the rails ~ that happens to ones with too much or too little freedom to dictate their lives. What about all of the children who are raised by their grandparents? Are all of you saying that these people can not do a decent job? I don't agree. I am not in favour of messing with biology to create extra children when there are enough in need of love and care already - but decrying someone's parenting ability based on age is not right. A very sensible and balanced post.
Guest Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 Though isn't a rebellious 17 year old just the product of 16 years shite parenting...and age is no decider on that one. If we can point to any determinant then it is the support, love and confidence building the child has experienced during its early development. Kids just don't get to 17 and get all arsey for the hell of it. Kids that have rules and boundaries may sulk a bit, but they do not go off the rails ~ that happens to ones with too much or too little freedom to dictate their lives. Hmm, perhaps you'd like to tell that one to my parents. There are three of us, all brought up the same, but one was smoking and boozing whilst they should have been at school (no, it wasn't me). Nothing to do with parenting, it was peer pressure, and no matter how good the parents are, sometimes the child will not fight against what they are told to do by their mates. In fact, if there was something not right about the parents (for example their age), then the child might feel more pressured into going off the rails by it's contempories?To be honest though, if you could bring in licences for having kids, I would. And if there was a way of stopping some people having kids, I'd do it. Like the chavette in the bus station the other night!
Daggers Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 To be honest though, if you could bring in licences for having kids, I would. And if there was a way of stopping some people having kids, I'd do it. Like the chavette in the bus station the other night! Child benefit and child tax credit should be linked to the sucessful completion of a child care course
stez Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 Child benefit and child tax credit should be linked to the sucessful completion of a child care course thanks
Daggers Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 thanks S'ok, it would be a child rearing course that I would run and the pass mark is whether I like you as a person. I think this one is a runner...
Sophie Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 i do think that 62 is too old to have a baby, beacause as people have already mentioned it isn't really fair on the child, but i do see her side to it aswell i surpose, if it made her happy and it's what she wanted then thats fair enough.
Daggers Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 i do think that 62 is too old to have a baby, beacause as people have already mentioned it isn't really fair on the child Why? How is it unfair on a child to be raised by two parents that love it, are intelligent and have sufficient financial resources to ensure it will not be deprived or have to eat turkey twizzlers?
bigneville Posted 11 July 2006 Posted 11 July 2006 Would you rather two older parents who will love the baby, or two 16 year-olds who havent got a clue what to do?
Guest Posted 11 July 2006 Posted 11 July 2006 It's all about the balance of probabilities; the older you get, the more likely it is you are going to die. At the end of the day, they've paid for this kid, and they will no doubt bring it up without it wanting and all that, but the chances of them seeing the child reach adulthood are a lot less than a couple half their age. Plus, who's going to pay if they do leave it an orphan before it can pay it's own way? And even if they've provided for that possibility (they do look like they can afford to), it's setting a precedent here. How long before some couple who can't afford the treatment or the upkeep argue it's their human right? In my opinion (which many of you may disagree with, but I don't care), too many people think it's their right to have children, and too many have kids for the wrong reasons. If you can't have children, then tough. Deal with it. Many thousands of couples throughout history have not been able to procreate, why should you be any different? If you want kids for the right reasons, look towards the kids who have no parents or love in their lives.
Katy Posted 11 July 2006 Posted 11 July 2006 It's all about the balance of probabilities; the older you get, the more likely it is you are going to die. At the end of the day, they've paid for this kid, and they will no doubt bring it up without it wanting and all that, but the chances of them seeing the child reach adulthood are a lot less than a couple half their age. Plus, who's going to pay if they do leave it an orphan before it can pay it's own way? And even if they've provided for that possibility (they do look like they can afford to), it's setting a precedent here. How long before some couple who can't afford the treatment or the upkeep argue it's their human right? In my opinion (which many of you may disagree with, but I don't care), too many people think it's their right to have children, and too many have kids for the wrong reasons. If you can't have children, then tough. Deal with it. Many thousands of couples throughout history have not been able to procreate, why should you be any different? If you want kids for the right reasons, look towards the kids who have no parents or love in their lives. God, what a selfish cow I am
Sophie Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 Would you rather two older parents who will love the baby, or two 16 year-olds who havent got a clue what to do? yes i can see what you mean, i didn't mean it in a bad way just that as people have mentioned with older parents they could be bullied about it or the parents could become ill, althought anyone could get ill really
The People's Hero Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 KM - Isn't this a bit of a sensible, probing and mature thread? Subject matter appears to be quite serious? What has happened? What happened to the El Dude brothers?
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 Bloody Sussex people getting knocked up. Or is that Essex?
Knighton Matt Posted 15 July 2006 Author Posted 15 July 2006 KM - Isn't this a bit of a sensible, probing and mature thread? Subject matter appears to be quite serious? What has happened? What happened to the El Dude brothers? You're right mate I'm back from my week's 'holiday' in Northampton/Banter Central and my drink with the Fezzler the other night made me see the light that I have neglected the banter for far too long. I will try harder. Yes I am truely repentent. What's the crack/plan for the Ipswich game?
Guest Posted 16 July 2006 Posted 16 July 2006 You're right mate I'm back from my week's 'holiday' in Northampton/Banter Central and my drink with the Fezzler the other night made me see the light that I have neglected the banter for far too long. I will try harder. Yes I am truely repentent. What's the crack/plan for the Ipswich game? City huff and puff, but end up losing, people find beerage, preferably somewere prepared to show the Twenty20 final, if that all goes to plan, everyone gets drunk and merry, and the world becomes a better place?
Knighton Matt Posted 16 July 2006 Author Posted 16 July 2006 City huff and puff, but end up losing, people find beerage, preferably somewere prepared to show the Twenty20 final, if that all goes to plan, everyone gets drunk and merry, and the world becomes a better place? Count me in! (apart from the City losing bit but then again it is Ipswich )
Guest Posted 16 July 2006 Posted 16 July 2006 Count me in! (apart from the City losing bit but then again it is Ipswich ) I wish we didn't have to play them, they are our bogey side.
cisono Posted 16 July 2006 Posted 16 July 2006 yes i can see what you mean, i didn't mean it in a bad way just that as people have mentioned with older parents they could be bullied about it or the parents could become ill, althought anyone could get ill really I have seen older parents having irresponsible and immature children. They simply were too old and tired to discipline their kids (and didn't have enough energy to run around with/after them). Of course, this happens with younger parents too, although perhaps for other reasons (inexperience? their own immaturity?)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.