[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by gecko
even disregarding all physical rationale, i dont think, socially speaking, a parent should be so many generations apart from its child.

theres a certain way a parent and child relate when they are say, 25-35 years apart that just wouldnt be the same for 63 years apart. a parent has to be at least somewhat privvy to the goings-on of their childs generation, and even if 63 year old parents could keep up at birth, when the child goes into the real world at 18-22, its very doubtful that a 81-85 year old could, assuming they were still alive.

 then the child has not only not had a parent they can relate to, and no grandparents since birth(probably), but wont have parents in early adult hood at all, the closest thing being if they have parent-age brothers and sisters.

i think its a little nuts really... but i dont think we can litigate it. its a right of every woman to get the procedure and have kids and every doctor to perform it as they feel appropriate. lets just hope most seniors dont have a late life crisis(which seems to be this particular womans trip)

You talk about parents, but is this really about parents, or about mothers (fathers having children at that age is quite ordinary, even if still uncommon).

Is this fuss about the fact that it is a woman, and no such fuss being made about men who become fathers at 63?

George

[ukmicky (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by gecko
even disregarding all physical rationale, i dont think, socially speaking, a parent should be so many generations apart from its child.

theres a certain way a parent and child relate when they are say, 25-35 years apart that just wouldnt be the same for 63 years apart. a parent has to be at least somewhat privvy to the goings-on of their childs generation, and even if 63 year old parents could keep up at birth, when the child goes into the real world at 18-22, its very doubtful that a 81-85 year old could, assuming they were still alive.

 then the child has not only not had a parent they can relate to, and no grandparents since birth(probably), but wont have parents in early adult hood at all, the closest thing being if they have parent-age brothers and sisters.

i think its a little nuts really... but i dont think we can litigate it. its a right of every woman to get the procedure and have kids and every doctor to perform it as they feel appropriate. lets just hope most seniors dont have a late life crisis(which seems to be this particular womans trip)

You talk about parents, but is this really about parents, or about mothers (fathers having children at that age is quite ordinary, even if still uncommon).

Is this fuss about the fact that it is a woman, and no such fuss being made about men who become fathers at 63?

George

But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.

Michael

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky
But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly legitimate for a 63 year old woman to have a baby, so long as her husband was under 50 years of age?

George

[neilep]

I'm still in two minds about this situation.

Parents ARE important !..but children are strong and resolute...they will still grow without parents. Parents perform a vital role, they procreate.

I notice only Carlyn commented on my question above..not forcing the issue but am curious............hmm !

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by neilep
We are all going to lose our parents. It can happen at any time and it's a fact of life. You can not stop it and it can not be ignored !

Society, family, friends have a way of looking after ophans and most lead long normalhappy lives , who then go on to become parents themselves.

This is a very complicated issue.

I have a friend who, about 18 months ago, lost her partner (sudden heart failure).  They had a 16 year old son.  Her partner was 39 years of age at the time, she was around 52.

Both she and her son have had difficulties coming to terms with the loss, her son particularly so (don't know whether it was a good or bad thing, but the son was present when his father collapsed, the mother was not).  I don't know what the details of the situation are, but I understand that 18 months later, the son is still affected by the trauma.

My mother, through the consequence of war, lost her father (and very many other members of her family) when she was 14 years old.  Because of my mother's nature, she is not someone who will allow any public display of weakness, so it is not easily possible to say what long term effects came from this experience.

Just as with any major physical trauma, so too with the emotional trauma of the loss of one's parents, it does leave a permanent scar that will remain as long as the person lives with it; but it does not prevent the person from living a substantially normal life (in fact, one might even say that the accumulation of such scars forms a part of normality for us all, in one way or another).

A far worse situation (in my view) than the death of one's parents, is the situation that has befallen another of my friends.  Her parents were alive until a few years ago (she is now in her early 40's), but because of various childhood traumas, she largely distanced herself from her family (not just her parents, but the network of  support that an extended family can bring).  A few weeks ago, she had a nervous breakdown, and she had absolutely no family support available to her (had she had such a support network, maybe the breakdown itself could have been averted).  Her friends have tried to rally around, but we cannot fully make up for the role that a family would have given.  Her loss of family had nothing to to with the death of her parents, but because she had chosen to distance herself from her family.

I do know of family friends who did lose their entire extended family during the war, and they are the only surviving member of their family; and there is no doubt that this has put them at a serious psychological disadvantage.

quote:
I think,  If I could choose to have a life with a short time with my folks against having no life whatsoever, I would choose Life !

Ofcourse you would – none of us would wish to imagine not having even as little as we have.

The trouble is that this is the same argument that can be used by the pro-life lobby that would argue against any form of contraception or abortion – each of which removes the possibility for a life that potentially could be born, and that in almost all cases, the child having been born, will say that do not wish they had not been born.  Where do you draw the line – should women have as many children as they are physically capable of having, since every one they do not have will be the loss of a child that might well, when born, say the are glad to be alive?  If women do not have 20 or 30 children in their lifetime, then where do you draw the line, and why?

quote:
I know this is a corny phrase and its out of context here,  but I think it may be appropriate when I say it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.[]

The phrase usually refers to a very different context, and one in which my experience is limited, and hence would not care to comment much about.

In terms of the context we have here, ofcourse I have lost grandparents (and in practical terms, lost a father, even though he was, and is, still alive).  In the case of my father, I was too young to remember what such a loss may or may not have meant; in terms of my grandparents (the three that I knew), ofcourse I did appreciate the time I had with them, and am glad I knew them for the time I did (but none were lost to me until I was in my twenties).

George

[neilep]

Thank You George,

I did say that phrase was out of context.[] (re:...having loved tehn lost etc)

I lost my father when I was seven, my mother then jumped into the deep end of the family business and because she did so well, has hepled my siblings and I a great deal.

I personally do not feel as if I have ever missed out. Though , I obviously have still received the benefit of having one parent.

Where I said I would choose life with no parents over no life at all...I was making the point that If I had been a child born to very elderly parents then at least, I would have been in a position to ask that question.

I am so sorry to hear about your friends loss, and then to hear of the trauma of your other friends nervous breakdown.It's all very sad

The question I was originally refering to was in fact this one "If the case can be demonstrated to you to your complete satisfaction that the child will enjoy a wonderful life and continue to enjoy it after the parents are no longer around, then would you still say no?"

Thank you for adressing the other post though. My thoughts are with your friends....


....as you say...it IS such a complicated issue that I can only see that each case must be dealt with on an individual basis and we of course do not know the entire background of this womans case.

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by neilep
....as you say...it IS such a complicated issue that I can only see that each case must be dealt with on an individual basis and we of course do not know the entire background of this womans case.

I think I meant even more than that.  It is not just that each case should be judged on its own merits, but that to a very substantial extent, you cannot possibly even hope to judge the outcome of a persons life.  Even as they live their lives, can you really say what is a good or a bad life.

As I said, my father left when I was 4 years old, but the other side of that is that I now have two half siblings, with whom I have a very good relationship with, that simply would not have been born if my father had stayed married to my mother.

You have said that your fathers death also gave you opportunities as it gave your mother the opportunity (however it was not her wish) to develop her skills.  That too was the case with my mother, and I doubt that she would ever have got into computing had she still been married.

I spoke of my friend who has had a nervous breakdown.  I am sure that she presently feels that life is scarcely worth living,  but I have known that friend for many years, and have known her when life was good to her, as I am sure it will be again – so can we say that she should have had a different life?  Her different life may not have brought the trauma she presently has, but neither would it have brought her the good times.

The children born unto this 63 year old woman will be different from you or I, but then, they never were going to be the same, because we are all different.  No matter what, can we honestly say that a child will have a good or a bad life just because of the age of its parents?

George

[ukmicky (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky
But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly legitimate for a 63 year old woman to have a baby, so long as her husband was under 50 years of age?

George

No because mothers are different and more important to a child than a father and  i'm not saying we fathers are not needed or are unimportant,

Michael

[neilep]

Michael, in what way are mothers more important to their children than the fathers ?

Yes, mothers carry them, give birth to them..

..Say...the mother in this case, is the one with the career and it is the husband who stays at home as a domestic engineer !...would not he, the father, play the exact same role as if it was the mother ?

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky
No because mothers are different and more important to a child than a father and  i'm not saying we fathers are not needed or are unimportant,

If we are being stereotypical, is it not the case that most of the kind of physical activity which you regard as a necessity for a parent/child relationship is actually carried out by the father, with the mother being more responsible for the more emotional support side of the relationship.

Ofcourse, these are stereotypes.  There are some women who are extremely tom-boyish, and some fathers who are very touchy-feely.  There are also some father who quite successfully bring up children with the total absence of a mother.  But, if we constrain ourselves to the traditional gender roles, then one has to ask whether the ability for a woman to be sporty is a prime requirement for a mother?

George

[gecko]

i really did just mean parent and not particulary mother. i dont think a father should be many generations apart from his child either. my reasons were sexless... although the mother is obviously more in question because she ultimately chooses to birth the child.