05 May 06
Dr Patricia Rashbrook is 7 months pregnant at 62 years of age. The mum to be became pregnant after having fertility treatment abroad. Personally I think the Rashbrooks have been selfish in their decision to have a child at their age...considering she is a child psychiatrist and the effects this might have on a child having parents in their 60's. They could have fostered or adopted an older child giving them a good start in life. What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4971930.stm
05 May 06
Originally posted by wucky3Well, it's pretty irresponsible but one hopes in this case that the silly old woman will be able to cope without calling on assistance from the long-suffering taxpayers.
Dr Patricia Rashbrook is 7 months pregnant at 62 years of age. The mum to be became pregnant after having fertility treatment abroad. Personally I think the Rashbrooks have been selfish in their decision to have a child at their age...considering she is a child psychiatrist and the effects this might have on a child having parents in their 60's. They could ha ...[text shortened]... them a good start in life. What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4971930.stm
05 May 06
Originally posted by wucky3Why on earth would someone want a kid at that age?
Dr Patricia Rashbrook is 7 months pregnant at 62 years of age. The mum to be became pregnant after having fertility treatment abroad. Personally I think the Rashbrooks have been selfish in their decision to have a child at their age...considering she is a child psychiatrist and the effects this might have on a child having parents in their 60's. They could ha ...[text shortened]... them a good start in life. What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4971930.stm
Surely by the time you're sixty you just want to smoke a pipe, dig up some weeds and sleep in your rocking chair?
05 May 06
Originally posted by wucky3Will have to agree that it is extremely selfish. When that child is in his/her teenage years, a very difficult stage in life, his/her mother would not have the energy to deal with it. She would be almost 80 (if she lives that long)!
Dr Patricia Rashbrook is 7 months pregnant at 62 years of age. The mum to be became pregnant after having fertility treatment abroad. Personally I think the Rashbrooks have been selfish in their decision to have a child at their age...considering she is a child psychiatrist and the effects this might have on a child having parents in their 60's. They could ha ...[text shortened]... them a good start in life. What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4971930.stm
I can sense a strong rebellion from the child later in life.
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimThey don't? Everyone knows Rockin' Rod's a total git!
I kind of agree with her - there's an element of sexism in this, in that this is about our disgust that its a wrinkly old woman having a baby. No one accuses Rod Stewart or Charlie Chaplin of being selfish.
There's no question the mother's age will affect the relationship with the child. I have a friend whose father was 63 when he was born...and died when the son was 15. Father and grandfather in one. That woman had better pack a lot of energy into the next 20 years...(I'm having enough trouble dealing with my mother being 60 and me at the ripe old age of 32. She's getting old, man.)
05 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne problem is the kid may have genetic problems, maybe immune response issues, like diabetes, autoimmune problems. Just a statistical thing but the kids of older parents tend to have problems like that. Like you say, what do you do when you are 83 and your kid is 15. Like being from differant worlds. Of course in her case she is a smart cookie so has a good chance of having most of her marbles when she gets into her 80's.
They don't? Everyone knows Rockin' Rod's a total git!
There's no question the mother's age will affect the relationship with the child. I have a friend whose father was 63 when he was born...and died when the son was 15. Father and grandfather in one. That woman had better pack a lot of energy into the next 20 years...(I'm having enough trouble dealing with my mother being 60 and me at the ripe old age of 32. She's getting old, man.)
I saw a TV show here in the states that had an interview with Jack Lalane, a 1950's era tv physical fitness exercise dude. So here he shows up on this tv show a few weeks ago, like 94 years old and still has most of his marbles. It helps to be short it seems in terms of longevity. Dudes like me at 6'2 have a much lower chance of reaching that age. Lalane looks like about 5'4 or so, he was showing off some recipies he made up of some kind so he wasn't just sitting in a chair and talking, he was walking back and forth on the set of a kitchen, maybe Martha or someone like that but was amazed at how spry he was.
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimI wonder about this. Is "sexist" the right word to describe the attitude that a baby will need a mother who is capable of looking after him/her, but to not care so much whether the father can do the same? And what kind of sexism is that?
Ay up our wucky.
Did you get to read Polly Toynbee in the Guardian on about this?
I kind of agree with her - there's an element of sexism in this, in that this is about our disgust that its a wrinkly old woman having a baby. No one accuses Rod Stewart or Charlie Chaplin of being selfish. Male life expectancy is less than for women after all. Why ...[text shortened]... ing a child but not 14 year old working class girls? Which will have the better start in life?
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimI'm saying that it may be _correct_ to say that a mother has a responsibility to make sure she is able to nurture her child until it is an adult.
Not sure I get you - do you mean that there's an inbuilt sexism anyway that women are the child-rearers not men?
The "sexism" may be that we don't take the same view of fathers.
I haven't read the Toynbee piece, but if her point is "Well you don't say that about Rod Stewart", maybe the right response is: "We should."
05 May 06
Originally posted by lauseyYou're only looking at this from one side of the issue. The majority of today's births happens at a young age, unfortunately, which means that the kid will be raised by someone who doesn't have much life experience to draw from. Even though there is a good chance that this 62 year old mother will pass on early on in the child's life, she still has 62 years of life experience. Considering that this woman probably has had many other children and grandchildren, she will know how to raise this one last young one before she dies. Experience breeds wisdom, and wisdom can be passed on to future generations.
Will have to agree that it is extremely selfish. When that child is in his/her teenage years, a very difficult stage in life, his/her mother would not have the energy to deal with it. She would be almost 80 (if she lives that long)!
I can sense a strong rebellion from the child later in life.
05 May 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimJust the kind of thing I'd expect from the Guardian and one of the reasons I stopped buying it.
Ay up our wucky.
Did you get to read Polly Toynbee in the Guardian on about this?
I kind of agree with her - there's an element of sexism in this, in that this is about our disgust that its a wrinkly old woman having a baby. No one accuses Rod Stewart or Charlie Chaplin of being selfish. Male life expectancy is less than for women after all. Why ...[text shortened]... ing a child but not 14 year old working class girls? Which will have the better start in life?
Poor journalism - people are disgusted when wrinkly old men become fathers as well. I can remember press criticism of David Jason and Eric Clapton to name just two.