-
Posts
-
@artist wrote:
@fastcars wrote:
I feel sorry for the child. Even “if” its parents remain fit and healthy it will most likely be an orphan before its 20.
Yes but a few years in a loving family environment with people that can help a child to grow to be a level headed individual, is surely more important than a child that is abused or unwanted with young parents. I feel that it depends on the parents and how they can help the child, rather than their ages.
Give it another 10 years and it will be the child having to help the parents. As much as we would like to halt the ageing process we ALL become old and less mobile.
@*Dawny* wrote:
Oh I just saw her on the news, she looks like she is in her 40’s not 63
You’re right – she looks pretty good for her age 8)
Just heard she has spent around £50,000 to try and have this baby.
Just goes to show how much they want this baby I suppose.
Better to be loved and wanted than an ‘accident’.@*Dawny* wrote:
Oh I just saw her on the news, she looks like she is in her 40’s not 63
I blame that Little Britain programme with the sickening granny scenes…life will never be the same!
I think its nice a baby is so wanted before its even been born…..BUT the age of the woman is worrying. At her age she should be enjoying life and enjoying her RETIREMENT. Its the baby i feel sorry for chances are he will be parentless way to early and thats sad
IS WRONG.
dead easy
JMMOG….. my maws 60 nxt yr.,,,,, and thought of her even havin sex,,,, near mind a child at that age…!!!
now correct me if Im wrong plz…. but when females get older your body goes through the change of life, your body telling you its pasted it prime, and no longer can have children….
now she’s went and got fertility treatment at 60…. now ohhh she does look no bad for her age…..
but she’s went againest NATURE….. now if an older woman say late 40’s NATURALLY Concieved a child no problems…. But to go againest Nature and have Feritiy treatment…. WRONG…
i don’t care how much they both wanted a child, at 60 im sorry I think this baby is concieved for the wrong reasons…. selfish reasons for their needs…. not the childs…. it they make it past the child’s 10th bday, you think this child is goin to thank them for payin all the money to have them, then to be ORPHANED…!!!!
I can fully understand any woman’s need to have a baby, but the first priority must be the child, you have to put their needs before your own, there is no contest that this child won’t be loved and cared for, but I don’t really think that’s the issue here…. sure, no one know’s when they’re gonna die, but at their age it’s safe to assume that they’re not gonna live as long as parents half their age. I admire them in one way, but think they’re selfish in another.
She may WANT a baby, sure. But nature, uncommon sense, practicality and the fact that when this kid is 16 it’ll be role reversal on the nappy change.
Bite the sodding bullit selfish mare.
I’m a little undecided on this but in the main I lean towards thinking that this situation isn’t right. My main reasons for this are the rights of the child to a fair crack at a ‘normal’ life. I understand that they have made appropriate plans for when they are too old to care for the child or if something hapens to them, however I still can’t help but think that they haven’t thought about the childs emotional needs within this plan.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!