Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why take it out on RD? Tons of men including not a small number of gays are becoming fathers at 50 or even 60 and above.
Straight guys perhaps can say their wife or gf "miscalculated", but gays and some single straight men are hiring surrogates. Anderson Cooper comes to mind; had both of his kids when he was past 50.
OTOH do understand what you're saying. It does seem selfish to bring a child into this world when parent knows full well statistically there are more days behind them than in front.
Many of these parents will be lucky if they are around when their kids graduate high school much less college.
Because he's the one being discussed here? Trust me, I think it's ridiculous for any of them. But there's also a big difference between 50 and 80, so let's not compare apples to oranges. 50 could conceivably live to 80; kid could have its father to age 30 or beyond. Kid of an 80-year-old could very easily not even make it to adulthood with both parents, and may end up a caregiver when still a kid themself. Never mind the mother knowing it's pretty certain she's going to be a single parent. 50 is silly because who wants to be chasing a toddler at that age, and forget retirement because you'll be one of those people whose kid is going to college right when you otherwise would've planned to retire. 80 is a completely different story. I don't think a person should even adopt a puppy at 80 because the chances are high their kids are going to end up inheriting the responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnazzyB
I don't begrudge him the baby (who apparently gives him joy) in his old age.
Where does the joy for the child come from? A person probably shouldn't make another living human being bear the burden of having to make them happy. I can do many things to make me happy without involving a person's life.
Because he's the one being discussed here? Trust me, I think it's ridiculous for any of them. But there's also a big difference between 50 and 80, so let's not compare apples to oranges. 50 could conceivably live to 80; kid could have its father to age 30 or beyond. Kid of an 80-year-old could very easily not even make it to adulthood with both parents, and may end up a caregiver when still a kid themself. Never mind the mother knowing it's pretty certain she's going to be a single parent. 50 is silly because who wants to be chasing a toddler at that age, and forget retirement because you'll be one of those people whose kid is going to college right when you otherwise would've planned to retire. 80 is a completely different story. I don't think a person should even adopt a puppy at 80 because the chances are high their kids are going to end up inheriting the responsibility.
Where does the joy for the child come from? A person probably shouldn't make another living human being bear the burden of having to make them happy. I can do many things to make me happy without involving a person's life.
Then you should do you. Obviously we disagree, and that's fine.
That baby isn't going to starve or go homeless, and so what if the baby's mom ends up a single mom? There's plenty PLENTY single moms doing just fine.
Because he's the one being discussed here? Trust me, I think it's ridiculous for any of them. But there's also a big difference between 50 and 80, so let's not compare apples to oranges. 50 could conceivably live to 80; kid could have its father to age 30 or beyond. Kid of an 80-year-old could very easily not even make it to adulthood with both parents, and may end up a caregiver when still a kid themself. Never mind the mother knowing it's pretty certain she's going to be a single parent. 50 is silly because who wants to be chasing a toddler at that age, and forget retirement because you'll be one of those people whose kid is going to college right when you otherwise would've planned to retire. 80 is a completely different story. I don't think a person should even adopt a puppy at 80 because the chances are high their kids are going to end up inheriting the responsibility.
Where does the joy for the child come from? A person probably shouldn't make another living human being bear the burden of having to make them happy. I can do many things to make me happy without involving a person's life.
I had to think on this a little bit, to understand what you meant.
I don't understand how someone can have a baby, and NOT get happiness or joy from it. From De Niro's interview, it sounds like he gets a lot of joy from this baby. How is that wrong? Would you rather he resented yet another mouth to feed and take care of?
Then you should do you. Obviously we disagree, and that's fine.
That baby isn't going to starve or go homeless, and so what if the baby's mom ends up a single mom? There's plenty PLENTY single moms doing just fine.
... but there's PLENTY MORE (and by a wide margin) single moms who aren't doing fine ... with plenty being actual drains on society while producing an endless supply of future criminals and inmates.
... but there's PLENTY MORE (and by a wide margin) single moms who aren't doing fine ... with plenty being actual drains on society while producing an endless supply of future criminals and inmates.
But we're not talking about all the single moms in the world, right? We're talking about 80 yr. old Robert De Niro's GF. And I'll reiterate...there are PLENTY of single mom's who do fine, and Robert De Niro's (single mom) girlfriend is going to be fine, financially, and thus her daughter will be as well.
But we're not talking about all the single moms in the world, right? We're talking about 80 yr. old Robert De Niro's GF. And I'll reiterate...there are PLENTY of single mom's who do fine, and Robert De Niro's (single mom) girlfriend is going to be fine, financially, and thus her daughter will be as well.
Yes, money helps. But having a father around helps more.
45 is rather old too, unless they had medical help.
With the kind of money he has they probably did, but it's not impossible without medical help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K12144
Because he's the one being discussed here? Trust me, I think it's ridiculous for any of them. But there's also a big difference between 50 and 80, so let's not compare apples to oranges. 50 could conceivably live to 80; kid could have its father to age 30 or beyond. Kid of an 80-year-old could very easily not even make it to adulthood with both parents, and may end up a caregiver when still a kid themself. Never mind the mother knowing it's pretty certain she's going to be a single parent. 50 is silly because who wants to be chasing a toddler at that age, and forget retirement because you'll be one of those people whose kid is going to college right when you otherwise would've planned to retire. 80 is a completely different story. I don't think a person should even adopt a puppy at 80 because the chances are high their kids are going to end up inheriting the responsibility.
Exactly, my dad was around 50 when I was born and he didn't pass until I was 32. If he wasn't a moderate-heavy smoker (yes, he died of lung cancer and emphysema) I probably would've even had him be alive into my early 40s (his non-smoking mother lived to 95 and his dad still made it to 85 even though he was an even heavier smoker who also died of lung cancer and emphysema).
But regarding your other point, though I had kids relatively late (mid-late 30s), I wouldn't want to first have them now either (I'm in my mid 50s) for exactly the reasons you give.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.