U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Celebrities
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 06-14-2010, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,605 posts, read 25,200,243 times
Reputation: 7507

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PippySkiddles View Post
the hostility toward the Travolta's is shameful.
not hostility. It's nice that they have enough money to do what they are doing.
__________________
If there won't be dancing at the revolution, I'm not coming.
Emma Goldman
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2010, 09:15 AM
 
4,405 posts, read 10,139,642 times
Reputation: 3659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine728 View Post
Wow what an ugly thread!

Just a few on here making it "ugly". I wonder if the uglies is mostly a judgement about the Travoltas choice of Religion.
Welcome to America, freedom of Religion etc. (yes and freedom of speech (opinions) too)

Now, I am going to get my old rickety bones out of my rocker and take my wonderful young son to practice before I keel over and die.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Olympus Mons, Mars
2,896 posts, read 4,499,520 times
Reputation: 2246
Quote:
Originally Posted by PippySkiddles View Post
...........and yet you are in another forum advising a 44 year old male to find someone and have a child. The guy said he's 44 and regrets not having kids. Hypocrite much.
44 year old man-regretting not having kids
so what? men don't have biological restrictions to having kids later. There are plenty of men in their 70s fathering biological kids just fine. The risks are much much much lower for men. Contrary to what some feminists proclaim here on citydata the risks for women in their late 30 is elevated and over 40 it is very high.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 12:00 AM
 
Location: gazing @ the Blue Ridge Mountains
9,985 posts, read 7,119,673 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
so what? men don't have biological restrictions to having kids later. There are plenty of men in their 70s fathering biological kids just fine. The risks are much much much lower for men. Contrary to what some feminists proclaim here on citydata the risks for women in their late 30 is elevated and over 40 it is very high.
double standards-much!
How sickening.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,561 posts, read 8,979,447 times
Reputation: 5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
so what? men don't have biological restrictions to having kids later. There are plenty of men in their 70s fathering biological kids just fine. The risks are much much much lower for men. Contrary to what some feminists proclaim here on citydata the risks for women in their late 30 is elevated and over 40 it is very high.
wait, I'm confused. I thought the issue was the idea that an older parent might die when the child was still young? supposedly, KP used frozen embryos harvested when she was in her 30's. if the issue is health related, than it may not even apply to KP. if the issue is parents dying while their child is still young, then men, according to the arguments here, have no business siring kids so late in age. obviously, no one really complains when older men have kids (b/c historically, men are seen as "virile" and manly if they can keep impregnating women well into their senior years)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2010, 09:05 AM
 
Location: here
17,015 posts, read 14,511,787 times
Reputation: 13921
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
so what? men don't have biological restrictions to having kids later. There are plenty of men in their 70s fathering biological kids just fine. The risks are much much much lower for men. Contrary to what some feminists proclaim here on citydata the risks for women in their late 30 is elevated and over 40 it is very high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PippySkiddles View Post
double standards-much!
How sickening.
it's not a double standard. It's called biology. I'm not advocating 70 yo men father kids but there are risks to a 44 yo mom that don't apply to a 44 yo dad. that's just the way it is. Before you get all hysterical and say "I thought it was about the parents dying" - it is about that too. In the Travolta/Preston case, dad is way older. 12 years older than 44. It's the combination of their ages that I have a problem with. If John and Kelly were both 44 I wouldn't have a big issue. But neither of them are.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 04:33 PM
Status: "Winter is here, burrr" (set 6 days ago)
 
16,487 posts, read 11,977,359 times
Reputation: 15809
I am not really worried about Kelly being pregnant at her age. They have the money for her to have the best medical care available. The frozen embryos were from when she was younger, so there is not so much the worry about as far as the embryos being from "old" eggs. They are older parents, so what? I would rather see an older couple that has the money and patience and parental wisdom, have a child, than some 15 year old in high school with no money, no way to care for their child, no knowledge about how to raise a child, no maturity, letting her parents raise the child or her do it from high school daycare.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Maryland
2,653 posts, read 2,711,889 times
Reputation: 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine728 View Post
Wow what an ugly thread!
I know right. To sit and say, btw, that baby isn't her's because, they adopted or donor eggs. Wow! If, the kid is in their home, loved and raised by them. Hello, it's their child.

The OP is judging people, because their methods of having children. Maybe, saying don't congratulate them, because it's not theirs.

That person needs to get a life!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Location: here
17,015 posts, read 14,511,787 times
Reputation: 13921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Childfree35 View Post
I know right. To sit and say, btw, that baby isn't her's because, they adopted or donor eggs. Wow! If, the kid is in their home, loved and raised by them. Hello, it's their child.

The OP is judging people, because their methods of having children. Maybe, saying don't congratulate them, because it's not theirs.

That person needs to get a life!
maybe I missed something, but I don't recall anyone saying that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2010, 09:53 AM
 
Location: North Texas
2,484 posts, read 3,672,070 times
Reputation: 1660
What does it matter? Congrads Kelly & John!!!
Quick reply to this message
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.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Celebrities
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top