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.
Everybody has their own moral compass, and their morality isn't necessarily the same as yours.
Plenty of people have children that they can't take care of. They father a child and then try to run away, or they have a child for the wrong reasons. Many things happen that are far worse then bringing a child into the world who you are able to support and who will not want.
If I am not mistaken, Mick Jagger has money. Money is a very useful tool.
There is a mother. She might want to have a child.
Imprudent, yes. What the society lacks most is being sensible.
Yeh this is my take on it. The baby boomer generation complained about the generation gap in the 60s, but this is getting ridiculous. Mick will be late 80s when she is a teenager. With his money he will have the beast health care and supplement regime & wouldn't surprise me if he still worked out, but still its crazy. I'd be surprised its an ego thing at his age. My guess he has a much younger wife who he had to make a deal with to have a child for her to stick around with him.
Years ago Jimmy Durante adopted a baby. Many did not want him to be able to do it. This is nothing new. The well off can pay for what they can't do themselves.
I have no problem with this. The unwed underage poor having children are the ones that bother me. Those kids start behind the 8 ball.
^^^right here. Why is it any of our business?
Mick Jagger's kid will never want for anything and more. He was born on home plate. Will dad be around, Jagger could outlive some 40 year olds. He's not a abusers like some of the guys in the group. 73 now is not like 73, 40 years ago.
Immoral, not for us to judge. Mom is very young, Mick dies. Everyone will be taken care of.
The title of this thread says "later in life". The only people talked about are Mick Jagger and Tony Randall.
If 70s/80s are the subject, why isn't the title, "Is it immoral for Mick Jagger to have children later in life"?
While I'm sure Mick got the ink because of who he is, I doubt there's a plethora of septuagenarians fathering children. Women of childbearing age aren't likely to be chasing after "the old guy" to father their children even if he's rich. Does anyone believe that Anna Nicole expected to have children with J. Howard?
The title of this thread says "later in life". The only people talked about are Mick Jagger and Tony Randall.
If 70s/80s are the subject, why isn't the title, "Is it immoral for Mick Jagger to have children later in life"?
While I'm sure Mick got the ink because of who he is, I doubt there's a plethora of septuagenarians fathering children. Women of childbearing age aren't likely to be chasing after "the old guy" to father their children even if he's rich. Does anyone believe that Anna Nicole expected to have children with J. Howard?
I guess I shouldn't have even linked to or mentioned Mick Jagger, I only included it because that was got me to thinking about the subject.
As an aside, due to a family tradition of fathering children later in life, President John Tyler's, born 1790, grandsons are still living today, or at least were as of February 2016. President John Tyler's Grandsons Are Still Alive | Mental Floss. Imagine being able to say today, at the end of 2016, that your grandpa was born in the 1700s.
The reality (of life) is that younger people are more fit physically and perhaps mentally to breed.
There is real science which shows that older sperm and eggs can present a number of problems - problems which must be borne BOTH by the new life created and the responsible parents.
By "old" I am saying women over 42 and men over about 48. Those are somewhat arbitrary numbers but do have a basis in science.
Immoral? Unethical? This would be a good topic for a book or class discussion. Here's the rub - a larger amount of children who are challenged (autism, etc.) represents a large cost to society (taxes, services and more) as a whole. So there does become a real question of finances. If most people waited until after 40 to have children we probably could not afford it. So, as a society, those not having children or having them younger (and healthier) are in effect paying for the older parents and children.
In that sense it can have to do with societal ethics. Now - if said older parents put up a bond stating that they were more responsible for raising said children, that might mitigate the risk (to societies coffers).
It's common for all of us to think there is no limit on things - that we can spend ANYTHING on defense, security, etc. and it's all fine. No - it's not. In fact, it's immoral to spend TOO LITTLE or TOO MUCH on those things, right? Because if you spend too little you are not protecting your loved ones and way of life. If you spend too much you are wasting money that should go toward other things.
It's easy to fall into the trap that says nothing matters. But it does. Many things matter, and therefore enter the realm of ethics and/or morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot View Post
Years ago Jimmy Durante adopted a baby. Many did not want him to be able to do it. This is nothing new. The well off can pay for what they can't do themselves.
I have no problem with this. The unwed underage poor having children are the ones that bother me. Those kids start behind the 8 ball.
^^^right here. Why is it any of our business?
//////////
Because we the taxpayers wind-up supporting the progeny of all of these baby-daddy and baby-momma's who can't seem to think beyond how 'cute' it would be to push a baby around in a stroller.
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 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.
