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.
The selfish label gets thrown around a lot. We all do things that many others consider "selfish". Some people think it's selfish to have children at any age because of the supposedly over populated earth we live in.
Is there anything that you *do* consider to be selfish?? Should we just ban this word from the English language then??
The overpopulation argument is apples and oranges. Let's just accept for the sake of argument that every single scientist believes that the answer to overpopulation is for every single person of reproductive age right now to not have kids. If someone does have kids knowing this info, they are hurting nameless, faceless people they do not know. It's all very meta.
Richard Gere on the other hand, is hurting his own child--someone very close to him that he is supposed to love and protect. Lifestyle and technology can only do so much to delay the inevitable. I couldn't imagine how it must be as a young child to watch your parent slip away, or constantly worrying that your father is going to suddenly get sick and die. I'm 44 and my own dad is younger than Richard Gere. My dad was an athlete and still in excellent health and conditioning, but even with him I see the effects of the passage of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Parental age has been linked to Autism and other issues.
All anecdotal evidence aside, there are pretty strong increased risks.
Gere's money makes it much less risky as does the much younger age of his wife in terms of dealing with adversity should it arise.
I'm not judging anyone else's life choices, just talking about the risks and choices we all need to make.
Having lost my own wife and raising 2 gradeschoolers and also having a special needs kid in my life now....I'm probably a little more in-tune to the realities of what could go wrong and how important it is to have back-up. THings like a healthy supportive extended family would be a huge plus as well.
Excellent and sobering point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
Parents have been dying before their kids are grown since history began.
Gere dies, his widow is rich and may very likely marry again. The kid will be better than one who is a snowflake preserved under a bubble. And, indeed, Gere needs no one's approval.....so why do these phrases come up so repeatedly in C-D posts?
A whole lotta nose and noise about nothing.
Yes parents have been dying, but usually it was unplannned. IMO, it takes a particularly callous person to do this intentionally and not care about hurting their child. But yes, you are right that no one can stop Gere from having kids. Just like we can't stop other people who clearly are not fit to be parents.
You can also go to the other extreme if you wanted and look at Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl who became the youngest confirmed mother in medical history, giving birth at the age of five years, seven months, and 21 days.
He won't be pushing 90, he'll be dead. Pathetically selfish.
So he is selfish for having a child? Those men who did not have children are looked upon by others as being selfish. Looks like you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
This celebrity dad would be pushing 90 at his child's high school graduation. Richard Gere, 69, is expecting a child with new wife Alejandra Silva, 35, reports People.
Just because a person can do something doesn't mean they should. Losing a parent is one of the hardest things a person goes through. Most people experience this when they are well into middle age. When you have to go through that in childhood, the impact is that much more devastating. Not only does that child lose that person s/he loves but the child still has needs that only a parent can fully address. It doesn't matter that Richard Gere is wealthy. No nanny, uncle, etc is going to be good substitute for the unconditional love of a parent.
Now I am not saying everyone should have children by the time they are 30. I had my first child at 36 and my second at 39 so I am sensitive to ageism when it comes to parenting. But I do think parents have a moral obligation to consider the child's best interests. It's one thing if you have children in your late forties/early 50s--at least then, you have a reasonable expectation that you will live long enough to ensure your child will become a fully functioning, self-sufficient adult. Richard Gere is having a child at an age where it is practically guaranteed that the child will have to be taught to say goodbye to his father and an age where most children are not anywhere near ready to contemplate life without their parent.
So yes, I do think Richard Gere is being selfish. I lost my mother too early when she was 54. I am always afraid of what would become of my children if I died suddenly. Financially, she'll be taken care of but the thought of them being alone in the world scares me to death. My mom didn't have a choice. What kind of parent purposely puts their children in this situation??
My response is meant to be much more general than critiquing what an actor that I don't know does or doesn't do in his personal life as it seems unfair to critique one person that I don't even know (not that I think your post is meaning to do that- I'm just approaching it to apply to anyone). But yes, I many of the same concerns regardless of who the father happens to be or how good of a father they happen to be. And I'm so sorry that you had to face that firsthand (There's not really a good comforting emoticon here but if there were I'd put it here).
Now, a twist on this question is whether this would make a difference if a person who was a great parent adopted a child rather than helping to make them from scratch?
Because the adopted child is already going to be older than a child who has 9 months or so to even be born, so chances of something happening to their parent are already statistically less because the child is already older themselves. Also, if an older person has a calling and gift to be a great parent, if they adopt they are really helping to solve a problem (a child in need of a loving, stable home who currently doesn't have that). That's in contrast to bringing a new child into the world, which is going to create a new problem for the child where there was no problem before (i.e. having less chance of many healthy and happy years for the parent and child together). On the other hand, adopted children face the same risks as if they are the offspring of the man who mates with a younger female (maybe a lot younger, maybe just somewhat younger) and then doesn't make it till their child's adulthood.
Last edited by Jowel; 09-18-2018 at 03:58 PM..
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.
!
