archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841574/?GT1=9951#storyContinued I don't see too many articles that expect older men to "defend" their having children later in life. I don't understand the double standard on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 It is a double standard. Fathers are important to children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 very. My dad was forty when he had me--his first. That was a big deal back then, but I don't remember anyone asking him to defend his choice. And everybody knows that sixty is the new forty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I think it has more to do with the physiological demands on the body and the higher incidence of birth defects. Any old bastard with a working prick can shoot a load. The demands are much higher to bear a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 Actually, the genetic goofs in a man's sperm rise in number as he ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 And, I would think that the demands of bearing a child need to be weighed by any woman. And then, she gets to make that choice, not social standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yes, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Well, the demands of bearing a child on the mother should be weighed, but shouldn't the increased risk to the fetus also be considered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 Increased risk for what exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I think anyone who legislates a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body should have a uterus surgically attached and be forced to bear children themselves. Then they'll have some perspective to speak from :tup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 psychological trauma from nursing on papes that are tucked into a waistband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snugtop Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 very. My dad was forty when he had me--his first. That was a big deal back then, but I don't remember anyone asking him to defend his choice. And everybody knows that sixty is the new forty My dad was 49 when he had me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Actually, the genetic goofs in a man's sperm rise in number as he ages. wow, I did not know that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 sperm start doing the sidestroke after 45...they're wearing life jackets after 55. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 I do often hear the increased risk argument. The first problem I think of with that is my cousin, who had endometriosis pretty bad, had an increased risk of spontaneous abortion. She's young, married, otherwise heathy, and Mormon. Having a kid was paramount to her. Should other people have the power to say that she doesn't have the right to get preggos just b/c she has a higher risk of aborting than a 100% healthy woman? That doesn't seem right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 No one has the right to make the decision for her. But it should be something she considers, and likely something she did consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 She's already had three other kids. She's probably better at weighing those choices and chances than 80% us on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I do often hear the increased risk argument. The first problem I think of with that is my cousin, who had endometriosis pretty bad, had an increased risk of spontaneous abortion. She's young, married, otherwise heathy, and Mormon. Having a kid was paramount to her. Should other people have the power to say that she doesn't have the right to get preggos just b/c she has a higher risk of aborting than a 100% healthy woman? That doesn't seem right... No one has the right to stop her, but no one has the right to stop them from questioning the decision either. It's a free country, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have started this thread. But, I have a hard time with the observation that men don't seem to go through this same scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 No question at all about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 So you asked a bunch of men? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yup. I don't know very many women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 in the biblical sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 Well, most of the ones I've known, I've *known* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinomyte Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I read a different article on this, and it portrayed this gal as someone who had a kid more to promote the fact that she could, than because she actually wanted the kid. Prolly more of the press misportraying the facts, but..... I'm cool with her having kids at any age she wants, but I don't wanna be preached to that it's her right. I actually feel that way on a number of subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.