2007-02-28 03:25:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I guess it would all depend on the individual situation. There are 63 year old women who run marathons, and run them fast! There are women who live to be very vibrant into their 80's, while others are incapacitated by health problems in their 30's and 40's while raising children.
2007-02-28 04:24:24 · answer #1 · answered by Sweet n Sour 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This should not be a question of ethics but rather a question of personal choice. I mean, where does your sense on 'ethics' indicate where the motherhood cutoff date would be? I'm a 63 year old man with 2 daughters, 15 and 11 year old. If a 65 year old lady wishes to become a 'mom', and can be around to birth the baby with minimal problems enjoy, provide, raise the child , I would think it would not become anyones business.
Big Brother, Psychobiologists,The old lady down the street , and every other busibody with time on their hands and no thing else to interest them would become so totally focussed on this one thing. In a way this reminds me of China's Birthing Law.
The Government would like nothing better than to control the lives of its citizen to the zenith. I can hear the call now. "There otta be a law." I pity the state of the world in my childrens adulthood.
2007-02-28 12:19:31 · answer #2 · answered by reinformer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, its not. she will be dead in 1-5 years so why bring a child into this world if you know your not gonna be here in the next 50 years. Besides the older a woman the more comlications they have during pregency. I have a aunt who had a child at 46 and she had so many complication during her pregency that she almost died all long with her baby. Then she died at 52. So now wheres that leave that poor kid? WITH a dad
who is 60. And he cant even play ball with the kid because he is one foot in the grave now. Now he will end up in foster care. BOY what a deal. He gets to grow up with out
his parents and tossed arround in foster care for the rest of his life.Thats just plan mean. That baby should of been givien up for adoption right away.
2007-02-28 12:03:51 · answer #3 · answered by tommyhawk 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i am against this case!! it`s likely that the child will only be a teenager before the mum dies. what if she develops dimentia? old people need careing for, the child may feel obliged to care for the mother when they should e concentrating on hings like education. Will a 63 year old havethe energy to look after a toddler?! although i think CC has a very goodpoint!
2007-02-28 11:33:04 · answer #4 · answered by kat 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why don't we ask the same question about older men becoming fathers? Why the double standard? We don't seem to worry about whether they will be around and healthy to play with their children a few years after they are born.
2007-02-28 11:35:59 · answer #5 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What's the difference betwee a 63 year old mom and a 63 year old grandmother who has sole custody of her grandkids?
2007-02-28 11:30:08 · answer #6 · answered by CC 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a bad decision personally.I mean.you're over half way through your life,your body is not in very good shape normally, and complications & birth defects are more likely then if you were younger.
2007-02-28 11:34:04 · answer #7 · answered by rebel_gurl002 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think it's very selfish. the child wont be taken care of properly, and by the time it reaches 10 mommy could be dead. that's not loving a child, it's just selfish and a longing for company. if nature doesn't condone it, neither do i
2007-02-28 11:33:28 · answer #8 · answered by jimi 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that doesn't happen too often for a reason.
Moms aren't intended to die within a few years of bringing a kid into the world.
2007-02-28 11:29:44 · answer #9 · answered by tip zz 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I thinks it's insane. It's hard enough to keep up with the kids in your 40's, let alone 60's.
2007-02-28 11:29:55 · answer #10 · answered by badboy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋