2007-05-30 16:59:57 · 18 answers · asked by Alex 2 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Other - Pregnancy & Parenting
It is not right for a few reasons.
1: It is extremely selfish, for social security money may not be enough to pay for them, and the torment the child shall have to endure during high school. Add into that how his/her parents will probably die before he/she is 20.
2: Having children at that age increases the chances of the child having birth defects and the mother dying during childbirth.
Unfortunately, there are not all cons to this, for apparently, some studies show that while chances of birth defects increase, the chances of the child being a genius also increase, so there is, sadly, a good point to it. ( I'm saying it is unfortunate due to the fact that I happen to think that having children at age 60 is extremely selfish, you're not thinking of the child's needs, merely your own.)
2007-05-30 17:22:29 · answer #1 · answered by The Doctor 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm 47 and my very active son is 5. I'm EXHAUSTED! I love him to bits and he sure keeps me active but I can't even imagine how much more tired I would be in my 60's. I guess if you're in great physical shape and both parents share equally in the responsibilities of raising the child then it should make it easier but it's a hard go at any age, let alone in your 60's. I'm a single mom and my son has special needs so that adds to the extra work. Good luck to the Birnbaums; they need to pray that they have a healthy kid and Ken better pull his weight in helping. I suggest getting the kid's adult nieces and nephews to help out!!
2007-05-31 07:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Miriam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why would couple's this age want to have babies? It will be difficult on the womans body to carry a baby, and you have a greater risk of having a down syndrome baby, and gestational diabetes, and many other complications. I had my last child at the age of 37, and I was miserable, and had diabetes for 3 months, and had so many test that I could scream. Now I am 51, and my son is 14 years old, and my husband just turned 53 today. When he was a baby many kids thought my husband and I was my sons grandparents. How old will you be when your baby reaches the age of 18 years old. there are many things to consider at this age for having a baby. I want to live my retirement visiting with babies not permanetly raising them. I have two grandchildren, and I love it especially the part where I can return them home to their parents.
2007-06-05 00:30:13 · answer #3 · answered by joi w 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a little unfair to those children who will lose their parents at a young age.... Kind of selfish on the part of Frieda and Ken. I loved being young enough to really enjoy my children growing up - being there during their school years and dating and getting married and now looking forward to grandchildren....!! Frieda and Ken will be long gone, virtually orphaning their children.
2007-05-31 00:05:57 · answer #4 · answered by Karen C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it is great for them, but I wonder about the child. when the kid is 20 they will be 80&83 I lost my dad when I was 26 I still need my dad. I mean their putting this child at great rick of growing up with out one or even two parents. seems a little selfish to me. Now it would be different if she got pregnant by accident but I think at that age maybe you should think about the child's well being before getting pregnant but, they may live to be a hundred I hope so . I wish them good luck.
2007-06-03 23:37:42 · answer #5 · answered by sandy.d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the children are going to only be in their early twenties or thirties by the time their parents die. at that time, they're stlll somewhat reliant on their parents, which may cause some financial and emotional trauma for the kids. also, many senses and skills deteriorate with age, affecting a lot of aspects of their kids' lives. also, the children probably didn't get the chance to know their grandparents, and their parents might not get the chance to know their grandchildren.
i think that if you're gonna get kids that age, then you should adopt somewhat older children.
2007-05-31 01:44:24 · answer #6 · answered by larkaloo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To each his own. If they want the opportunity, who are we to say that they shouldn't. Let's look at it this way. In July I am going to have my tubes untied to try for my 3rd child (long story). I am 31, one of my closest friends in 52 and hasn't gone through the change. If my surgery is unsuccessful, she loves my husband and I so much that she would be a surrogate for us if needed. she loves being pregnant. she has 2 teenage girls. she would do it again in a heart beat for the experience and to help us. I think if they trully want this, then all the power to them!
2007-05-31 00:30:18 · answer #7 · answered by jandsmommy2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never heard of them, but personally, having a child at that age is not right. I don't think they will be able to provide emotionally and in many other ways for their child.
Can you imagine yourself as a teen without your parents?
2007-05-31 00:03:21 · answer #8 · answered by log3 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its VERY selfish. That child will have to lose his or her parents alot sooner than his or her peers. He or she will have to care for those parents at an early age. I think basically they are robbing their child of experiencing normal life and probably never going to be able to be grandparents to a grandchild.
2007-05-31 00:27:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel bad for the children. Chances are that they will lose their parents before they even hit their teens... who will raise them then? I think that it's a shame for the kids and selfish of the parents.
2007-05-31 10:56:15 · answer #10 · answered by zeus112999 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋