67 year old Gives birth

By BlinX
in Poll Station

 Share

Right or wrong, let the masses decide!  

156 members have voted

  1. 1. Right or wrong, let the masses decide!

    • Right?
      24
    • Wrong?
      132

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

craybox

Posted
Posted

Like most of the opinions here i feel that it is a very selfish circumstance. You have to think about the child for god sake.

and to think i thought i was nearly too old at 28 to have kids. My boy won't be able to buy me a pint till i'm 46 :o my lil angel till when i'm 48 ( ok that was a selfish thought :) )

Grand Master

leesmithg

Posted
Posted
:yes:?:yes::?:yes:s:

585305148[/snapback]

Mmm what you call God did not, medical science did you knob!

Women generally stop being fertile around 40, it's called the end of menopause.

I wonder if mr or mrs religion likes the fact she did not produce the egg herself.

Grand Master

shakey

Posted
Posted

first off, who cares what christians say, they are hypocrites.

2nd, thats way to old to have a baby. that mom wont beable to handle the constant getting up at night to help the baby, i mean hell, i bet in 3 years times the mom will need a nurse and a baby sitter....

3rd, (for yall religous types) if "god" as u say ment this to happen, then didnt he also mean for her not to have a baby???

alright, those are my views. i have no religion, i still believe in god, but i do it my way. i dont need to listen to anyone on how to live my life....

Grand Master

ramesees

Posted
Posted

Yeah this is science gone wrong

Just because science can carry out certain procedures, doesn't necessarily mean it should. Think of the greater good in this case. Which is better, that a woman unable to have kids her entire life gives birth at 67, or that kid is born, and will have to possibly bury his mother in his teens and suffer goodness knows what upbringing all because with regards to all the usual kid stuff (feeding, being taught how to read and write, sports etc..) and the rest.

The needs of the child needed to be taken into account in this case, and not those of the selfish mother who wanted kids and could using modern technology

Grand Master

FiB3R

Posted
Posted (edited)
Bloody selfish cow!

585303866[/snapback]

Selfish, old, rediculous

She probs dont have long to live, unfair for children

Just not right :pinch:

585303887[/snapback]

Wrong, selfish ****ing old slag. I feel sorry for the surviving girl, one of them died at birth:((

585304022[/snapback]

It's been proven that premature baby's have shorter lives and suffer from more illnesses.

This is child abuse.

Edited by The Cub
Enthusiast

VR44

Posted
Posted

i dont think the question is so much is it right or wrong so much is it moral,

and i would have to say not, its unfair on the children like most of you said and does go against nature, we've evolved this way for a reason if you screw around with it too much things are going to go wrong

Grand Master

leesmithg

Posted
Posted
Yeah this is science gone wrong

Just because science can carry out certain procedures, doesn't necessarily mean it should. Think of the greater good in this case. Which is better, that a woman unable to have kids her entire life gives birth at 67,

585305441[/snapback]

See she could have children, she was too bloody career minded to bother to be a mother in the correct span of her younger life.

Grand Master

AshMan

Posted
Posted
maybe to you. But there are others who feel otherwise. Maybe it was her own persoanl sign from the big man. I dont think it's that weird i mean come on, old people pop viagra these days and get crazy. This truly could giver her a new lease on life. And the age gap isnt so bad. I'm actually rasied by my grandparetns and i treat them like my mother and father.

585304101[/snapback]

If you were raised by your great-great grandparents, you'd have a different opinion. It's not about what is best for the woman; news flash, only bad parents bring children in to the world for their own benefit. A child is an independent life and should only be brought in the this world for it's own benefit. Your argument is like two people in a bad marriage that have a kid to save their marriage!

OMG! I've just had a thought!

The old granny might share the same diaper brand with her kid!

Veteran

DannyGlass

Posted
Posted

I think its wrong because

(1) By the time the child is ten years of age his mother may have passed on.

(2) The mum might not handle looking after the child properly.

There are many other reasons why i think it is wrong but i will not go into detail.

-DannyGlass

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.