Page 4 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

14 Dec 2008, 2:35 am

m91 wrote:
So you are saying that it is ok to have a child at the age of 72 as the parents might live to ta 100. So when the parents are in their late 90s will they be physically strong and active enough to cater for 2 demanding teenagers?

And just how many countries have a life expectancy of 100? None. What proportion of people live to the age of 100? Very little. Countries in the developed world have life expectancies between 75-82. I just looked up the life expectancy in India, it's 62 for men and 64 for women (according to the World Health Organisation). And just how many people live to the age of 100 in India, while being fairly strong and fit? Not many.

They would most likely be struggling to walk and look after themselves, and the child would have to end up looking after the parents if the parent even lives that long. This means hat even if the parents live that long, the child won't be able to go to school.

As for a 25 year old dying during childbirth, there is nothing we can do to completely prevent that from happening, as that's nature, but we use the medical advancements we have to try our best. But what is the chance of that happening anyway? What's the most likely outcome? The mother and child will both most likely survive if the mother is 25 years old. If the mother is 72, the child is almost guaranteed to become an orphan, and only some ignorant parents will take such a risk.

So either the child will become an orphan, or if that doesn't happen, then the child will not be able to go to school as he/she will end up having to look after his/her feeble parents once they reach their 80s and 90s.


and there is no garentee that an 18 yrear old parent wont die,



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

14 Dec 2008, 6:54 am

It's all about probability. A 72 year old is nearing the end of their life. An 18 year old is physically stronger than a 72 year old. A 72 year old parent is much more likely to die before the child grows up than an 18 year old parent. Did you ever think why a 72 year old is unable to have children naturally in the first place? Simple. Very few of them would have the physical capability of bringing up a child. When the parents are old and frail, are the parents gonna cook for the child, or is the child gonna cook for the parents?

You seem to think that an 18 year old and a 72 year old are equally strong.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

14 Dec 2008, 2:20 pm

m91 wrote:
It's all about probability. A 72 year old is nearing the end of their life. An 18 year old is physically stronger than a 72 year old. A 72 year old parent is much more likely to die before the child grows up than an 18 year old parent. Did you ever think why a 72 year old is unable to have children naturally in the first place? Simple. Very few of them would have the physical capability of bringing up a child. When the parents are old and frail, are the parents gonna cook for the child, or is the child gonna cook for the parents?

You seem to think that an 18 year old and a 72 year old are equally strong.


statistic break down at the individual level



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

14 Dec 2008, 8:49 pm

Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
It's all about probability. A 72 year old is nearing the end of their life. An 18 year old is physically stronger than a 72 year old. A 72 year old parent is much more likely to die before the child grows up than an 18 year old parent. Did you ever think why a 72 year old is unable to have children naturally in the first place? Simple. Very few of them would have the physical capability of bringing up a child. When the parents are old and frail, are the parents gonna cook for the child, or is the child gonna cook for the parents?

You seem to think that an 18 year old and a 72 year old are equally strong.


statistic break down at the individual level


I have no idea what you are talking about.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

15 Dec 2008, 1:30 am

m91 wrote:
Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
It's all about probability. A 72 year old is nearing the end of their life. An 18 year old is physically stronger than a 72 year old. A 72 year old parent is much more likely to die before the child grows up than an 18 year old parent. Did you ever think why a 72 year old is unable to have children naturally in the first place? Simple. Very few of them would have the physical capability of bringing up a child. When the parents are old and frail, are the parents gonna cook for the child, or is the child gonna cook for the parents?

You seem to think that an 18 year old and a 72 year old are equally strong.


statistic break down at the individual level


I have no idea what you are talking about.


Bummer



LadyMacbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,091
Location: In the girls toilets at Hogwarts, washing the blood off my hands.

15 Dec 2008, 8:18 am

Individual or not, NO-ONE is strong enough at 72 to compete with an 18 year old.


_________________
We are the mutant race!! !! Don't look at my eyes, don't look at my face...


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

15 Dec 2008, 5:46 pm

LadyMacbeth wrote:
Individual or not, NO-ONE is strong enough at 72 to compete with an 18 year old.


Not really, there is a 72 yeard guy sailing the seas discovering new specias of microbes. dont seem any 18 year olds, and that wasnt the point its not about competing..its the fact that your age when you give birth does not make you grim reaper proof. SO I dont know how you made the klink with what you posted to what I posted.


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

15 Dec 2008, 6:54 pm

Just be realistic. Look at the majority of 72 year olds. I don't see the majority of 72 year olds sailing the seas. So you think just because there are a minute number of exceptional cases where old people are physically fit that every 72 year old should be allowed to have children?

An 18 year old is NOT grim reaper proof. I look at the probabililty. What is the probability that someone who is 18 when their child is born will be alive when the child becomes 18? Extremely likely. What is the probability that someone who is currently 72 will be alive in 18 years time? Unlikely, specially in a developing nation like India (I'm not intending any racism, me being of South Asian origin myself).

As for you mentioning that 72 year old man sailing the sea, have you heard of the 14 year old boy who sailed solo across the Atlantic ocean (last year I think, or earlier this year)? But anyway I don't want to dwell on exceptional, individual cases and I don't want to go off on a tangent, as we are looking at the majority of 72 year olds who are fit who are both physically and mentally capable of being parents, and is likely to live long enough until the child reaches adulthood. Just because a . Just because a very few number of old individuals are capable of amazing feats, does not make the majority of 72 year old fit for being parents.

You are using the fact that there are a few exceptional cases to say that a 72 year old is fit to be a parent.

You also talk like a 72 year old has the same chance of surviving for another 18 years compared with an 18 year old living for another 18 years.

Do you think it is completely ok to risk having a child while being almost certain that the child will become an orphan? Or is it that you don't care if the child becomes an orphan? As you mentioned earlier:

Eggman wrote:
i just cant care no matter how hard i try


And you have also ignored most of what I've mentioned in my past few posts, just making random comments trying to pick out flaws in my posts.

What is your point anyway? You haven't actually made a clear point.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Last edited by m91 on 15 Dec 2008, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

15 Dec 2008, 6:59 pm

m91 wrote:
Just be realistic. Look at the majority of 72 year olds. I don't see the majority of 72 year olds sailing the seas. So you think just because there are a minute number of exceptional cases where old people are physically fit that every 72 year old should be allowed to have children?

An 18 year old is NOT grim reaper proof. I look at the probabililty. What is the probability that someone who is 18 when their child is born will be alive when the child becomes 18? Extremely likely. What is the probability that someone who is currently 72 will be alive in 18 years time? Unlikely, specially in a developing nation like India (I'm not intending any racism, me being of South Asian origin myself).

As for you mentioning that 72 year old man sailing the sea, have you heard of the 14 year old boy who sailed solo across the Atlantic ocean (last year I think, or earlier this year)? But anyway I don't want to dwell on exceptional, individual cases and I don't want to go off on a tangent, as we are looking at the majority of 72 year olds who are fit who are both physically and mentally capable of being parents, and is likely to live long enough until the child reaches adulthood. Just because a . Just because a very few number of old individuals are capable of amazing feats, does not make the majority of 72 year old fit for being parents.

You are using the fact that there are a few exceptional cases to say that a 72 year old is fit to be a parent.

You also seem to think that a 72 year old has the same chance of surviving for another 18 years compared with an 18 year old living for another 18 years.

Do you think it is completely ok to risk having a child while being almost certain that the child will become an orphan?

What is your point anyway? You haven't actually made a clear point.


which is why ot breaks down at the individualist level so i am being realstic, If I am in the minortiy, I wuill not put my self to the imitiatsuions of the majority . Same chancer, did I ever say thaty?I rarely mean more then what I exatvly says. Sarcasm of cvorse not counting. I think Its is ok to live your life and not the life others incest you have


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

15 Dec 2008, 7:08 pm

Well the law can only go one way. It would either need to be legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone. Quite frankly, if it is legal for everyone, there will be innocent children becoming orphans.

If it is illegal for everyone, it would discriminate against a few people are are phyically and mentally capable, but people at the age of 72 aren't supposed to have children, hence the reason why they are infertile at that age.

So you would rather have it being legal for everyone to suit you, and have many innocent children becoming orphans.

How nice of you. You don't care the slightest about them.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

15 Dec 2008, 7:14 pm

And based on what you are saying, every single law in this world would break down at the individual level, as there will always be exceptional cases.

And please tell me you are not going to have a child when you are 72.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

15 Dec 2008, 7:19 pm

m91 wrote:
And based on what you are saying, every single law in this world would break down at the individual level, as there will always be exceptional cases.

And please tell me you are not going to have a child when you are 72.


I dot have to tell you anything about my reproductive plans nor does the iodea that its a persons own choice equal to disobeying laws


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

15 Dec 2008, 7:20 pm

m91 wrote:
Just be realistic. Look at the majority of 72 year olds. I don't see the majority of 72 year olds sailing the seas. So you think just because there are a minute number of exceptional cases where old people are physically fit that every 72 year old should be allowed to have children?

An 18 year old is NOT grim reaper proof. I look at the probabililty. What is the probability that someone who is 18 when their child is born will be alive when the child becomes 18? Extremely likely. What is the probability that someone who is currently 72 will be alive in 18 years time? Unlikely, specially in a developing nation like India (I'm not intending any racism, me being of South Asian origin myself).

As for you mentioning that 72 year old man sailing the sea, have you heard of the 14 year old boy who sailed solo across the Atlantic ocean (last year I think, or earlier this year)? But anyway I don't want to dwell on exceptional, individual cases and I don't want to go off on a tangent, as we are looking at the majority of 72 year olds who are fit who are both physically and mentally capable of being parents, and is likely to live long enough until the child reaches adulthood. Just because a . Just because a very few number of old individuals are capable of amazing feats, does not make the majority of 72 year old fit for being parents.

You are using the fact that there are a few exceptional cases to say that a 72 year old is fit to be a parent.

You also talk like a 72 year old has the same chance of surviving for another 18 years compared with an 18 year old living for another 18 years.

Do you think it is completely ok to risk having a child while being almost certain that the child will become an orphan? Or is it that you don't care if the child becomes an orphan? As you mentioned earlier:

Eggman wrote:
i just cant care no matter how hard i try


And you have also ignored most of what I've mentioned in my past few posts, just making random comments trying to pick out flaws in my posts.

What is your point anyway? You haven't actually made a clear point.


WHats wrong with not caring if a 72 year old reproduces?


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

15 Dec 2008, 7:57 pm

The parents are more likely to die than survive before the child grows up. Hence the most likely possibility is the children becoming orphans. I have already mentioned that earlier on, and you seem to have missed the point.

So it's about the likelihood of the children becoming orphans or having to look after their parents (i.e. not being able to have an education). I have already mentioned both. It's not about the parents reproducing.

Do you see nothing wrong with the children being faced with a bleak future?

Of course there are exceptional cases as you mentioned, where a few 72 year olds would be physically strong enough to live past the age of 90. But because of a small minority, I don't want to risk innocent children having to endure intense suffering.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

15 Dec 2008, 8:10 pm

Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
Just be realistic. Look at the majority of 72 year olds. I don't see the majority of 72 year olds sailing the seas. So you think just because there are a minute number of exceptional cases where old people are physically fit that every 72 year old should be allowed to have children?

An 18 year old is NOT grim reaper proof. I look at the probabililty. What is the probability that someone who is 18 when their child is born will be alive when the child becomes 18? Extremely likely. What is the probability that someone who is currently 72 will be alive in 18 years time? Unlikely, specially in a developing nation like India (I'm not intending any racism, me being of South Asian origin myself).

As for you mentioning that 72 year old man sailing the sea, have you heard of the 14 year old boy who sailed solo across the Atlantic ocean (last year I think, or earlier this year)? But anyway I don't want to dwell on exceptional, individual cases and I don't want to go off on a tangent, as we are looking at the majority of 72 year olds who are fit who are both physically and mentally capable of being parents, and is likely to live long enough until the child reaches adulthood. Just because a . Just because a very few number of old individuals are capable of amazing feats, does not make the majority of 72 year old fit for being parents.

You are using the fact that there are a few exceptional cases to say that a 72 year old is fit to be a parent.

You also seem to think that a 72 year old has the same chance of surviving for another 18 years compared with an 18 year old living for another 18 years.

Do you think it is completely ok to risk having a child while being almost certain that the child will become an orphan?

What is your point anyway? You haven't actually made a clear point.


which is why ot breaks down at the individualist level so i am being realstic, If I am in the minortiy, I wuill not put my self to the imitiatsuions of the majority . Same chancer, did I ever say thaty?I rarely mean more then what I exatvly says. Sarcasm of cvorse not counting. I think Its is ok to live your life and not the life others incest you have


I agree with you that it is ok to live your life and not the life that others insist you have. But When you have someone else's life in your hands it's a different story. It is not ok to live your life in such a way that would have a negative impact on someone else's life, in this case, the child. Then it's no longer just your life that's taken into consideration. So I'm talking about the child's life. The way that the parents choose to live would most likely result in the child having a horrible childhood and upbringing, if they have a child at the age of 72. A child does not deserve to be an orphan.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,046
Location: Missouri

15 Dec 2008, 8:16 pm

I would like to ask if it were a child that got pregnant.

Would there be as much of a negative reaction as the 72 year old that got pregnant?


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan