PDA

View Full Version : Should women over 50 have babies?


Sabeena
17-05-2006, 21:17
well i was reading this magazine today and saw this story, A woman called Patricia Rashbrook,62, from Lewes decided she wanted a baby with her second husband John Farrant although they are both over 60. After undegoing IVF treatment in Russia, she is seven months pregnant with her fourth child. She defends the decision to have a child at her age and will become britain's oldest mum..

Personally I think age doesn't matter if the couple love each other and want a baby as long as they are physically able to have a child then its OK...but on the other hand I find that the child may find it difficult to have a mother who is as old as a grandmother..

I don't think there has been another thread mentioning this topic.. im interested in seeing people's opinions and views on this..:coctail:

robbie
17-05-2006, 21:19
Yes. Why not?

Sabeena
17-05-2006, 21:19
Yes but why do you think so Robbie? :)

robbie
17-05-2006, 21:23
Sabeena, I think, if women over 50 have a vigour and normalize health, why not? If child for that woman is her dream or fulfillment, that's OK. Woman has a choice!

QueenBee
17-05-2006, 21:44
Sure, why not. I mean, if men can be fathers at 60, then so should women. ;) I'm kinda surprised this actually happened, considering how old her body is. I've never heard of a woman actually being able to get pregnant at the age of 60.

Too bad that the child will most likely not have so much time with her as he or she probably could otherwise... I mean, the woman is getting old already and her child might see her die sooner than he/she might like.

Rachel
17-05-2006, 22:08
I followed this story closely on the news and personally I'm against it.

A few months back there was this programme about other old mothers in the UK. There was this one girl who was 7 (I think) and was saying "I have to be mature because I know my mummy and daddy could die at any time." :bum: Imagine a seven year old saying that. Kids that age shouldn't have that kind of worry, they have enough things in their life to think about. And everyone thought her parents were her grandparents.

How is are 60 year old parents gonna have enough energy to run around looking after a young child. Dads usually go to the part with their kids, run around and kick a ball around. How can the average 60 year old do that?

Women are not able to have child from a certain age for a reason. They say all that "you are as young as you feel" bullshit, but in reality their body have aged and aren't suitable for preganacy. Many women who have kids very late in life end up with babies with various conditions. Health risks for the older women getting pregnant include a high risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, develop problems with the placenta and then need a Caesarean section. How fair is that on the child if he/she is born with problems? Personlly I think it's selfish. Especially if the woman already had kids (which this Patrica already has) so it's not as though she hasn't had any kids and feels as if she is missing something in her life. It's funny this woman is a child psychologist, you would have thought she would have thought about the child first, but obviously not.

How young will the child be when it's parents die? Will the parents end up in a nursing home before the kid is even 18? Think about that.

Sabeena
17-05-2006, 22:16
Yea I agree with Rachel.. its is a bit selfish, and I doubt the children will be able to do normal things that other kids do..as Rachel said... go the park..play a bit of football with their dad or go shopping with their mum, and so on... but having their parents die when they are of such a young age, will deeply effect their tender heart.. :(

Obie
17-05-2006, 23:29
WELL, i haven't voted yet,,, from one side,,, people who think they're willing to give love and to take care of a human being are right,,, but as Rachel , said,,,and also it's an age when there are different difficulties,, like having a child with some diseases, which incolce their mental and physical health,,, these children will have problems to be accepted in this society. At theis age the posibilities are even bigger. I'd advice these women to adopt,,,:)


I had read barbies instead of babies :D , really, then I read the first post and everything had sense

Rachel
17-05-2006, 23:34
At theis age the posibilities are even bigger. I'd advice these women to adopt,,,:)Yep, that makes sense. That can do a lot of good! :yes:

Obie
17-05-2006, 23:39
there are lots of children with no one to take care of them,,,, and so much children who are born with this kind of desease,,,,, that's sad :(

freddie
18-05-2006, 11:35
You have to remember people age slower then they did 50 or even 30 years ago. I remember those old women with scarf on their heads and an arched back back in the early 80s. They were early 50 or so. It's not uncommon these days for people to still look like they're in their mid 40s when they're actually 50 or even 60 and beyond. Nor is it uncommon for people to maintain vitality after the age of 75 which was an unofficial benchmark in the past where age would REALLY start affecting a person's health. Of course this isn't the case with all individuals but it seems to be a general rule that people age slower than they did in the past. I guess it has to do a lot with improved standards of life since evolution doesn't affect people in such short time scales. Slower aging is even more pronounced if you compare modern people with lets say Ancient Romans which were reported to look like old men once they hit 50 (and seldom did since an average life expectancy was 29 due to the brutal way of life back then).

In any case... this mother has a fair chance of getting to see her child grow up, however I'd say it is a tad risky due to a strong possibility of birth defects (a chance of that rises significantly after 35).

marina
18-05-2006, 14:50
The point is that man produces sperm cells during his whole life from puberty till old age ,as opposite to a woman who born with 1mln eggs and stay with them her whole life. Never get new ones.
If she is 50 -- her eggs are 50 years old. During such long time eggs may have genetic abnormalities. Why ? different reasons : radiation , viruses, environmental toxins, such as cigarette smoke and pollution; Besides, all her healthy eggs came out first (you know when;)) so that more abnormal eggs are left later in life.
Result ? high risk of baby being born with lots of health troubles .
Women might be active ,look young , healthy these days but their eggs AGED .
Man could fathered a healthy child even when he is 70 !;)

haku
18-05-2006, 15:00
The point is that man produces sperm cells during his whole lifeThat's right, that's pretty much all we do all day long. :D

Man could fathered a healthy child even when he is 70 !Yup, because our product is always fresh. :D


Sorry, that post is not helping the topic, but i was in a goofy mood. :p

marina
18-05-2006, 16:43
Yeah ....but you are still on topic;) Pretty much what I was trying to say.
Man's product is always fresh and woman's isn't. Medicine could help a middle aged woman to carry the baby through the whole pregnancy and deliver it safely trough C.section...Look after the baby is hard but still possible, if you have a good partner or relatives , some mums more responsible when they around 50 than 20 ...The real danger is a starting point -- child could be born unhealthy brcause of genetic abnormalities.

forre
18-05-2006, 16:47
Since you can't prohibit women having children, I'd vote "yes". Women getting children at that age are only a few, so it shouldn't be a problem.

tanrah
18-05-2006, 17:00
If her health allows to do this - why not? But don't forget possible results. Child will be growing with relative old mother. He (she) should be in discomfort state comparing own mother with young parents of classmates. Anyway Its better when mother quite young and child can consider her as a friend.

angelmouse
18-05-2006, 17:57
I haven't voted yet but I'll probably vote no. I don't think women over 50 should get pregnant but on the other hand I don't think it's something that you can prohibit people from doing. Those who have the money for whatever treatment they need are gonna get it. I still don't think we're gonna see a lot of pregnant older women cause even though it's possible to make someone pregnant at that age it's not easy and likely only a few of those who try will succeed.

Obie
18-05-2006, 18:34
Since you can't prohibit women having children, I'd vote "yes". Women getting children at that age are only a few, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Nice point,, but the thread says,,, should they?, not,,, should they be prohibited to?,,, , we all know that's their right,, also some of us think it's more dangerous to do it at that age,, there are options too.

forre
18-05-2006, 18:35
Nice point,, but the thread says,,, should they?,
They should as anything else will be violation of the human rights. Good enough now?

fighter
18-05-2006, 18:36
well i dont think its healthy for women over 50 2 give birth 2 babies, it'll b dangerous for both d baby n d mum

forre
18-05-2006, 18:52
well i dont think its healthy for women over 50 2 give birth 2 babies, it'll b dangerous for both d baby n d mum
Statistically it's more dangerous to drive cars but no one is debating over it. LOL

Obie
18-05-2006, 19:02
Car accidents?,,:bum: there's no relation between both,,,,, I mean you can see it everywhere,,, everytime,,,,there are lots of accidents,,, sometimes it's not your own fault,,,, I mean,,,, . It's just that you don't go out saying,,, well, today I'm buying cigaretes, some cheese and,, oh, why not an accident?????,,, Having a baby is something you're sure you want to do.....(at least it's better that way), sometimes women at 50 get pregnant artificially,, and they know what's the danger, which not only compromise her life but also her children's life,,, yeah, they're willing to risk it,,, but ,,, would their children think it's ok?????

forre
18-05-2006, 19:04
there's no relation between both,,,,,
It depends on how you look at it. Having a baby at 50 means potetial risks but not a 100% risk by default. What ever. I voted yes and I explained why.

Argos
18-05-2006, 19:26
Medicine is getting better and better. Most problems with genetics and health can be controlled very good nowadays. So I don't think this is a very strong argument against pregnancy above 50. The social aspects have to be considered by the parents, but I am sure that most people who decide for a child at this age do this.

If we begin to define which woman should have a baby and who not, we will end with less than 5 percent of women being 'allowed' to have one. Sorry, that does not appeal to me.

QueenBee
18-05-2006, 19:40
there's no relation between both,,,,
I think death is the relation... that she might die sooner than her child would want her to (when her child is maybe 20-30 years old - but these days women do live longer although some may not be so lucky). Since you can't guarantee that she will die sooner than other mothers, there's really nothing to do... Same as, if the mother is young - it doesn't mean she will live long, either. My friend lost her mother when she was 12 years old, and her mother was young. Meanwhile my other friend (aged 17) has a 67 year old father who is still very healthy.

Also, I think the fact that she is old doesn't mean she can't be a good mom... I've seen plenty of young mothers who should never have given birth.

In my opinion the biggest problem is what can happen to the child itself (like others mentioned in this thread).

freddie
18-05-2006, 21:05
Modern medicine is fairly succesful at predicting pre-natal birth defects as the fetus develops from early stages, so the pregnancy can be aborted in those first few weeks if problems are detected.

PowerPuff Grrl
19-05-2006, 04:56
I voted yes.
After all; her body, her choice.

Domi
27-05-2006, 21:29
no, come on guys, it's obvious that not!! this is just not possible that that kid would be healthy. and how her body would stand a childbirth? and finally, she would be his/her mom and would look like grandmom..
anyway, that's her choice, but I'm surprised that the doctors agreed for this :eek:

p.s. ekhm, what will be the kind of impregnation? her husband will do it himself?

spyretto
27-05-2006, 21:31
I can't see a reason why they shouldn't.

Katoren
27-05-2006, 22:01
but I'm surprised that the doctors agreed for this

I highly doubt they can disagree to help on the baby's birth. It's their job. It's a right that the woman has. Despite the doctors' opinion, they have to help the mother. That's the hipocratic oath. Well, part of it.

Anyway, I still voted no. I agree with Rachel, and the ones who agreed with her (=P). I mean, if the woman wants to take the risk and have a baby, so be it. However, I think she shouldn't. For all the reasons already explained.

dradeel
27-05-2006, 22:23
As there is a restriction for when you're allowed to have a baby (in norway: 16 years old) I honestly believe there should be an upper limit as well (I have no idea what it would be tho). After the woman's age of 25-30, the risks of any damages to the little one increases dramatically. After what I know (I'm not scientist or know-it-all on the field, however my old science teacher told me that;) the best age for having children was when the woman is between 16-20 years old. I'm thinking someone who's over 50 will put a lot of unecessary risks on the baby, as there will be big chances of disnormalities when it's born.

The fact that the kid will lose his/her parents while he's/she's still young isn't really a problem. Of course it's very sorry for him/her, but it's something one can get over after a litte while. It's not a permanent problem... If it becomes a problem he/she can get help to put it behind him/her.

I dunno really. It's not the issue I've digged myself the most into. I'm saying no, because of the risks, however, I think she's entitled every right to have a baby. Adoption is a superb alternative! :)

Domi
27-05-2006, 22:42
I highly doubt they can disagree to help on the baby's birth. It's their job. It's a right that the woman has. Despite the doctors' opinion, they have to help the mother. That's the hipocratic oath. Well, part of it.


well they can disagree and in that case they should do this. they have to save lives no metter what, and I can imagine how this case will end. they will make a prenatal examination when it would be possible and they will detect some genetical disease in this child. than they will assert that this kid won't live more than few years, or they will assert that the body of mother is to weak to stand the delivery. and it will end on abortion anyway.

I think that this woman is selfish, too selfish,she thinks only about herself, she wants to have baby and she have to get it no matter what. she don't thing of the needs of this poor kid or of his future. that's why she shouldn't get it.

but, that's my opinion, of course you can disagree :)

Katoren
27-05-2006, 22:50
I don't disagree with you, just with the doctors disagreeing thing. (If you know what I mean xP)
They have to do anything that is in their hand to bring the baby safe. And to keep the mother alive. No matter what the chances of them both dying are.
That's what I think, at least o.o

Domi
27-05-2006, 22:54
I think I understand. and that's why I think that they should consider this one more time..but well, this is England, everything is possible there ;)

zebu
27-05-2006, 23:23
of course they should, since all kind of younger woman can why not older too.

but world would be a much better place, if everyone had to satisfy some criteria before having kids :) , but that will never happen..

xmad
28-05-2006, 08:58
Of course it's not ok for women over 50 to have children.
I'm totally against this. 1st: it's really risky. 2nd: having children needs so much responsibilities.how are they gonna raise the child at that old age? There will be a huge generation gap between them so how they're gonna understand each other? and how many years they have to live. I think someone who does this kind of childish or even selfish things is not mature enough, no matter how old they are.

dradeel
28-05-2006, 18:06
2nd: having children needs so much responsibilities.how are they gonna raise the child at that old age? There will be a huge generation gap between them so how they're gonna understand each other? and how many years they have to live. I think someone who does this kind of childish or even selfish things is not mature enough, no matter how old they are.
That's no problem. There are infinite number of cases where grandparents (or simply grandparents-aged foster parents) have brought up lonely kids, and with superb results! 50 isn't OLD... you're perfectly capable of bringing up a kid at that age. Even the problem for the kid with the parents dying "early" is no problem at all. The kid will get over that. Everyone have lost someone dear to them without the whole world collapsing before their eyes. Age doesn't really matter when the kid is already born and in super shape.

The problem is the risks before and while giving birth to the little one: The old lady will give the baby high risks of permanent disnormalities and problems that it will struggle with for the rest of his/her life. This can be pretty serious, and not something the mother should risk putting on her child. That's the only problem in my opinion, but it's a huge one.

Obie
03-06-2006, 23:46
Then what's the most recomended age to have children , anybody has an idea????, we all know that having childrean at 15 or 16 is not, maybe in Royal families to continue with the blood line it is (well, it's not now in). My mom had me at 28,,,,

dradeel
04-06-2006, 00:04
Obezyanki - I'm not scientist or know-it-all on the field, however my old science teacher told me that the best age for having children was when the woman is between 16-20 years old.
:)

Obie
04-06-2006, 00:16
Originally Posted by dradeel
I'm not scientist or know-it-all on the field, however my old science teacher told me that the best age for having children was when the woman is between 16-20 years old.

Before College??, so who's gonna take care of this kid,,,,

Rachel
04-06-2006, 00:20
Obezyanki, he meant health-wise. Not how this child could effect a persons lifestyle.

dradeel
04-06-2006, 00:27
Obezyanki, he meant health-wise. Not how this child could effect a persons lifestyle.
Excactemundo... :)

haku
04-06-2006, 00:36
Yeah, girls in their late teens can practically drop a baby without even noticing. :gigi: The female body handles pregnancies extremely well at that age.

Obie
04-06-2006, 00:44
well, that's different., so Rachel you fit in dadreel's average age of maternity...:p , interested?:D ,

Rachel
04-06-2006, 00:46
...interested?:D ,I'd rather shoot myself in the head :p

Obie
04-06-2006, 00:48
I guessed so,,, see ya, take care

Connie
04-06-2006, 00:59
I would have to say "no", mainly because genomes of eggs cells of women over 50 have a higher chance of carrying a deleterous mutation, which means that the baby has a higher chance of being born with a genetic defect.

But other than that... whatever makes people happy, I guess.

magicfor
04-06-2006, 03:20
my tutorial teacher said his mom gave birth to him when she was over 50
he is now a so intelligent person
i don't think there's any problem

Rachel
04-06-2006, 13:48
That's just one person. Not a good example.

dradeel
04-06-2006, 16:32
i don't think there's any problem
There are problems. Your teacher were either lucky or lying. But I'm guessing lucky since it's not something you'd lie about :)

Sabeena
19-06-2006, 19:36
well...i watched this tv programme last night on whats the best age to have a baby, apparently in your late 20's or early 30's..but not over 40..because after you age 40, you chance to conceive is halved..it was interesting though that some women were not even interested in having children until they were 40, when they were holding their friends babies,
The programme was a great help to me, it persuaded me not to have children at an eraly age in your teens, best to have a baby when you know you're financially secured so you can give your child more in life

dradeel
19-06-2006, 19:44
best to have a baby when you know you're financially secured so you can give your child more in life
That's true. There are many factors that play a role. Personally I think I would like to be done with studies and actually know I could financially give my baby a superb and healthy life with alot of contact with its parents ... but then of course, I'd never want a baby :D

Sabeena
19-06-2006, 19:47
I'd never want a baby really?..why not

dradeel
19-06-2006, 20:09
really?..why not
Because I hate them... hehehe. They are ok and cute when they're newly born, of course. But then it's all the screaming and attention ... and as soon as they can walk they are these small terror machines. When they reach the age of 6-7 they are the most annoying and curious age where they ask all these question that'll tear your head apart. They'll be noisy and won't do what you tell them to, and they can't understand that their action has consequences ... small bastards. Then they reach the age of 12-13. They get all "adulty" trying to be so badass cause now they're "big". Still they can't see that their stupid actions actually would be damaging to themselves and others. It's not until they're about 15-16 they are okay again. They start getting their own identity, actually becoming friendly and what could look like an intelligence. Allthough they still suck you for money and try to act as adults, but now they are able to put reasons behind their demands and do it in a sensible way.

I don't wanna wait 15 years for my baby to become something I'd be comfortable with. Now, of course, I might change when I get 25-30, find the most adoring woman in the world and the hormones are shooting through the roof and the wish for a baby comes even if I want it or not, buuuuuuuuuuuut right now a baby is the last thing I'll ever want. :)

Sorry if I sound like some grumpy idiotic fuck, but that's how I feel about it. Heh.

Rachel
19-06-2006, 20:14
Babies are evil :yes:

Kyro
19-06-2006, 20:14
Sorry if I sound like some grumpy idiotic fuck, but that's how I feel about it. Heh.

You don't sound grumpy, I understand completely. Who would want to go through all that, without being totally sure they would get something good out of it in the end?! And you would have to be crazy to want a creepy little baby :confused: Hormones do strange things to people...

dradeel
19-06-2006, 20:19
Babies are evil
Agreed :D
You don't sound grumpy, I understand completely. Who would want to go through all that, without being totally sure they would get something good out of it in the end?! Hormones do strange things to people...
Hehe.. aye. They sure do. I hate it tho. Hahahaha. But I guess I wouldn't excist if it wasn't for hormones, so I guess I shouldn't complain :)

Sabeena
19-06-2006, 21:47
you would have to be crazy to want a creepy little baby
:lalala: does that make me crazy?...don't get me wrong..i know how much hard work it is bringing a chid up..buutt..they're not all screaming mad creepy little rats who keep you up at night...quite a few are very good, sleep all night, hardly ever cry, and they are smart..
The only thing putting me off having a baby is being surrounded by strangers having to push another human being out of your body..

Kyro
19-06-2006, 22:07
does that make me crazy?

Well maybe not crazy. I just don't understand it. Maybe I'm the crazy one :dknow:

they're not all screaming mad creepy little rats who keep you up at night...quite a few are very good, sleep all night, hardly ever cry, and they are smart..

What's to say you're gonna get a good one?

The only thing putting me off having a baby is being surrounded by strangers having to push another human being out of your body..

I think that's the creepiest part of it...

Sabeena
19-06-2006, 22:16
Well maybe not crazy. I just don't understand it. Maybe I'm the crazy one nope..you're entitled to your own opinions..
What's to say you're gonna get a good one?
whats to say you're not?..lol..i dunno just a feeling

dradeel
19-06-2006, 22:16
Maybe I'm the crazy one
That's probably it. I know I'm crazy, and I love it! :D

Kyro
19-06-2006, 22:19
That's probably it. I know I'm crazy, and I love it! :D

Who needs sanity! :gigi: :coctail:

dradeel
19-06-2006, 22:25
Who needs sanity! :gigi: :coctail:
Excactemundo! :coctail:

haku
19-06-2006, 22:39
I don't think it's crazy to not want chidren, i don't have any and i don't intend to have any. :gigi:
People do look at you funny though when you're passed a certain age and still haven't settled down with a wife and kids. :rolleyes: You become an oddity, something awkward, all my former friends from school have settled down in their early 30s and that has left me as the weird guy who remained single and is better avoided.

freddie
23-06-2006, 21:30
I don't think it's crazy to not want chidren, i don't have any and i don't intend to have any. :gigi:
People do look at you funny though when you're passed a certain age and still haven't settled down with a wife and kids. :rolleyes: You become an oddity, something awkward, all my former friends from school have settled down in their early 30s and that has left me as the weird guy who remained single and is better avoided.
Ditto. Most of my friends are like that as well. I haven't said the final "no" to children yet, but if I ever had them I'd make damn sure I can afford them and offer them proper opportunities in life. And if I did have them I wouldn't have just one...cause I'm an only child and it sucked.

Rachel
08-07-2006, 14:12
The woman has had her baby (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5160812.stm).

Lux
12-07-2006, 03:17
it depends on the woman i guess. if she is healthy and still capable of having kids then i don't see why not. although having kids after a certain age is dangerous to even healthy women, it still depends on the individual.

Rash_Noz
12-07-2006, 23:25
I'd say that it sin't "fair" for the born child. Lets say the mother decides to have a baby at the age of 50. At the age of 10 (for the child) she would have 60. Then lets say he goes to college at the age of 15 ? I don't know how the systems work outside of malta, so lets take 15. She would have 65 thats already an old age, then he'll marry at the age .. of 26 - 30 possibly older. She would have a total amount of 76 ... thats an old age. He wouldn't have much time to spend with his mother as children born from young mothers would have. Apart for all the modern "therapies" the new borns would need so that they would develop a healthy life style. But obviouly its not fair to make any law or anything illeagal because some consider having a baby is a miracle... but its just an opinion :D

dradeel
13-07-2006, 00:05
I'd say that it sin't "fair" for the born child. Lets say the mother decides to have a baby at the age of 50. At the age of 10 (for the child) she would have 60. Then lets say he goes to college at the age of 15 ? I don't know how the systems work outside of malta, so lets take 15. She would have 65 thats already an old age, then he'll marry at the age .. of 26 - 30 possibly older. She would have a total amount of 76 ... thats an old age. He wouldn't have much time to spend with his mother as children born from young mothers would have. Apart for all the modern "therapies" the new borns would need so that they would develop a healthy life style. But obviouly its not fair to make any law or anything illeagal because some consider having a baby is a miracle... but its just an opinion :D
The kid won't have any problem with having old parents. There are unlimited examples of kids being brought up by grandparents or foster parents with a high age in general. They all turn out super. That the kid will loose its parents at a low age just isn't a long term "ill". My dad lost his mother when he was 6-7 years old (other reasons tho, but still), and he turned out super. I sure as hell believe he did. He's a great father :)

It'll only trouble the kid temporarily. It's a fact that the kid will get over losing his/her parents, perhaps much easier than when you're grown up. Kids can adapt to new realities extremely well.

But what is unforgiving in this story is that the parents here risked the health for the unborn baby by letting the mother get pregnant. Even if she felt as healthy as she states, that kid could have ended up with permanent abnormalities. Her body has decayed for 45-50 years. She could feel like 30 years old, but here genes wouldn't. She should know better than risking the health of her own baby. Now, some might say "why bother. The kid turned out fine". Well... the chances weren't on its side. The little one had major luck, and so had the parents. I just think adobtion would be a brilliant alternative in this case... Why they didn't choose that is a mystery to me.,
And as I've said earlier, I think there should be an upper age limit for having babies, as there is a lower limit. But I guess it's a bit too "nazi" to say that? ... :P

Rash_Noz
14-07-2006, 00:39
Oh well, I guess everyone has his own opinions although we have the same conclusion, but different reasons. Even though most of the women stop the ovulation at 45, howcome having a child at 60 ... what if she has one at 90 :laugh:

QueenBee
15-08-2006, 08:29
I think there should be an upper age limit for having babies, as there is a lower limit.
There is? :eek: I have never heard of anything like that.

I think the mother sounded a bit stupid and naive (if you can call it that). So what if you're healthy? Your body is old and there's a reason to why you stopped ovulating. But luckily as we can see, the child was born healthy and happy. Of course it's still the mother's choice, and she should be able to do what she wants... whether she thinks of the baby's health is another story.

What do you guys think about disabled people having children? I'm not talking about one missing leg or hand, I mean people who have no arms etc. Last night I watched a documentary about a woman who had no legs, she lived with her husband, her mentally challenged brother, her father (suffering from Alzheimers) and had one son already, and pregnant with another baby in this situation - after her mother had recently passed away in cancer. I thought it was a terrible situation and I was amazed at how she could even handle a child.

dradeel
16-08-2006, 02:36
There is? I have never heard of anything like that.
Aye... in Norway you can't have a child before you're 16 years old. If you get pregnant before the age of 16 you have to remove it or adopt it away, and the father will be charged with raping (in most cases. If the dad is younger than the mother you can't really charge him with raping. Hehehe. But often guys are over 18 and girls are younger than 16. In that case we're talking raping. I have no idea what happens if a guy is 16 or 17 tho).

Well, if there ever will come a upper limit to when you should be able to get babies I don't think the father should be charged with raping :laugh:, but the mother could be forced to remove it. And that's also why I said that it might be a little too "nazi" thing to say, cause it's not a very nice thing to force people to do - allthough I'm VERY pro-abortion I have no right to force people to do it... - But my point is that I think people should respect an upper age limit at least... :)