[Tom]

Question on high brow topical discussion show 8 Out of 10 Cats

Some 66 year old had a baby ... so just thought do you think its right or wrong?

[MrGaryy]

yes, she's likely to be dead before the child is even 20, plus think of the ridicule amongst his peers.

[*mazedsalv**]

I saw this on 8 out of 10 cats lol
It was 91% Yes, 9% No

And i agree, the child will be about 10 when the parents die.

[Annie]

The female body isn't designed to have children at that age. That must be for a reason, no?
And at 66, you will be 70 by the time its a toddler and running around etc. Can you seriously see a 70 running round after a child? Bending down low etc. If she bent down to pick up a toy, she might never get back up.
The child would end up looking after his/her mum by the time they are about 10. Its not fair on the child. Yes she might want a child and think that it will work but its just making a child grow up well before they need to.

[\PJ/]

61 i mean please can you imagine the kids in the playground
KI "oh look here is your nan"
CHIL "no thats my mum"

[Marc]

Originally posted by PJ
61 i mean please can you imagine the kids in the playground
KI "oh look here is your nan"
CHIL "no thats my mum"

Probably think it was some sort of old paedophile...
I said 'its wrong' but having said that I don't think it is up to us to say whether or not it is wrong or not

[Tom]

I think its wrong purely because my nana died when she was 66 and a year before she was in fine health so anything can happen so thats just a personal view to me. But most people die between 70 and 80 so she might not even see the baby make it to be a teenager .........

If the 66 year old has adult children though then I suppose it softens the blow a bit ... but should people even be having sex at that age anyway?

[Annie]

Originally posted by Tom
but should people even be having sex at that age anyway?

Exactly. Imagine it.

Ooooo baby!
Yes!
Yes!
There!!!
YES!!!!

*heart attack and dead*

[Z]

Nobody knows when they're going to die; but the older you get, the likelier it gets that you're gonna pop your clogs any time soon. I think 66 is far too old to be having a child; the child would need a parent until they are at least 16; therefore this 66 year old has to live until they are 82? It's not likely that they're going to make it to that age.

[Princess]

It is completely selfish to have a baby at 66. The body isn't made for it for a reason. A baby is a dependent being and it's hard enough when you're young looking after the baby but 66? It's just irreponsible.

[Ninastar]

I know this will maybe sounds a bit mean but i think the oldest age to have a child is 40. Any older, I think its a bit stupid.

[Brad*]

Originally posted by Ninastar
I know this will maybe sounds a bit mean but i think the oldest age to have a child is 40. Any older, I think its a bit stupid.

Spot on Caitlin.

[Ninastar]

Ikr.

[\PJ/]

Originally posted by Ninastar
I know this will maybe sounds a bit mean but i think the oldest age to have a child is 40. Any older, I think its a bit stupid.

And very selfish.

[Brad*]

Apparently, if you are around 40 or older when you have a baby, it is more likely to be born with a defect or mental disability.

[Ninastar]

Originally posted by PJ

And very selfish.

Yeh. I could never do it.

[Ninastar]

Originally posted by Brad.
Apparently, if you are around 40 or older when you have a baby, it is more likely to be born with a defect or mental disability.

Yeh. I think it up to 5 times more likley.

[Miss-red]

its far to old and very selfish, the child depends on its mother and there's a very good chance she won't be around to watch the child grow up. its ridiculous even contemplating having a baby at that age in my opinion xx

[Iceman]

I mean grandparents in this day and age are 40 I thinkit's crazy to be having a baby at 66.

[bananarama]

66 is way to old and just not fair on the child. Not just because there is a higher probability that the child will lose it's parent before adult hood but because the older you are the less you can keep up with a youngster full of energy....

The mental generation gap is also far too wide........

[pinkmichk]

far too old when we visit my grandparents (72 and 71) they are exhausted by 3pm and have to have a nap with my daughter running round and stuff so i cant imagine someone that age being able to keep up energy wise to look after the child properly plus there is the high probability of the child being left without a parent while they are still young

[Ninastar]

I know this is kinda not anything to do with this but I think its alot better to have a child at 16/17 than 66+
Am I the only one who thinks this??? I was gunna make a thread on it but I am not too sure lol x

[30stone]

Originally posted by MrGaryy
yes, she's likely to be dead before the child is even 20, plus think of the ridicule amongst his peers.

Don't think thats a real good reason, that was also used so many times in the should gay couples be allowed to adopt.

And was shot down.

[Ninastar]

Also. I was told that the guy who plays dumbledore in harry potter has a baby. I think the baby was born like 1 or 2 years ago though. His wife was either 40 odd or 50 odd.
I was like. Ew.

[M X]

It's wrong and disgusting. If she dies when she's 70 the child will only be four!