Mick Jagger becomes dad again at age 73

[Liberty Belle]

Yup, and some have linked it to vaccinations as well. In other words, just speculation. People work on getting their doctorates and spew forth different theories, back them up with what is probably slanted testing and statistics and publish it and the next thing you know afternoon and evening thundershowers are at fault for hang nails. Believe nothing that you read or hear and only half of what you actually see.

No, I mean reliable scientific studies. There is no link between autism and vaccinations.

I'm very careful with reading research and studies. I do not believe everything I read.

 

[Elleshoodat]

Off-topic, but every time I'm scanning the board and see the title of this thread, I read it as "Mick Jagger becomes dead again at age 73."

 

[Deb in IA]

Oh, I think that Mick did more then his share. They all did in the late 60's. Mick was hardly an angel and if Keith was all messed up and Mick wrote songs with him... oh, yes... he was rolling stoned.

That is exactly what the publicists, and the Stones themselves, want you to believe.

Yup, and some have linked it to vaccinations as well. In other words, just speculation. People work on getting their doctorates and spew forth different theories, back them up with what is probably slanted testing and statistics and publish it and the next thing you know afternoon and evening thundershowers are at fault for hang nails. Believe nothing that you read or hear and only half of what you actually see.

Vaccines are not linked to autism.

 

[Magpie]

It really seems to me that this child is FAR more advantaged than he is disadvantaged by the circumstances of his birth.

This child will never have to worry about finances. This child's mother is young, and presumably healthy. Even if he's born with a disability of some sort, he'll be extremely well provided for. Living with a disability is not usually a fate worse than death (and the odds are still in the child's favour, that he'll be born perfectly healthy).

Fathers are wonderful to have, but plenty of people grow up without them. For any number of reasons. I didn't grow up with a father, myself. This child has a large extended family, which doesn't appear to be particularly troubled. There will be other "father figures" in his life. Other role models.

And plenty of children deal with the death of loved ones at a young age. My children lost their grandfather when they were 5 and 6. Both their father and I have had close calls that could have removed us from their lives at a young age (but fortunately didn't). They're now 19 and 20 and their very beloved grandmother has been told she has (at best) months left to live. She lived with us, while they were growing up, and is a significant person in their lives. Everyone deals, and will deal, with whatever comes their way.

Yes, children should always be planned for. And we should try not to have children we cannot provide for. But I don't see any reason to believe Mick can't provide for this child, regardless of how long he has left to live.

 

[mnrose]

I sure hope people who applaud Mick Jagger for becoming a Dad again at age 73 also cheer on the women in their 60's who seek to have children. I should dig up some of those old threads....just for fun. LOL. Women in their 60's having babies with the assistance of medical help have drawn quite the criticism here.

Personally, I think it's far less than optimal whenever older people parent children. What's that age? I'm not sure. But, if you are old enough to collect Medicare, you might be too old. Just my opinion. But, whatever the age is, it should be the SAME age for both Mom and Dad. Not it's ok for old geezers to knock up some young chick, but not the other way around.

 

[mom2rtk]

It really seems to me that this child is FAR more advantaged than he is disadvantaged by the circumstances of his birth.

This child will never have to worry about finances. This child's mother is young, and presumably healthy. Even if he's born with a disability of some sort, he'll be extremely well provided for. Living with a disability is not usually a fate worse than death (and the odds are still in the child's favour, that he'll be born perfectly healthy).

Fathers are wonderful to have, but plenty of people grow up without them. For any number of reasons. I didn't grow up with a father, myself. This child has a large extended family, which doesn't appear to be particularly troubled. There will be other "father figures" in his life. Other role models.

And plenty of children deal with the death of loved ones at a young age. My children lost their grandfather when they were 5 and 6. Both their father and I have had close calls that could have removed us from their lives at a young age (but fortunately didn't). They're now 19 and 20 and their very beloved grandmother has been told she has (at best) months left to live. She lived with us, while they were growing up, and is a significant person in their lives. Everyone deals, and will deal, with whatever comes their way.

Yes, children should always be planned for. And we should try not to have children we cannot provide for. But I don't see any reason to believe Mick can't provide for this child, regardless of how long he has left to live.

Just because some kids do fine without dad around does not sway my opinion on this. Money can't replace having a father in one's life.

Sure lots of kids lose their dads. But the odds of this child losing his father during childhood are far higher than most. All the money in the world won't replace him once he's gone.

I sure hope people who applaud Mick Jagger for becoming a Dad again at age 73 also cheer on the women in their 60's who seek to have children. I should dig up some of those old threads....just for fun. LOL. Women in their 60's having babies with the assistance of medical help have drawn quite the criticism here.

Personally, I think it's far less than optimal whenever older people parent children. What's that age? I'm not sure. But, if you are old enough to collect Medicare, you might be too old. Just my opinion. But, whatever the age is, it should be the SAME age for both Mom and Dad. Not it's ok for old geezers to knock up some young chick, but not the other way around.

I don't cheer either gender becoming parents at this age.

 

[mnrose]

Just because some kids do fine without dad around does not sway my opinion on this. Money can't replace having a father in one's life.

Sure lots of kids lose their dads. But the odds of this child losing his father during childhood are far higher than most. All the money in the world won't replace him once he's gone.





I don't cheer either gender becoming parents at this age.

I agree with you. I suspect we all have an "age" at which we decide someone is "too old." My comment is directed more at people who don't have a problem with older men having babies but do have a problem with older women having babies. Whatever age one picks, I prefer that it be the same age for both genders.

Of course, all we can really control is our own choice to have children.

 

[DisneyOma]

It really seems to me that this child is FAR more advantaged than he is disadvantaged by the circumstances of his birth.

This child will never have to worry about finances. This child's mother is young, and presumably healthy. Even if he's born with a disability of some sort, he'll be extremely well provided for. Living with a disability is not usually a fate worse than death (and the odds are still in the child's favour, that he'll be born perfectly healthy).

Fathers are wonderful to have, but plenty of people grow up without them. For any number of reasons. I didn't grow up with a father, myself. This child has a large extended family, which doesn't appear to be particularly troubled. There will be other "father figures" in his life. Other role models.

And plenty of children deal with the death of loved ones at a young age. My children lost their grandfather when they were 5 and 6. Both their father and I have had close calls that could have removed us from their lives at a young age (but fortunately didn't). They're now 19 and 20 and their very beloved grandmother has been told she has (at best) months left to live. She lived with us, while they were growing up, and is a significant person in their lives. Everyone deals, and will deal, with whatever comes their way.

Yes, children should always be planned for. And we should try not to have children we cannot provide for. But I don't see any reason to believe Mick can't provide for this child, regardless of how long he has left to live.

About all this kid has as an advantage right now is a wealthy, famous dad, and maybe a chance at some creative music genes. Who knows if there will be any money for this kid later on, or if he blows right through it, or his mom does before he gets to it.

Father figures and other role models are fine, if you get a good one. But not having one can suck, being a single parent can suck (it certainly can't be easy - there's a whole forum here for single parents) and while people should expect their grandparents might die before they themselves are adults, people don't expect their parents to do so, or to be too old to take care of themselves before the child reaches legal age.

 

[Magpie]

About all this kid has as an advantage right now is a wealthy, famous dad, and maybe a chance at some creative music genes. Who knows if there will be any money for this kid later on, or if he blows right through it, or his mom does before he gets to it.

Father figures and other role models are fine, if you get a good one. But not having one can suck, being a single parent can suck (it certainly can't be easy - there's a whole forum here for single parents) and while people should expect their grandparents might die before they themselves are adults, people don't expect their parents to do so, or to be too old to take care of themselves before the child reaches legal age.

Just because some kids do fine without dad around does not sway my opinion on this. Money can't replace having a father in one's life.

Sure lots of kids lose their dads. But the odds of this child losing his father during childhood are far higher than most. All the money in the world won't replace him once he's gone.

So... the question then is, how many other people should not have children?

People who work in dangerous, potentially life-threatening occupations? Even if one parent doesn't?

Soldiers who might die overseas? Even if only one parent is in the armed forces?

People with a terminal illness, married to a healthy spouse who wants to have a child before they die? Should we refuse to freeze people's eggs and sperm before they undergo procedures (after all, cancers do return, and their predicted lifespan, even in remission, is still shorter than the average)?

Should any young person who marries a significantly older spouse, automatically give up on the idea of ever having a child of their own?

How about same sex couples who can't provide either a "mother" or a "father", depending on which sex they are?

Single women who find themselves pregnant and choose to carry to term, despite the father not being in the picture?

Single women who choose to have a child, by choice?

Is the only acceptable configuration for a family one young healthy mother, and one young healthy father, neither of which has any potentially life-limiting factors in their lives?

Where do we draw the line?

 

[mom2rtk]

So... the question then is, how many other people should not have children?

People who work in dangerous, potentially life-threatening occupations? Even if one parent doesn't?

Soldiers who might die overseas? Even if only one parent is in the armed forces?

People with a terminal illness, married to a healthy spouse who wants to have a child before they die? Should we refuse to freeze people's eggs and sperm before they undergo procedures (after all, cancers do return, and their predicted lifespan, even in remission, is still shorter than the average)?

Should any young person who marries a significantly older spouse, automatically give up on the idea of ever having a child of their own?

How about same sex couples who can't provide either a "mother" or a "father", depending on which sex they are?

Single women who find themselves pregnant and choose to carry to term, despite the father not being in the picture?

Single women who choose to have a child, by choice?

Is the only acceptable configuration for a family one young healthy mother, and one young healthy father, neither of which has any potentially life-limiting factors in their lives?

Where do we draw the line?

For today I'm going to commit on saying anyone age 73 or over should not have children.

See? Sometimes you don't have to solve all of society's ills to have a valid opinion.

 

[Magpie]

For today I'm going to commit on saying anyone age 73 or over should not have children.

See? Sometimes you don't have to solve all of society's ills to have a valid opinion.

Fair enough. My valid opinion is that it's none of my business who has children, as long as they start off intending to provide for them (as in, they don't deliberately get knocked up expecting me to pay for the kid).

 

[goofyernmost]

That is exactly what the publicists, and the Stones themselves, want you to believe.

OK, I guess the 60's that I remember were just rumors.

Vaccines are not linked to autism.

I know that and I'm not buying into being an older father causes it either.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Why do people always feel the need to criticize age gaps in relationships? Truly mind boggling.

 

[Hikergirl]

Why do people always feel the need to criticize age gaps in relationships? Truly mind boggling.

Well I'm pretty skeeved out by someone having sex with someone who is old enough to be their grandparent. While I wouldn't ever criticize someone to their face by telling them that, I have no problem posting my opinion here on a message board.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Well I'm pretty skeeved out by someone having sex with someone who is old enough to be their grandparent. While I wouldn't ever criticize someone to their face by telling them that, I have no problem posting my opinion here on a message board.

You're definitely entitled to your opinion and you have all the right in the world to post about it, I'm just not sure why it bothers you if it doesn't bother the two people involved.

 

[pryncess527]

My dad died when I was 12. He had a heart condition from youth so my parents knew his life expectancy might be much shorter than normal.
I sure am glad they didn't let that stop them from having my sister and me.

 

[DawnM]

That is exactly what the publicists, and the Stones themselves, want you to believe.

Everyone has written about it and the people who they are writing about also say it, but that is just what they want you to believe, they aren't really like that?

Do you have some inside information that says that all the publicists and the people they are writing about are actually lying to get you to believe it?

 

[DawnM]

My dad died when I was 12. He had a heart condition from youth so my parents knew his life expectancy might be much shorter than normal.
I sure am glad they didn't let that stop them from having my sister and me.

I am sorry to hear that.

 

[Hikergirl]

You're definitely entitled to your opinion and you have all the right in the world to post about it, I'm just not sure why it bothers you if it doesn't bother the two people involved.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just discussing it. That is what we do on a discussion board

 

[Pacolovestacos]

It doesn't bother me, I'm just discussing it. That is what we do on a discussion board

Well you said you were "skeeved" by it so doesn't that mean you're bothered?