skyesspot 0 #1 July 7, 2004 A person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. Kenny RogersLife is too short. Don't sweat the small stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #2 July 7, 2004 QuoteA person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. Why? Those kids are going to have a much better chance at a good life than some broke 30 something couple. And a much better chance than some 20 something single parent."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #3 July 7, 2004 Why do so many celebrities have twins? Somebody help me out here . . . I know Mel Gibson has twins, and my mom and I talked about several others. Is it because of fertility drugs? Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #4 July 7, 2004 [Professor Tralauney]It has to do with the duplicity in life - my dear - as one has one persona that is shown - the other - true - persona lies within - the children will emulate the two sides[/Prof T]I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #5 July 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteA person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. Why? Those kids are going to have a much better chance at a good life than some broke 30 something couple. And a much better chance than some 20 something single parent. ' That's really all being a parent about isn't it--being a constant source of income for your children? Spending time with your children and being there for them throughout their lives is really overrated. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 July 7, 2004 well as a kid it sucks to have young broke parents in a crappy relationship that break up/divorce when you're 10-20 years old. It also sucks to be 10-20 years old and go to your parents' funerals. But as a kid, you don't really get to make these decisions do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bkdice 0 #7 July 7, 2004 QuoteA person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. I agree with you. There are people much older fathering kids too. They won't live to see their kids graduate high school in a lot of cases. While the older celebrities that father kids have money to give, that is not what raises a good kid. IMO, it's better to have a parent that will be there, that they can do things with and spend time with them. Seems like a 10yr old boy would wear an 75 yr old father out before lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #8 July 7, 2004 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Those kids are going to have a much better chance at a good life than some broke 30 something couple. And a much better chance than some 20 something single parent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' That's really all being a parent about isn't it--being a constant source of income for your children? Spending time with your children and being there for them throughout their lives is really overrated. Lets see.....He is 65, and if he lives to around 80 that would mean he would be around for 15 years of his life. And those are the formative years. His WIFE is MUCH younger and will be around (Hopfully) much longer. Using your logic people should have to have proof they are gonna live for 30 or more years before they have kids. And I guess only fools would have children and then participate in a dangerous sport that might accidentally kill then before the kids are 30? Given the knowledge that the wife is much younger and that KR has enough money to care for them,a nd the wife will be able to care for them and not be at work...I would rather he have them than a couple of 22 years olds that both have to work min wage jobs leaving the kids to be latch key kids."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flypunk 0 #9 July 7, 2004 The source of income is pretty nice to have to stabilize family life and spending time together as opposed to both parents working double shifts and bringing their 4 year old kid grocery shopping at 1 am which I've seen a lot lately. As far as spending time with your kids, these guys are probably gonna spend more time with their kids than a broke 30 or a single 20 type family would get a chance to. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #10 July 7, 2004 Quotewell as a kid it sucks to have young broke parents in a crappy relationship that break up/divorce when you're 10-20 years old. It also sucks to be 10-20 years old and go to your parents' funerals. But as a kid, you don't really get to make these decisions do you? Agreed, she said she has a problem with it....And I asked why? I then pointed out how the kids have a good chance at a good life...more of a chance than many other couples give their children. Lets not forget that the mother is not 65, and will live a normal life span...It is only KR who will die before the kids graduate college. And that the mother and KR do not have to work, so they can spend much more time with the kids than normal families do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 July 7, 2004 QuoteWhy do so many celebrities have twins? Somebody help me out here . . . I know Mel Gibson has twins, and my mom and I talked about several others. Is it because of fertility drugs? Kelly His wife is a twin and twins run in his family. (Kenny that is) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #12 July 7, 2004 dunno about the fraternal twins, but identical twins are not caused by fertility drugs. They're caused by a single embryo splitting into two, so they're genetically identical. Fraternal twins are as genetically close as regular siblings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #13 July 7, 2004 That's right, they were identical. I forgot about that. But there are seriously LOTS of celebrities who have twin children. I just think it's strange. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #14 July 7, 2004 QuoteBut there are seriously LOTS of celebrities who have twin children. I just think it's strange Maybe it just seems like more since they are celebrities and when they give birth it makes the papers and people talk about it....I bet some on here are twins...and we don't even know it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #15 July 7, 2004 True . . . anyone? Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyhi 24 #16 July 7, 2004 QuoteA person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... At least they can buy diapers in bulk and save some money.Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #17 July 7, 2004 and if they take their kid to the movie it's one child and one senior. again... think of the savings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misskriss 0 #18 July 7, 2004 QuoteLets not forget that the mother is not 65, and will live a normal life span...It is only KR who will die before the kids graduate college. And that the mother and KR do not have to work, so they can spend much more time with the kids than normal families do. I totally agree with Ron here. I grew up in daycare..before school, afterschool. Summer vacations I spent in daycare or at the YMCA day camp, etc. My parents both worked full time and my Dad even commuted for a few years so I only saw him on weekends. Kenny will get to spend so much quality time with his child because of his financial situation. I say good for him.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NicoNYC 0 #19 July 7, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A person having kids at 65, no matter who it is, just doesn't seem right... or fair to the kids. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Those kids are going to have a much better chance at a good life than some broke 30 something couple. And a much better chance than some 20 something single parent. There are way too many variables for this mix folks. Who the heck cares? You're totally neglecting the one mere blessing. It's called the gift of life. Some women can't even give birth. I know a young couple that got married at 18, ran away from home and settled in a different state with $30 in their pocket. A few months later they had a child. 8 years later, the guy is a successful LAN analyst and the woman is an RN. They both make a six figure salary and have college degrees. Their child is raised well and spoiled rotten. Gift of life people.....we should remember that everytime we wake up alive. How many hits of adrenaline can you take? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cocheese 0 #20 July 7, 2004 Think of all the people you know that you hope do not reproduce. And all the ones who shouldn't have. Then , the ones who shouldn't have, but did, and the kid turns out to be a wonerful person unlike their parents. Yes we should have to have a license to have kids. But who are we to say ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyesspot 0 #21 July 7, 2004 I guess my problem is with the dad being so old. There are pros and cons to both sides of this story, I totally agree. I was just thinking of all the time the kids would miss w/their dad because he would be too old to really enjoy them. Money can't buy the time and love all kids need. And yes, it's cool the mom can stay home w/them, but a mom and dad would be better. Ahhh.. to live in a perfect world. Then again, there is better and worse situations to grow up in. Life is too short. Don't sweat the small stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #22 July 7, 2004 My friend Jennifer's dad was 60 when she was born. We were in junior high together, and I remember being so jealous of her... her dad was retired and could come to all her soccer practices and games, was always around to drive us places, took us to the movies, the mall, etc... Growing up, she had a much closer relationship with her dad than I did with mine. I saw him for an hour or so every evening after I got home from karate, when I ate dinner and went to bed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
