The youngest mother I personally know was 12 when she gave birth. No money and hardly any brains.
Often times the older the parent, the more financially stable, wiser and more experienced they are.
Any body can be taken at any moment, anyone who expects to live throughout their childs entire lifetime, or expects a parent to live throughout a child's entire lifetime is a fool. To not have a child because you might be dead in x number of years is stupid. Everybody dies at some point in time. Deal with it.
I think you are being silly. Obviously anything can happen to anyone at any time, but it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a normal healthy person would live through their child’s coming of age and into adulthood.
Nature, in her infinite wisdom, has decided that women should lose the ability to have a child beyond a certain age
for a reason. Children deserve and often need young, active, and healthy parents. By the way, even though men can still produce sperm in their 50, 60s, and 70s any geneticist worth his salt would advice against it; the sperm men produce after, say, 45 is simply not as healthy as the sperm we produce as young men. Children born to older men are much more likely to suffer from serious genetic illnesses.
It is nice that mature people can provide for children who need homes—particularly orphans whom would otherwise have no parents, but what Parker and Broderick are doing puts a
on my face. For better or worse the behavior of high profile people is often taken as a model. I think this is a bad (selfish) example.
On the other hand, I think Madonna’s effort to adopt that child was a selfless example. Yes, she is “older” but she was going to give a home, education, and life opportunities to a orphaned child who would otherwise likely know nothing but misery and premature death.
In an ideal world, we should follow nature's example: people are physically best suited to raise children in their 20s and 30s. Not 50s and 60s.
