Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Italian court sez couple too old to raise child
Fox News ^

Posted on 09/17/2011 3:40:59 AM PDT by Strk321

The amusing thing here is that they only care because the mother is 57. If this were a 70 year old father and a 27 year old mother, everyone would say to him "Congratulations, you old stud!"

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: adoption; baby; italy

1 posted on 09/17/2011 3:41:04 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Strk321
Actual title:

Italian Court Reportedly Rules Couple 'Too Old' to Raise Child

I wonder how it got altered? Very curious.

2 posted on 09/17/2011 3:44:04 AM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
There is a bit of age difference between me and her mother...but who cares. The helper is holding her. Photobucket
3 posted on 09/17/2011 3:46:16 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Well, maybe she will meet my latest addition.
I am 67, so mother is also quite younger ;)

http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww178/AlexW44/th_P8100196.jpg

They look made for each other ;)


4 posted on 09/17/2011 4:33:53 AM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Michael Savage always uses the term “turkey baster” for these kind of births.

Anyway...the comments on the article were amusing. “Oh come on, Bob Hope and George Burns lived to 100. It’s totally realistic for the parents to not die before their child is 18.”

Uh, do you have any idea what Bob Hope’s last decade was like? Let’s just say it was pretty crappy.


5 posted on 09/17/2011 4:56:06 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

See now, it’s not as big a deal if these goats like Larry King have kids with a 20-year old gold digger because they’ve still got a young mother if Dad bites the dust.


6 posted on 09/17/2011 4:59:02 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
The judges ruled that Gabriella De Ambrosis -- a librarian -- and her retired husband, Luigi, were driven by "a narcissistic need to have a child'' and showed "indifference with regard to the child's perspective.''

Have the judges ruled this about homosexual adoptions or sperm-contribution arrangements? If a 57-year-old woman is too old to rear a child, why isn't there a law against artificially impregnating one that age?

Btw, the oldest woman to naturally conceive and deliver a child - you know, by engaging in normal sexual intercourse with a man, does anyone remember that way of having babies? - was either 56 or 57, depending on which source you read.

7 posted on 09/17/2011 6:37:13 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I welcome our new reptilian overlords. They are so quiet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I heard some guy on the net claim his grandmother had a baby at 48, but never 57.


8 posted on 09/17/2011 7:07:58 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Strk321

Late 40s is not unusual at all. Most women, at present, don’t reach menopause until after 50. However, we looked it up, during one of these threads about older mothers, and found 56 or 57 to be the oldest verifiable mother under natural conditions.


9 posted on 09/17/2011 7:34:18 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I welcome our new reptilian overlords. They are so quiet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
I guess in Italy the black robed tyrants opinions supersede the laws of nature. (Sound familiar)

Regardless on how this child was conceived, she was in her mothers womb, has her DNA, is her biological off spring.

Why don't they simply rule that the child needs a really, really, really late term abortion

10 posted on 09/17/2011 8:20:15 AM PDT by Popman (Obama is God's curse upon the land....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Theoretically, but fertility begins dropping at 35 and babies born to older mothers (like Sarah Palin’s baby) are more prone to birth defects.

I don’t personally think it’s a good idea to have a baby after 39.


11 posted on 09/17/2011 10:45:55 PM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strk321

Would it be possible to stop using that ridiculous “texting” language, and revert to proper English?

It’s “says”, NOT “sez”.


12 posted on 09/17/2011 10:54:29 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Voting for Romney is surrendering to the Soviet Union rather than to the Nazis.”-FReeper Dead Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

I don’t text message. Your point?


13 posted on 09/18/2011 1:45:47 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
... fertility begins dropping at 35.

All such numbers - 27 is a commonly cited age - are basically made up.

There is no way to make a statistically-significant study of fertility in unaltered human reproductive systems, because unaltered human reproductive systems are so rare. And even if researchers could find a substantial population of women who had never used contraceptives, never had abortions, and never contracted STDs, reproduction also requires a man, whose ability to do his part is completely independent of the woman's.

I don’t personally think it’s a good idea to have a baby after 39.

No prejudice to you, as a total stranger, but what you personally think doesn't matter in the slightest to anyone but you and a partner with whom you might reproduce. It doesn't matter scientifically, any more than Meryl Streep's feelings about food safety do, and it doesn't matter in terms of policy or other people's lives.

14 posted on 09/18/2011 3:55:16 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I welcome our new reptilian overlords. They are so quiet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“All such numbers - 27 is a commonly cited age - are basically made up.”

I would suppose.

“No prejudice to you, as a total stranger, but what you personally think doesn’t matter in the slightest to anyone but you and a partner with whom you might reproduce. It doesn’t matter scientifically, any more than Meryl Streep’s feelings about food safety do, and it doesn’t matter in terms of policy or other people’s lives.”

You’re getting a little carried away and taking my remarks out of context to the point where you come off as sounding like the abortion brigade. “KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY!”

While you can do whatever you want with your life (I’m a social libertarian in that regard), I would not recommend anyone try and have a baby in their 40s for a number of reasons.

I mean, I don’t care either if you’re gay and want to do 100 men in a bathhouse, but I’m not going to claim that sort of thing is healthy or good for you.


15 posted on 09/18/2011 8:02:56 AM PDT by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
I would not recommend anyone try and have a baby in their 40s for a number of reasons.

Is this your recommendation as a physician? In what specialty?

One of the points I made above is that healthy men and women don't have to "try and have a baby." A baby is the natural outcome of sexual intercourse between a healthy man and a healthy (premenopausal) woman.

16 posted on 09/18/2011 8:11:22 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I welcome our new reptilian overlords. They are so quiet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson