There is a reason why most women go through the menopause at Nancy's age....it's because the body is too old generally to cope with labour and the demands of a new baby. Sorry but that's nature....I didn't make up the rules! :rolleyes:
Great reason... Following your black n' white reasoning that tells me a lot about why a girl may start menstruating at 9/10. :rolleyes:
Isn't it great when people only use the points that support their opinion!
Whatever the age of the woman, if she falls pregnant (by whatever means), good for her. Children are a joy.
She is hardly likely to keel over in the next 20 years as she is fit and in good shape.
The arguments of women should not have babies when they are over 40 is a little dated now, as we are living longer and the healthcare system is better than it was 50 yrs ago.
She would have help in the form of a nanny or similar, and as any woman would tell you, having an extra pair of hands around is no bad thing.
Whatever the age of the woman, if she falls pregnant (by whatever means), good for her. Children are a joy.
She is hardly likely to keel over in the next 20 years as she is fit and in good shape.
The arguments of women should not have babies when they are over 40 is a little dated now, as we are living longer and the healthcare system is better than it was 50 yrs ago.
She would have help in the form of a nanny or similar, and as any woman would tell you, having an extra pair of hands around is no bad thing.
There is a HUGE difference between having a child before 40 and having one before 50. Fertility rates drop drastically after 40 and even more so after 45. The risk of Downs Syndrome is as high as 1 in 40 in women over 45. Not that someone as shallow and superficial as Nancy would consider bringing a less than "perfect" child into the world. In her world a child is a fashion accessory and a handy prop for the paparrazi.
Even if she hasn't gone through the menopause yet, it is highly unlikely she will be able to concieve at 49 with ease.
If a woman of that age can't conceive with ease, that is an issue for the woman and her partner to address and nobody else. It could be that one or the other was never that fertile.
Why wait until you are middle-aged to have a child? Children need parents who will hopefully be around for a long time to love and support them. Unlikely with a new mother nudging 50!
Whilst it's not the ideal age at which to become a first time parent or a parent at all (neither is becoming a parent too young), a parent "nudging 50" who has led the life that not having a child allows you to lead (and assuming they have been looking after themselves from a dietary point) is unlikely to be mentally and biologically on a level with someone who has been producing and rearing children from their 20s or before. Early and repeated pregnancies were the biggest factor in early deaths of women as recently as the beginning to middle of the last century, and the early deaths of women in some countries and cultures still today.
While the argument of how long a parent is likely to live may be a valid one against many people in this country currently below the age of 20 (we have the first generation not expected to outlive their parents due to poor nutrition and a generally harmful diet in early life), it certainly doesn't apply to many people in this country currently older than that, and even less so to people of the pre-dietary dip generation currently over 40, who are living and are expected to live on average well into their 80s and 90s. More than enough time for their children to have reached adulthood I think.
There is a reason why most women go through the menopause at Nancy's age....it's because the body is too old generally to cope with labour and the demands of a new baby. Sorry but that's nature....I didn't make up the rules! :rolleyes:
Most women do not go through the menopause at Nancy's age (even her real age). Going through the menopause at that age is considered an early menopause.
Did I not say in my post almost exactly what you have just said? I believe I said:
"There is a huge difference between a woman who is still able to conceive naturally having a baby, whatever her age, and a woman well past the menopause who is given fertility treatment to conceive. You lose fertility for a reason."
Periods slow down or stop altogether the moment your body is weakened in any way, usually due to serious or chronic illness, poor nutrition or excessive and prolonged stress or tiredness (even over-exercising). While your body is still allowing you to conceive naturally, nature is telling you you are still fit and healthy enough to conceive, carry, deliver, nurse and rear a child.
If she is still menstruating then all I can is "Go for it!".
In my line of work, I think I rely more on the functions of nature than most.
There is a HUGE difference between having a child before 40 and having one before 50. Fertility rates drop drastically after 40 and even more so after 45. The risk of Downs Syndrome is as high as 1 in 40 in women over 45.
All three of your statements are representative of the propaganda I was referring to. Designed to make women feel they have to get a move on and with the same aim as the stories they regurgitate every now and then about children being "harmed" by their mothers going back to work. The aim being to get women out of the workforce asap, the eventual domino effect being a reduction in "officially registered" unemployment.
As I have said, the majority of Down's Syndrome children that are born are born to mothers below the age of 25. They are not routinely tested because it is not deemed that they are at high risk at that age (another load of swill promoted in order to keep costs down). If they want the test and don't have a family history, they have to pay for it. Therefore, they give birth to babies that an older mother who had been tested would have been given the option of aborting or keeping, and please don't tell me that a young girl is very likely to want to keep a child that is going to need care its entire life.
Not that someone as shallow and superficial as Nancy would consider bringing a less than "perfect" child into the world.
Good for her! There are three circumstances under which I condone abortion:-
Rape
A risk to the mother's life/health
A foetus with a major health condition
Under the circumstances of a mother being too young (ie. still a child or little more than a child), I would rather see the option of adoption being taken.
In her world a child is a fashion accessory and a handy prop for the paparrazi.
Personally I think her idea of fashion accessories are somewhat more glamorous than a wriggling, dribbling, barfing ball of fat (and I don't mean Sven).
If that was really her reason for wanting a child, don't you think she would have had one several years ago or has she not had opportunity or reason to be photographed by the paparazzi until now?
Well Kerry Katona/Jordan/Victoria Beckham/Geri Halliwell etc.. all make maximum use of their nippers for photo opportunities. Since Nancy is only famous for hanging on for dear life to Sven in the hope he'll marry her (he would have by now if he was going to), I am sure she would love to show off her kid for Ok and all the other braindead celeb publications for big ££££'s. Desperate cling-on that she is.
Well Kerry Katona/Jordan/Victoria Beckham/Geri Halliwell etc.. all make maximum use of their nippers for photo opportunities. Since Nancy is only famous for hanging on for dear life to Sven in the hope he'll marry her (he would have by now if he was going to), I am sure she would love to show off her kid for Ok and all the other braindead celeb publications for big ££££'s. Desperate cling-on that she is.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that Nancy would be unlikely to show off any child she may have to the media. However, there is a big difference between that and accusing someone of having a child solely for that purpose.
As far as Geri Halliwell is concerned, she has been seen so little with baby in tow that she appears to have mislaid her since the magazine photoshoots.
Comments
Isn't it great when people only use the points that support their opinion!
She is hardly likely to keel over in the next 20 years as she is fit and in good shape.
The arguments of women should not have babies when they are over 40 is a little dated now, as we are living longer and the healthcare system is better than it was 50 yrs ago.
She would have help in the form of a nanny or similar, and as any woman would tell you, having an extra pair of hands around is no bad thing.
There is a HUGE difference between having a child before 40 and having one before 50. Fertility rates drop drastically after 40 and even more so after 45. The risk of Downs Syndrome is as high as 1 in 40 in women over 45. Not that someone as shallow and superficial as Nancy would consider bringing a less than "perfect" child into the world. In her world a child is a fashion accessory and a handy prop for the paparrazi.
If a woman of that age can't conceive with ease, that is an issue for the woman and her partner to address and nobody else. It could be that one or the other was never that fertile.
Whilst it's not the ideal age at which to become a first time parent or a parent at all (neither is becoming a parent too young), a parent "nudging 50" who has led the life that not having a child allows you to lead (and assuming they have been looking after themselves from a dietary point) is unlikely to be mentally and biologically on a level with someone who has been producing and rearing children from their 20s or before. Early and repeated pregnancies were the biggest factor in early deaths of women as recently as the beginning to middle of the last century, and the early deaths of women in some countries and cultures still today.
While the argument of how long a parent is likely to live may be a valid one against many people in this country currently below the age of 20 (we have the first generation not expected to outlive their parents due to poor nutrition and a generally harmful diet in early life), it certainly doesn't apply to many people in this country currently older than that, and even less so to people of the pre-dietary dip generation currently over 40, who are living and are expected to live on average well into their 80s and 90s. More than enough time for their children to have reached adulthood I think.
Most women do not go through the menopause at Nancy's age (even her real age). Going through the menopause at that age is considered an early menopause.
Did I not say in my post almost exactly what you have just said? I believe I said:
"There is a huge difference between a woman who is still able to conceive naturally having a baby, whatever her age, and a woman well past the menopause who is given fertility treatment to conceive. You lose fertility for a reason."
Periods slow down or stop altogether the moment your body is weakened in any way, usually due to serious or chronic illness, poor nutrition or excessive and prolonged stress or tiredness (even over-exercising). While your body is still allowing you to conceive naturally, nature is telling you you are still fit and healthy enough to conceive, carry, deliver, nurse and rear a child.
If she is still menstruating then all I can is "Go for it!".
In my line of work, I think I rely more on the functions of nature than most.
All three of your statements are representative of the propaganda I was referring to. Designed to make women feel they have to get a move on and with the same aim as the stories they regurgitate every now and then about children being "harmed" by their mothers going back to work. The aim being to get women out of the workforce asap, the eventual domino effect being a reduction in "officially registered" unemployment.
As I have said, the majority of Down's Syndrome children that are born are born to mothers below the age of 25. They are not routinely tested because it is not deemed that they are at high risk at that age (another load of swill promoted in order to keep costs down). If they want the test and don't have a family history, they have to pay for it. Therefore, they give birth to babies that an older mother who had been tested would have been given the option of aborting or keeping, and please don't tell me that a young girl is very likely to want to keep a child that is going to need care its entire life.
Good for her! There are three circumstances under which I condone abortion:-
Rape
A risk to the mother's life/health
A foetus with a major health condition
Under the circumstances of a mother being too young (ie. still a child or little more than a child), I would rather see the option of adoption being taken.
Personally I think her idea of fashion accessories are somewhat more glamorous than a wriggling, dribbling, barfing ball of fat (and I don't mean Sven).
If that was really her reason for wanting a child, don't you think she would have had one several years ago or has she not had opportunity or reason to be photographed by the paparazzi until now?
I'm not suggesting for a moment that Nancy would be unlikely to show off any child she may have to the media. However, there is a big difference between that and accusing someone of having a child solely for that purpose.
As far as Geri Halliwell is concerned, she has been seen so little with baby in tow that she appears to have mislaid her since the magazine photoshoots.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2113483,00.html
She's been claiming to be 43 since the 2002 World Cup!
Know many post-op trannies do you?
You make it sound like a crime to know a transexual.
It ought to be a crime to refer to a transsexual person, post-op or otherwise, as a 'trannie'.
It's very insulting.