Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Rod Stewart's Swimmers Are Drowning


Rod Stewart is trying to get his wife pregnant again, but is ummm, having difficulties. "Trust me, I am trying my very hardest to have another child. But I am not quite Superman like I used to be. I am in my 60s now."

He is in his 60's. I don't know how I feel about people having children when they reach their 60's. Rod is 63 now and so even if his swimmers could swim and Penny got pregnant tomorrow, chances are he would be 64 when the baby was born. Figure 18 years until the kid graduates from high school and that makes Rod 82 years old. Doubt he is going to be out there kicking a soccer ball with the child.

I know Penny is young, and she will definitely have enough money to raise whatever children they do have, but is Rod or someone his age being selfish when they have children that old? They know that the chances of them being around for much of their child's life is slim. I'm sure celebrities are not the only ones doing it, but at least once a year there is some celebrity who fathers a child in his late 60's or early 70's and claims that now he will have the chance to be the dad he couldn't be the first time around. He then of course breaks a hip while skateboarding and dies.

I'm curious about what all of you think about this. Is it selfish for a man in his 60's or 70's to have a child, knowing they won't be around for much of the child's life. To me it is different from divorce because you are not consciously being selfish.

32 comments:

Sinjin said...

Very selfish. Oh, and embarrassing for the kid.

Judi said...

First, siring kids has nothing to do with marriage so the divorce issue at the end is not only different, there's no basis for a comparison.
Second, kids have never before grown up with only one parent?
Come on, Ent.

Seachica said...

Totally selfish. My parents had me at age 44 and Ive had to go through all sorts of things that other kids don't have to until they are later in life. I lost my dad to a heart attack when I was 20. I'm in my mid-30s and my mom has alzheimer's and I am her primary care giver. I have a friend who had a much older parent who had to change his life in his 20s because his dad came down with alzheimer's and he was the primary care giver. That's not fair to do to your kids. As a parent, you should want to give your kids good opportunities. Not limit their life because they have to take care of you at an age when they should be building their own lives.

Kara said...

Anyone could die at any time. Just because you're older, doesn't mean you won't be there for the kid or be less of a participant in the kid's life than a younger parent.

I'd rather see a concerned 70 year old parent any day than the cracked out 20 somethings that I see cycling through dependency court.

Kelli said...

It's hard on the kid because he/she will lose their daddy so early in life- or like the stories above, he could get dimensia or alzheimer's,etc.
Plus is he really a father to his other slew of kids now?

AndrewBW said...

"I need hardly add that any man who has lived as I have and who indulges for the first time in parenthood at my age deserves all that he gets."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qDL5MQOsoA

I know it's not Rod's first time, but the clip's too good.

mooshki said...

As a 36-year-old woman, I think about this a lot. I always assumed I would have kids, but it hasn't happened. To some extent I think that each person should get to decide what's right for them, but that woman in her 60s who just gave birth makes me sick from her selfishness. I've decided that for me, 40 is the final cut-off. From watching my mom and people I work with, it seems that sometime in your mid- to late-60s is when your energy starts to fade - sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly. My opinion (feel free to disagree!) is that around 40 is the cut-off for women, and around 50 for men. (Earlier for women, because of the birth-defect odds.) Later is not ideal, but I think that if you can get your kid to adulthood by around your mid-'60s, it should go okay.

Ent, you mention divorce - you also hear people say "but a 20-year-old parent could get hit by a car tomorrow!" As you said, it is the fact that you are making the conscious choice to limit your child's potential that is wrong.

captivagrl said...

eventually she'll move on with a bunch of money and the child. he won't be raising this baby. now, what about Holly and Hef???? that's old.

jax said...

i don't think it's ideal to have kids sooo late in life but if everyone is healthy and have the honest desire to have kids why not?
as long as the child is loved and cared for who are we to judge?
there is a lot of dumbassed people under 30 who are having kids becasue thats what they've always been taught..get married have babies and they have shit to teach this kid!
fact is no matter what age you procreate and die its still gonna hurt your son or daughter.
having said that..i think a fair 'cap' would be 45 for women and 60 for men. anything after that becomes a danger to the fetus.

RagDoll said...

Moshki & Jax,

I'm with you guys on that. And I'm your age, Jax. As Mooshki said, I always thought I'd be a mom by now, but GAWD, the gulf between what I earn and what things cost has gotten so wide. For me it's not about the ability to birth a healthy baby; it's about what's fair to that baby when s/he grows up and is forced to change MY diapers...or pay to put my decrepit ass in a home....poor kid.

BlahFrickinBlah said...

selfish as hell. Sounds like Mrs. Stewart is trying to make sure she gets the lion's share of his estate when he does kick it. He might be the best dad in the world but chances are that he's not going to be around for the kid. If they want the 2nd chance to be a good dad cause they screwed up in the past, how about starting with the kids that they screwed over? Mend those fences instead of going out and creating more kids. His current wife and he have a child together already so it's not like she's being left out in the cold motherhood wise. Yes, kids have been raised by single parents but if you care about your children, you don't actively set out to be a single parent if at all possible. Even if parents divorce, most of the time, Daddy is somewhere, he's not dead. Health wise and sanity wise, I think a good max age for a woman is 45. Even at that age, it will be tough. I would put the cap on fathers at 50. That makes the dad 68 when they graduate from high school. It will still suck for the kid to have a parent that old but starting at 63? He's a jackass. So is his wife.

juicy said...

My husband was legally adopted by his grandparents when he was an infant, and never knew it until last year. He is 33 and lost both of his parents (he will always consider them his parents, regardless of birth) in April. His parents loved him and gave him a life he wouldn't have had otherwise. I don't think age has all that much to do with raising a child right. There are PLENTY of children being raised by younger parents that aren't doing thei r job.

Carte Blanche said...

I was born when my Mom was 41 and my Dad was 46. Dad died when I was 20. Soon after, my Mom had a bad stroke and has been in long-term care for years.

Older parents may have more life experience, but they also don't usually have the energy to play and really engage with their kids.

I'm 30 and just thinking of baby-making now. Old enough to be (really) ready, but young enough to be able to run after little ones.

Mother Campfire said...

Eh, this may be her wish - that he leave her with his children. We don't know what is going on, but I do think a 60 year old probably has better lessons to teach than a 20 year old cracked out Britney. That's just me.

Yes, he will die sooner and the child will have to deal with that at a young age but what about the wonderful adult children that were raised by their grandparents?

I think if he can spit it out, and she is willing to raise the child alone in the event of his death - more power to them. :)

jax said...

"I think if he can spit it out"

LOL!!!

Kristen S. said...

My friend started having kids in her 30's. After her first kid she said something like "I can see why we're fertile when we're so young...it's nature's way of telling us childrearing is for the young folks!". She knew that in her early 20's she would have been much more energetic and would have been able to keep up with the kids much more easily.

So, I'm like mooshki....36 and no kids. But my cuoff was pretty much 32-33 ;)

mags said...

I don't think it's selfish.

As long as it's not me getting pregnant in my 60's and 70's....

If his wife is comfortable, why not.

Adventurous Kate said...

Ent, I'm going to say something different.

The first time around, I'm not a fan. I don't think it's fair to the child.

HOWEVER:

Alistair needs a sibling. I would never have just one child. My sister and I are best friends, and I would never deny my child a sibling. The benefits of a sibling are endless. That is why they should have one more.

Just make sure to stop at the two, Rod.

jagerlilly said...

Selfish. My husband lost his father a few weeks ago and it's torn him apart. He's 47 and his dad was 71. I can't imagine a kid in his teens losing a father. If it's that painful as an adult, can you imagine how awful it is for a kid?

Unknown said...

Alistair has six or seven or eighteen other half-siblings and is not alone by any means. I even think that Stewart has some of his other kids living with him.

Geez...

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Rod ends up spitting something would he die on top or bottom of Penny.

lutefisk said...

I think the issue is seeing how Sean & Kimberly have turned out, should he be allowed to reproduce at any age?

Adventurous Kate said...

The thing, Grace, is that there's such a huge age difference between the rest of them. I'm talking about the relationship between siblings.

(No offense to any only children out there; I just wouldn't intentionally have/adopt only one child.)

Fex said...

My parents were young and I still lost them when I was 26 -- neither made it to 50 (my mom was 49, dad had just turned 47). And because one suffered from cancer, I, too, did the taking-care-of-a-parent thing (flying between California & Texas). Yeah, it sucked. But it's what you do. That said, starting a family in your 60's might be a tad old.

merrick said...

as a mother of 4 children .. two that are in their twenties and two that havent reach 5 yet, let me say that i never thought of myself as being selfish the second time around bur rather lucky .. lucky enough at age 42 to be able to produce a healthy 9 lb 10 oz baby who totally changed and saved my life and then a sister for her to grow up with. Once the older ones were grown and didnt need me around as much, it was party all the time .. that was selfish .. now, I am focused and loving and would not change my life for the world! Sure I think about the future, but who doesnt .. right now, and every day, I focus on the now and enjoy every laugh, every tear every emotion that I can .. because you really never know .. I never leave the house, put them to bed or end a conversation with my kids without saying "I love you" and their "I love you" back is the greatest gift of all

IndigoBlue said...

Selfish. I, too, am 36 and that day is coming SOON when I have to close the door to that chapter of my life. I love the wisdom I've gained by growing older, have nothing against those older than me or my age, but my heart would ache thinking of leaving my child in the midst of their formative years. It doesn't matter how much money your parents have (Readers, Paris, Paris, Readers) it's the relationship between parent and child that is important. And as someone who is more friends with my parents now than ever (not a good thing as a child, but a bonus as an adult) I wouldn't trade it for all the tea in China.

ElsieFire said...

I had my (only) child at 36, decided one was enough. She's 5 now. Selfish? Yep, sure, go ahead, throw it at me. She's got cousins the same age as her, they ARE sisters. She also says she's glad she doesn't have to share her toys. So, she's selfish too. We're a team!

Oh, and I have a healthy life insurance policy, a living will, and an education fund in place. I know that isn't going to be the emotional response for her if something happens to her parents, but that is our love once we're gone. And being the selfish bitch I am, I'll be here a loooong time to ensure I piss her off entirely.

:>

califblondy said...

Each case is different.

But, with the case at hand, Rod really doesn't need another kid, IMO.

helenf said...

I don't think it's selfish because his wife is younger and may desperately want another child. If they were both much older, then yes I think it would be.

Judi said...

Elsiefire, I love you! You're brilliant and cracked me up.
The case in point has nothing to do with us: Rod's kids will NEVER have to take care of him because he has the $ for elder care... as well as a young wife. Losing a parent sucks. Insane grief lasts about 10 years. Always has sucked, always will, and it cannot be avoided.
Almost half the households in the US are single parent. Been this way for many years.
Also, the absolute last thing parents are is selfish. With everything they do/sacrifice for kids? Self and parenthood just aren't in the same realm.

ElsieFire said...

Judi, thanks (blushing). And, amen sister!

Unknown said...

Eric Clapton has had three in his early 60's, and he has said that the fact that his daughters may lose their father earlier rather than later in their lives is his greatest concern, and he is taking pains to make sure that they are materially well provided for and have close relationships with their extended families in any case. And while I don't consider his wife a "trophy" wife--she doesn't fit the profile--this issue has, does, and will continue to come up as long as rich guys trade in their age-peer wives for ones that have the youthful body and "verve" that they are convinced they deserve.

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days