"I don't have to defend what I've done. It's between me, my baby and no-one else."
Sorry, Liz, but you might have to defend it to your baby. Most people cope with their mother's death past 30. By the time your child is out of his or her teenage years, you'll be 87. If you even make it to that age - fit or not, there's a plethora of things that could kill or severely disable you, and the chances are high you'll need serious medical care before the child hits 20. A mother is supposed to care for the child, not the other way round (at least until the child becomes an adult). What kind of burden is that to leave your son or daughter?
#
ReplyDeletePauline Wallin
What a nice, warm hearted person you must be judging by your comments, Jimmy. What difference does it make to you whether or not this lady wants to bring a child into the world. Presumably she can afford to give the baby a decent start, there’s no reason why she shouldn’t live another thirty years and I’m sure she must be prepared to give it much love to go through pregnancy at this stage in her life. As for your remarks about the lady’s physical appearance, grow up!
21 May 2009, 11:35
#
James Kent
If it’s a choice between being nice and warm-hearted, or ethical, honest and sensible, I’ll take the latter, thank you very much. It makes a difference to me because I care about this child’s wellbeing, and it seems pretty evident to me that this woman is letting her selfish desire for a child override the logical probabilities of her being unable to properly care for it. Even if you’re right that she might live, or rather survive, for another 30 years, she won’t be physically capable of coping with the demands of being a mum, barring a miracle.
As for my ‘remarks’ about her appearance, I can assure they are quite considered, not childish or off the cuff. If physical appearance doesn’t matter to you, then fine, but I find her terribly ugly, and I totally understand why a man would not have wanted to father a child with that woman. One might argue it’s just the current iteration of natural selection – she doesn’t conform to the beauty standards of the age, nor to any of the major peripheral/fetish standards, so no one wants to reproduce her genes, which are essentially defective by the current judgement. Perhaps if you clarify exactly what it is about judging her on appearance that you find childish, I can elaborate on my reasoning. Let me preempt any accusations of being shallow by saying I am not dismissing her solely on physical appearance – I am taking into account other factors like her age and observable aspects of her personality and history. But it really pisses me off when people deny that appearance is something on which you can judge someone. Both the aspects of choice (clothing, hairstyle, physique etc.), and the aspects of nature (their face, things they didn’t choose) can inform judgements, but are not necessarily sufficient judgements (though which are?). Eliminating the physical just because it can be misleading is simply ridiculous. The fact is you can often judge a book pretty effectively by its cover.
22 May 2009, 00:07