FMBI Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 That was Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy. She was in her forties. That is the stupidest thing I've heard. My mother had her sixth pregnancy when she was in her forties and shes fine. Probabilities, my dear boy, probabilities. Just as it's possible to win big in Keno, but it's a stupid idea to play, so you can have healthy children in your 40s, although it's a stupid idea to try. Obviously it depends on the health of the mother, and Palin seems to be in rather good shape - but when you're "bringing a new life into the world", shouldn't you exercise some discretion, and ensure that your child(ren) will have the best shot at life from the start?* *No, I am not condoning eugenics, don't even bother to try accusing me of it. Quote
Aceflyer Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) What FMBI said. Of course it's possible for a woman to give birth to a healthy child in her forties. It's also possible to become a billionaire by gambling in Vegas casinos. It's just statistically an unwise thing to attempt. Edited October 4, 2008 by Aceflyer Quote
Bak Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 are you guys serious? there's nothing wrong with having kids in your 40s... !@#$%^&* I read an experiment a while ago where they made fruitflies live to like 2-3x their normal lifetimes by killing off the ones that were born early in the fruitfly's life over several generations... although that's completely unrelated. Quote
SeVeR Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Ugh, Palin saying she reads the economist after she was unable to answer the question previously, and at a time when the economy is in trouble... It's so rehearsed and fake that i want her brought up on charges of re!@#$%^&*ation in public office, and if that isn't a charge, then the Supreme Court can make that another of the laws she "disagrees" with... Quote
Aceflyer Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 are you guys serious? there's nothing wrong with having kids in your 40s... Depends on how you define 'wrong'. My sole point has been to state the fact that from a medical, scientific, or statistical point of view, it is not a wise thing for a woman to give birth to a child in her forties. I do not believe I have indicated that doing so was 'wrong', only that doing so was 'foolish' (although I am not going to bother to review all of my previous posts in this thread - so if I did, inadvertently, use the term 'wrong' in one or more previous posts I made here, I apologize for the error). Quote
SeVeR Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Clutching at straws. Women can have five children and still be having them in their forties. I think you're dodging the real reason. The real reason for mentioning it is not supported by fact or research. The real reason we criticise her is because many of us have known women with five children and don't like what it's done to their mental state and their personality. Blaming medical reasons is a nice excuse. Quote
Aceflyer Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Clutching at straws. Women can have five children and still be having them in their forties. I think you're dodging the real reason. The real reason for mentioning it is not supported by fact or research. The real reason we criticise her is because many of us have known women with five children and don't like what it's done to their mental state and their personality. Blaming medical reasons is a nice excuse. I think you're clutching at straws, SeVeR. Personally, I have no problem with women having many children, nor have I ever had a problem with women having many children. As stated, medically it's a very bad idea for women to have children in their 40's. This is not to say that it's wrong for women to have children in their 40's, but generally from a strictly medical, scientific, or statistical perspective it's not the wisest thing to do. Children born to women in their 40's are at significantly increased risks of suffering from a whole range of symptoms and diseases, such as Down syndrome (which Trig Palin suffers from). This is a fact based upon rigorous research, this is not an 'excuse' at all. Here is a table that shows nicely the correlation between the frequency of Down syndrome and maternal age. Quote
SeVeR Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) If its not wrong then what's the problem? I don't see any problem. I see it as inconclusive evidence that she is anti-contraception, but that's all. -EDIT- Having said that, that table is quite alarming. If i was a woman in my forties i would certainly think about that. This is the first time i've seen that data, so i doubt Mrs Palin, who quite probably hasn't even read a scientific paper in her life, has read it. Edited October 4, 2008 by SeVeR Quote
Aceflyer Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 If its not wrong then what's the problem? I don't see any problem. I see it as inconclusive evidence that she is anti-contraception, but that's all. -EDIT- Having said that, that table is quite alarming. If i was a woman in my forties i would certainly think about that. This is the first time i've seen that data, so i doubt Mrs Palin, who quite probably hasn't even read a scientific paper in her life, has read it. The only problem I see is that she either knew about that data and ignored it, or she didn't know about the data. The data is - or should be - pretty generally known by this point as it is hardly new or controversial. In either case it's somewhat alarming because I for one certainly don't want to have a stupid or ignorant VP. Quote
SeVeR Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Most people know about it somewhat, but i for one had no idea the risk increased THAT much. Quote
Aceflyer Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 True... I will admit that I may have unwittingly become a victim of Ivory Tower Syndrome. Quote
AstroProdigy Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 If its not wrong then what's the problem? I don't see any problem. I see it as inconclusive evidence that she is anti-contraception, but that's all. -EDIT- Having said that, that table is quite alarming. If i was a woman in my forties i would certainly think about that. This is the first time i've seen that data, so i doubt Mrs Palin, who quite probably hasn't even read a scientific paper in her life, has read it.You're wrong. In fact Palin read all of them. It's a vast variety of sources where she gets the news. Alaska isn't a foreign country where she can't keep in touch with what the rest of Washington DC may be thinking and doing because Alaska is like a microcosm of America. The Proof Quote
SeVeR Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 (edited) Lol yea... never seen so much bull!@#$%^&*ting. When asked the same question after she'd been prepared with the correct answers she said The New York Times and the Economist. What a surprise... the Economist! It's so fake. I bet the only book she's ever read is the Bible. -EDIT- Her verbal diarrhea continues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm Edited October 5, 2008 by SeVeR Quote
Hate The Fake Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 Palin gave McCains Cabinet more of a conservative approach, and she is the reason ill be voting republican. Quote
Bak Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 why do you prefer a conservative approach over a liberal one? Quote
Hate The Fake Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 why do you prefer a conservative approach over a liberal one? Most of my views, dwell on Morals, and my Religion. Ie prolife Quote
Bak Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Aha interesting. Does this mean that you would vote for a slightly worse (on other issues) candidate if he was pro life and the slightly better one was pro choice (in the abstract sense, not talking obama and mccain here)? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.