Why is it selfish and irresponsible? The kid will have a charmed life.
All the money in the world cannot replace the love and involvement of a parent in a child's life.
You get your kids when you get them. So, not always under ideal circumstances. Everyone has obstacles to overcome. Would it be better to abort the baby? Some of you seem pretty eager to this.
And no. You dont get them when you get them. There is no stork dropping them inside chimneys! You get them when you have unprotected sex. Children are a result of the choices we make! It's not a surprise!
She wanted baby, she's having one. A baby that will want for nothing. Its better off than a ghetto baby, born for welfare money...
Well the baby will want a father at some point and won't have one. Not his/her biological one anyway.
Happens every day...
Just because it happens every day doesn't make it right. Murder happens every day, that's not right either.
OMG! This is hilarious! You compare HAVING a baby to Murder but deny that an abortion is murder. LMAO!
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
__________________
Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite !
Why is it selfish and irresponsible? The kid will have a charmed life.
All the money in the world cannot replace the love and involvement of a parent in a child's life.
You get your kids when you get them. So, not always under ideal circumstances. Everyone has obstacles to overcome. Would it be better to abort the baby? Some of you seem pretty eager to this.
And no. You dont get them when you get them. There is no stork dropping them inside chimneys! You get them when you have unprotected sex. Children are a result of the choices we make! It's not a surprise!
She wanted baby, she's having one. A baby that will want for nothing. Its better off than a ghetto baby, born for welfare money...
Well the baby will want a father at some point and won't have one. Not his/her biological one anyway.
Happens every day...
Just because it happens every day doesn't make it right. Murder happens every day, that's not right either.
So lets stop having babies because something could happen.
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Why is it selfish and irresponsible? The kid will have a charmed life.
All the money in the world cannot replace the love and involvement of a parent in a child's life.
You get your kids when you get them. So, not always under ideal circumstances. Everyone has obstacles to overcome. Would it be better to abort the baby? Some of you seem pretty eager to this.
And no. You dont get them when you get them. There is no stork dropping them inside chimneys! You get them when you have unprotected sex. Children are a result of the choices we make! It's not a surprise!
She wanted baby, she's having one. A baby that will want for nothing. Its better off than a ghetto baby, born for welfare money...
Well the baby will want a father at some point and won't have one. Not his/her biological one anyway.
Happens every day...
Just because it happens every day doesn't make it right. Murder happens every day, that's not right either.
OMG! This is hilarious! You compare HAVING a baby to Murder but deny that an abortion is murder. LMAO!
No. I didn't compare having a baby to murder. I said that just because something, like murder, happens every day doesn't make it right.
__________________
Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite !
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
Look at Mick. He will probably live to 90. His child WILL have a 2 parent family.
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Why is it selfish and irresponsible? The kid will have a charmed life.
All the money in the world cannot replace the love and involvement of a parent in a child's life.
You get your kids when you get them. So, not always under ideal circumstances. Everyone has obstacles to overcome. Would it be better to abort the baby? Some of you seem pretty eager to this.
And no. You dont get them when you get them. There is no stork dropping them inside chimneys! You get them when you have unprotected sex. Children are a result of the choices we make! It's not a surprise!
She wanted baby, she's having one. A baby that will want for nothing. Its better off than a ghetto baby, born for welfare money...
Well the baby will want a father at some point and won't have one. Not his/her biological one anyway.
Happens every day...
Just because it happens every day doesn't make it right. Murder happens every day, that's not right either.
So lets stop having babies because something could happen.
No. Let's not have a baby with a man who is 72 and has not up to this point ever been active in his children's lives. Make good choices. He has a long history to learn from.
__________________
Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite !
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
Look at Mick. He will probably live to 90. His child WILL have a 2 parent family.
IF they live together. And that's a big if.
__________________
Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite !
Oh, so you wont tell a woman NOT to kill her baby. But, you have no problem here scolding this woman for having her baby. Do you ever just step back and really examine your own opinions?
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
Look at Mick. He will probably live to 90. His child WILL have a 2 parent family.
IF they live together. And that's a big if.
So, separated parents cant raise normal kids? Or a single mother of a dead husband cant raise normal kids? Hmmmm?
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
Look at Mick. He will probably live to 90. His child WILL have a 2 parent family.
IF they live together. And that's a big if.
Does your oldest daughter live with both her parents?
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Your point is what exactly? She is having the baby of a billionaire. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Duh.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
Look at Mick. He will probably live to 90. His child WILL have a 2 parent family.
IF they live together. And that's a big if.
So, separated parents cant raise normal kids? Or a single mother of a dead husband cant raise normal kids? Hmmmm?
All those military families are screwed, too!
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous.
- Mellow Momma
_________________________
I think that's oversimplifying things a bit, don't you? There are many children that would be better off had they not had a father present in their childhood. Ask any child that had an abusive or alcoholic father.
Why? He knows how babies are made, his GF does too. She obviously wanted one and he let her by not protecting himself. He can easily financially support the kid. I don't think he is being selfish I think he was being unselfish by apparently agreeing to it.
So a child will essentially grow up without a father? How long do you bet will he live?
I think it's an incredibly selfish choice. I don't care if all his other children are raised by nannies...
flan
Seriously? You are going there? None of us have a guarantee on when we will die.
But, the REALITY is that Jagger is 72...not 62 or 52. You do the math.
Why? He knows how babies are made, his GF does too. She obviously wanted one and he let her by not protecting himself. He can easily financially support the kid. I don't think he is being selfish I think he was being unselfish by apparently agreeing to it.
So a child will essentially grow up without a father? How long do you bet will he live?
I think it's an incredibly selfish choice. I don't care if all his other children are raised by nannies...
flan
None of us are guaranteed a parent. This child will probably have a father longer than some kids do...
Why is it selfish and irresponsible? The kid will have a charmed life.
All the money in the world cannot replace the love and involvement of a parent in a child's life.
You get your kids when you get them. So, not always under ideal circumstances. Everyone has obstacles to overcome. Would it be better to abort the baby? Some of you seem pretty eager to this.
at least he's stepping-up and being responsible--waay more than can be said for all the thugs with the umpteen babymamas
doubt his kids will ever be dependent on welfare/support/scamming benefits either
If by stepping up you mean writing a check...yes, he is doing that. There is so much more to "stepping up" than paying child support though. SO much more.
Why? He knows how babies are made, his GF does too. She obviously wanted one and he let her by not protecting himself. He can easily financially support the kid. I don't think he is being selfish I think he was being unselfish by apparently agreeing to it.
So a child will essentially grow up without a father? How long do you bet will he live?
I think it's an incredibly selfish choice. I don't care if all his other children are raised by nannies...
flan
Seriously? You are going there? None of us have a guarantee on when we will die.
But, the REALITY is that Jagger is 72...not 62 or 52. You do the math.
flan
Who is arguing the math? The "math" doesn't always apply as in the case of dd's friend. So, not really sure of your point. All we can all do is try to live our best life. There is a baby on the way so you deal with it.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
True. But I really think this lady must have considered that and the fact that he hasn't been an active parent to his other children.
At least this baby will be well taken care of financially. Who knows, she may meet a nice guy to be his/her stepdad in a couple years.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
True. But I really think this lady must have considered that and the fact that he hasn't been an active parent to his other children.
At least this baby will be well taken care of financially. Who knows, she may meet a nice guy to be his/her stepdad in a couple years.
And the cynical side of me says she has now guaranteed herself a child support paycheck for the next 18 years and that her child will inherit well.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
True. But I really think this lady must have considered that and the fact that he hasn't been an active parent to his other children.
At least this baby will be well taken care of financially. Who knows, she may meet a nice guy to be his/her stepdad in a couple years.
And the cynical side of me says she has now guaranteed herself a child support paycheck for the next 18 years and that her child will inherit well.
sing it with me:
"now I ain't sayin she's a gold digger..."
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Sigh. A child has better outcomes in life in a two parent family unit - regardless of income. Children need two parents. To say that because the child will have its financial life taken care of so he/she will be happy is ridiculous. - Mellow Momma
_________________________
I think that's oversimplifying things a bit, don't you? There are many children that would be better off had they not had a father present in their childhood. Ask any child that had an abusive or alcoholic father.
Exactly, many times a child is better off with one stable parent.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
It's a bit weird, but he was a good looking dude and obviously has pretty good genes. Plus, he can afford as many children as he wants to have. I can't blame either of them.
My first reaction was eww.
I think it's irresponsible to have a child when that old, even if you can afford them. I mean, male life expectancy tables says he's likely to die before the kid starts kindergarten.
He can afford to do whatever he wants.
He is physically able.
Money is not everything. And that physically able thing is not likely to last.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.