Forget the gay thing...isn't Elton John a little OLD to be a new daddy?!

Elton John and his husband http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/165...hn_elton.jhtml, a Christmas baby, delivered by a surrogate.

My first thought was, holy cow, how old is Elton, anyway?! Turns out he's 63, which is actually a bit younger than I thought, and his husband looks younger than him, so whatever, but still...parents just seem to be getting older and older and older these days, don't they?

Anyway, congrats to the new parents! I hope the nanny will wake them up to give the kid his night time feedings. ;)

Yes. It's selfish to become a dad much after 50. You wont be around--or very useful--for too much of the kid's life.

Aww, I think it's sweet. Not to mention the fact that they've been trying to do this for years but have been impeded by the British government.

I guess congrats to Elton John then. :)

Point taken, Sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

Aww, I think it's sweet. Not to mention the fact that they've been trying to do this for years but have been impeded by the British government.

---

Yeah, I imagine they would have done it far sooner had they been able to.

The average age of men at marriage for centuries was between 22 and 24, up until the last couple decades when it started to shift. In England during the 13th century if a male aristocrat survived to the age of 21 he could expect to survive to 64. So let's say he gets married at 22, has his first kid at 23, and then has 40 years to live and raise his child. Might Elton John similarly have forty years to spend with his child? Doubtful, since the average life expectancy in England today is 79.4 years. As far as life expectancy goes, it's the equivelant of having a child at the ripe old age of 48 in medieval England with a 33 year old partner.

We don't have children at early ages like we used to, and that goes triple for those of us who can't accidentally make babies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Yes. It's selfish to become a dad much after 50. You wont be around--or very useful--for too much of the kid's life.

---

And this is different from a number of fathers under the age of 50, how? Unlike the offspring of a deadbeat dad, at least John's kid will have zillions of dollars to fall back on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Yes. It's selfish to become a dad much after 50. You wont be around--or very useful--for too much of the kid's life.

---

And this is different from a number of fathers under the age of 50, how? Unlike the offspring of a deadbeat dad, at least John's kid will have zillions of dollars to fall back on.

---

A rich dad isn't much better than a deadbeat dad if he isn't around to be a dad. Sure the kid will be rich, but how many rich kids turn into spoiled shit heads?

I would hope that most people have expectations of parenting than just being able to pay the bills.

Elton may well be a great dad, but a 7 year-old kid is going to be hell to keep up with for a 70-year old.

Statistically Elton will be dead before his kid gets to high school--this would be when a male role model would come in mighty handy
for a lot of kids.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Yes. It's selfish to become a dad much after 50. You wont be around--or very useful--for too much of the kid's life.

---

And this is different from a number of fathers under the age of 50, how? Unlike the offspring of a deadbeat dad, at least John's kid will have zillions of dollars to fall back on.

---

A rich dad isn't much better than a deadbeat dad if he isn't around to be a dad. Sure the kid will be rich, but how many rich kids turn into spoiled shit heads?

I would hope that most people have expectations of parenting than just being able to pay the bills.

---

I'll take being passed out in a mansion over dumpster diving for my next meal any day. YMMV. If John and his partner are decent parents, then the kid'll have enough sense to find a good shrink to help him work things out as he gets older. And thanks to his dad's money, he'll not only be able to afford it, he'll be able to do other things with his life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Yes. It's selfish to become a dad much after 50. You wont be around--or very useful--for too much of the kid's life.

---

Bolding is mine.

My father was 68 when I was born, and only lived until I was 14. His "usefulness" to my life, despite the short time I had with him, is immeasurable.

It's not the amount time, it's the quality.

Meh. The kid's going to be raised by an army of servants and grow up to be an insufferable, useless, spoiled brat, just like every other celebrity's kids.

I'm sure Sir Elton will sing some kick-ass lullabies.

I had the same thought -- he is awfully old for fatherhood. Of course, he may have an exceptional amount of energy for his age, and be in spectacularly good health, I wouldn't know (the same goes for his partner, of course). But it does seem awfully selfish to bring a child into the world on purpose when you're that old; the actuarial tables simply aren't on your side.

I disagree with you, Taumpy. It's certainly about the quality of the time spent together, but it IS about the quantity as well. Suppose a 92-year-old decided to become a dad, and spent the first year of his child's life as a great caregiver, and then he died. I can't imagine that anyone would condone such a thing.

The problem is, there is no bright line for determining when you are "too old" to become a parent. 92 obviously IS too old, 26 obviously isn't. Where between 26 and 92 we draw the line is hard to say and obviously varies according to individual circumstances. But on the whole I think 63 is really pushing the boundaries of what's defensible.

I'm glad it worked out well for you to have a very old dad, Taumpy, and I'm sure there are other instances where extremely old parents were just fine. But you can't really argue by anecdote here; individual examples can be found that will support anything. The real question is, what is most likely to happen in the future, and what do we know for certain about the relative ages of the people involved?

Quote:

---

But you can't really argue by anecdote here

---

Well, I guess my issue is that I don't understand what you guys that are so against this are arguing for. Do you propose a new law? Or do you just want an excuse to wag your finger disapprovingly at someone who's personal choices you don't agree with? Cause, uh, it sounds the same to me as people arguing that someone's "too poor", "too much of a celebrity and therefore won't have time to raise them", "too gay", or "too uneducated" to have a kid. The list is endless.

Any factor you can come up with can be enough to point at and say "he shouldn't have a kid", but the bottom line is that if said downside isn't going to cause immediate and direct harm to the child, it's none of our goddamn business.

As Sticks pointed out, up until recently they couldn't have a kid like they wanted. Despite the fact that he's been with his partner since 1993, they couldn't get their partnership legally recognized until 2005. They had tried to adopt earlier and weren't allowed to. A lot of things conspired to drag this out for them. It just doesn't seem fair or kind to judge someone's life like that when their choices are clearly coming from a place of love.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Quote:

---

But you can't really argue by anecdote here

---

Well, I guess my issue is that I don't understand what you guys that are so against this are arguing for. Do you propose a new law? Or do you just want an excuse to wag your finger disapprovingly at someone who's personal choices you don't agree with? Cause, uh, it sounds the same to me as people arguing that someone's "too poor", "too much of a celebrity and therefore won't have time to raise them", "too gay", or "too uneducated" to have a kid. The list is endless.

Any factor you can come up with can be enough to point at and say "he shouldn't have a kid", but the bottom line is that if said downside isn't going to cause immediate and direct harm to the child, it's none of our goddamn business.

---

I agree with you generally, and in particular that Elton John's being a bit older than a traditional father most likely isn't going to do this kid any more harm than being the kid of celebrity will do anyway. But either which way, Of COURSE I don't think there should be a law. People can think something isn't a great idea without thinking there should be a law against it. The one thing I would say is that I'm about 1000% more likely to wag my finger disapprovingly at behaviors that harm children, than I am at behaviors that don't. And I don't think direct, immediate harm is the only kind of harm to be concerned about when it comes to kids. Of course I don't think having gay parents or having old parents are going to cause any kind of harm in and of themselves. But there ARE adult choices that DO harm kids, and yeah, I'm going to be judgemental about those.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Quote:

---

But you can't really argue by anecdote here

---

Well, I guess my issue is that I don't understand what you guys that are so against this are arguing for.

---

Can't speak for anyone else. To me, fatherhood is an enormous commitment of time and energy. The older you are, the less you have of either.
Obviously, we can't know that Sir Elton will be anything but a fabulous dad, but the odds seems to be against that.

A law? Hell no.

It's none of anybody's business, but it makes for good chatter.

Side note: I had two friends in HS who were both the youngest of 10. In each case, their parents were pretty distant. They were older, worn out, and, predictably financially strained. They were good folks, but less than attentive parents. As this would be Elton's only kid, and apparently parenthood is something he has dreamed of for years...who knows?

Coming back to clarify this a bit. I'm not talking about circumstances...being too old, too young, too gay, too poor. Most of those aren't choices, they're just what they are. I mean, I guess to an extent you can choose when to have kids, but a lot of times circumstances decide for you. I'm talking about things that really are lifestyle choices that a person has control over.

I guess I default on the side of Elton John and his partner have probably talked about the care they can provide the kids and come to an agreeable conclusion. From a purely physical standpoint, they can afford to have people to keep up with the kid and if the kid only sees daddy elton twice a week at their piano lessons, well, who am I to judge. Kids are not accessories that you get to go with your outfit, but I don't see any reason to believe that that is why he wants a child.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

I guess I default on the side of Elton John and his partner have probably talked about the care they can provide the kids and come to an agreeable conclusion. From a purely physical standpoint, they can afford to have people to keep up with the kid and if the kid only sees daddy elton twice a week at their piano lessons, well, who am I to judge. Kids are not accessories that you get to go with your outfit, but I don't see any reason to believe that that is why he wants a child.

---

I can remember reading a biography of Beatrix Potter in which it talks about her being "presented to her parents" at something like five years old. Prior to this, she'd spent her life being raised by a nanny on the top floor of her parents home. Apparently at one time, it was thought to be "improper" for the wealthy parents to have much of a hand in raising their kids. I imagine that John will be a bit better of a father than Potter's parents were.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Can't speak for anyone else. To me, fatherhood is an enormous commitment of time and energy. The older you are, the less you have of either.
Obviously, we can't know that Sir Elton will be anything but a fabulous dad, but the odds seems to be against that.

A law? Hell no.

It's none of anybody's business, but it makes for good chatter.

---

I agree. Questioning someone's behavior is a long way from saying "we should have a law against it."

We need more good chatter here! It was a great question and it's interesting to read the varied responses.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

I guess I default on the side of Elton John and his partner have probably talked about the care they can provide the kids and come to an agreeable conclusion. From a purely physical standpoint, they can afford to have people to keep up with the kid and if the kid only sees daddy elton twice a week at their piano lessons, well, who am I to judge. Kids are not accessories that you get to go with your outfit, but I don't see any reason to believe that that is why he wants a child.

---

I can remember reading a biography of Beatrix Potter in which it talks about her being "presented to her parents" at something like five years old. Prior to this, she'd spent her life being raised by a nanny on the top floor of her parents home. Apparently at one time, it was thought to be "improper" for the wealthy parents to have much of a hand in raising their kids. I imagine that John will be a bit better of a father than Potter's parents were.

---

As a parent of small children, I simply cannot imagine this in a million years. It's so, so strange.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

Can't speak for anyone else. To me, fatherhood is an enormous commitment of time and energy. The older you are, the less you have of either.
Obviously, we can't know that Sir Elton will be anything but a fabulous dad, but the odds seems to be against that.

A law? Hell no.

It's none of anybody's business, but it makes for good chatter.

---

I agree. Questioning someone's behavior is a long way from saying "we should have a law against it."

We need more good chatter here! It was a great question and it's interesting to read the varied responses.

---

I agree!!! :dumbo:

Someone post more controversial news articles so I can be properly outraged!