Clearly nature thinks it's fine.
From a human perspective, he is mature.
He is mentally sane. His dick is still working.
I see no wrongdoing here.
Stupid .... the kid will never get to know him or have a real male parent, except through his money.
shareNonsense - that kid will have a stepfather!
At least one stepfather.
You know, it's not nonsense, and neither is your point, though I think you are wrong in general, but it can work out. Might could work out is different from having a father, even if it's a bad father. You can have a step-father or father-surrogate while still having an actual real father.
So many cannot make a point without some kind of expletive or emotional hysterical reaction. Try it sometime.
Neither of us has any idea what the future brings, or what Panico is like as a person, or a parent, so of course we can't comment with any certainty. But I've worked with enough elders to be extremely dubious about the odds of him being around, mentally or physically, until his kid is grown. Speaking from experience and not statistics, his odds of dementia, disability, or death in the next 20 years are beyond excellent, and some elders just retreat into themselves even if they're healthy. One lady in her 90s told me "Oh, I don't plan to take any more interest in my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I'm just done with other people.", and that sort of thing makes me wonder what kind of parent any 90+-year-old would be.
As for a stepfather, Pacino and his babymoma aren't married, he's apparently straight but has never married. So she's free to marry someone else today.
is that supposed to be a poem?
shareIt's fine for him, but not so great for the child. He'll almost certainly never know his father, or only know him from his most feeble, twilight years. Even if Pacino lives to be 100, what condition will he be in for that final decade or so of life? What's done is done-- I guess? I was unaware he just had a kid-- and I hope it all works out for the best, but he is definitely short-changing his child. Also, since your question was not specific to Pacino, at least Pacino has the resources to provide for the child, and his legacy will open doors for the child. For the average schmo, having a kid at 83 is far from fine.
As to your other statement, about a young penniless man fathering a child, I'd argue that money is unimportant. As long as a child's parents are focused on their family, the amount of money they have is of no consequence. Countless-- literally millions-- of poor families have children, often many children, who have fulfilling, wonderful lives surrounded by a loving and supportive family.
I agree with your second paragraph, very well stated.
I was just counter balancing the fact that he is very old but also very rich and powerful.
Usually, rich and powerful people get to be so when they are old, not young (Pacino himself was struggling and vulnerable when young).
So it's often one OR the other. But they also often compensate one another.
If only there was as much passion directed at the scores of young black men who impregnate women then immediately abandon them and their children.
Why black?
Other races do not do that in your opinion?
I say, if only there was as much passion directed at the scores of young irresponsible men who impregnate women then immediately abandon them and their children.
Because that practice is rife in the black community, which wokists believe is beyond reproach, yet they’ll criticise Pacino for having a kid while old.
[deleted]
Nothing is wrong with it, and it's none of anybody's business.
shareWhat is wrong with being a father at 83?
posted a year ago by Heisenberg (6482)
47 replies | jump to latest"
Nothing is wrong, so long as your children are in their 60's, then it's Kool in the Gang