What is wrong with being a father at 83? - Al Pacino Discussion

[–] prolelol (1428) a year ago

Because the child will have a father for only a few years and that's it, when a child needs a father in a lifetime. Nothing is wrong, but that's kind of selfish.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Well, he might last longer than you or me, who the hell knows.
Nobody can say any given father is going to be there or not.
This is all a social construct.
It is probably more selfish for a young pennyless guy to be a father.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3001) a year ago

I am worried. Is there a Heisenberg collective with different authors? Just asking because sometimes your comments are plain stupid and sometimes they are excellent. Like this one...

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

No, just one guy, only excellent comments.
No worries.

Worst case, excellently stupid. Still excellent!

reply

[–] Foster1486 (494) 7 months ago

He's already got at least 2 with Beverly, and a couple more before her

HOW much was he around for them??

reply

[–] [email protected] (2017) 6 months ago

He fought hard for joint custody, and in an interview he said he wanted to be present unlike his own father. So he seems to value being around his kids, and may be regretted having them too late in life.

reply

[–] TheDemon (589) a month ago

How is that so different to someone's youngish Dad dying just after they are born?

reply

[–] [deleted] a month ago

Bingo. Reproduction is always selfish. Adoption is not.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) a month ago

The difference is that a person who dies young doesn't know they're going to die young. If we all assumed we were going to die young, no one would have kids.

reply

[–] TheDemon (589) a month ago

Yeah, I was responding to another post about it being selfish.
I don't believe it is.
Some people think not having kids is being selfish. It's up to an individual what life choices they make.
I'm certain the child of an elderly person won't be complaining about being alive. Possibly regrets about circumstances in their lives,but we all have those.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75520) a year ago

HIS DICK IS MORE THAN LIKELY ONLY WORKING THANKS TO DR. PFIZER ...NOT NATURE.

reply

[–] Luffy (1236) a year ago

There is nothing wrong. Except the desire to have kids at this age shows that he is not mature enough to be a very good or merely good parent. I used to think that there was nothing wrong in old celebs having kids. But now I'm slightly pro-antinatalist. Apart from that, the guy can go fuck his wife.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75520) a year ago

🤣ABSOLUTE GOLD.👍🏾

reply

[–] Luffy (1236) a year ago

Thanks!

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Again, with the "good parent" concept....
That kid is gonna be richer than me and you put together.
He/she will inherit a super famous name.
His/her father is probably gonna love him/her very much.
How is that a bad parent???

reply

[–] Kowalski (75520) a year ago

YOU KEEP LEANING WAY INTO THE RICHES THING.

reply

[–] Destinata (3314) a year ago

Women who marry rich old men like to have at least one baby by them as an insurance policy. And it's really easy when you're dealing with some rich old fart who can be led around by his handle. 29 years old, and he probably doesn't know it's the money. He probably thinks he's irresistible.

And if she's taller than him -- and who isn't? -- Oh. My. Word! It'd be like having a wrinkled up Munchkin on top of you. Ewww!

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

1 I wanna hope that she's on top of him. Otherwise, that would be one ridiculously lousy fuck.

2 He probably IS irresistible. Because of his fame and money. But hey, that IS him, why would he have to separate from that?

reply

[–] DMT (4369) a year ago

he is a short king, he deserves a hot amazonian woman

reply

[–] Destinata (3314) a year ago

😂😂😂😂

reply

[–] [email protected] (2017) 6 months ago

He probably knows what's up with these young women but because of his commitment phobia/trauma, he can only be with younger and younger women.

Al is 5'7", he may not be tall but his aura is big.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13104) a year ago

Nothing really, he's rich. And he's the Godfather

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Late paternal age is known to be a factor in some negative developmental issues, including an increased chance of genetic defects and mental illness in children born to older fathers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

Plus, the absolute guarantee that the kid is going to have their father die when they're young and vulnerable.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Hey, that goes for young people too.
It's a game of odds.

Of course the young, healthy etc have better odds of creating a "better" kid.
Than there is such kid that is less healthy than an old man's because of bad luck.

I think lots of it depends also on the kind of medical help you can get and buy.
So again, who has better odds at being better, the kid of an old but rich celebrity or the kid of a young but poor nobody?

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Hey, Pacino's late-paternal-age kid is going to be able to afford all the therapy they'll need!

Seriously, though, why the hell would anyone have a kid they aren't going to be able to raise themselves.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

No Otter, that is not what I meant.
I meant medical help BEFORE they are born, not after.
Meaning, the exams etc that you can have to make sure everything goes well to have a healthy (or as healthy as possible) kid.

Raise a kid? Is that fun? How many kids does he have already that he has raised?

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Prenatal testing only identifies some kinds of genetic defects, and it seems that the most common known problem with late paternal age is an increased likelihood of mental illness, which only appears later in life. And that can't be tested for prenatally.

And two seconds of googling will tell you how many other children he has.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

That was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, I read your wiki link and it kinda says that late paternal age doesn't imply shit.
"A 2017 review found that while severe health effects are associated with higher paternal age, the total increase in problems caused by paternal age is low."
That sounds to me as in, either you are born seriously defective, or there is no problem at all.
That's why I think that prenatal medicine is what makes the difference in these cases.
And Pacino can afford the best.

Anyway, obviously doing things perfectly is better than any other option. Still, considering the many other factors at play with fathering, I think a rich, famous, intelligent, talented, loving, etc old guy is a better prospect than many other ones, almost all except for a rich, famous, intelligent, talented, loving, young guy.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

The linked article did sound inconclusive, as scientific stuff always does when there isn't enough solid researched-based evidence to go around sounding conclusive in public. Funny, there don't seem to be a lot of studies or many long-term analyses, as if it were an unpopular subject for research or something. Funny how there's so much more research on maternal age than paternal age, isn't it?

And you don't know much about prenatal care, do you.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

I am not an expert of prenatal care. Why?
Are you?

Mothers are waaaay more important than fathers in making the kid, hence there is more scientific research in their direction.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I'm not an expert in prenatal care, but I had to study it in college, enough to know that prenatal care can detect some developmental issues but not all, and can't fix the ones that are found, they can only inform the parents that they might want to consider an abortion. So "the best prenatal care" is no guarantee of a perfect child, and neither is money. Frankly, the most important thing about prenatal care is getting some, getting any, the absence of prenatal care makes more difference than the quality.

And I also had to study human genetics, which is why I know that half of any baby's DNA comes from the father! But seriously, you sound threatened by any suggestion that late paternal age might have a negative effect on offspring, as if you wanted to uphold the idiotic social belief that aging is a terrible thing in women but not in men.

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3598) a year ago

He loves to creampie. Nothing wrong with that. The child will be left with a bunch of cash when his father passes.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Nothing. People are bored and have to fuss over the lives of celebrities for some reason.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a month ago

Another celebrity -- Tony Randall -- sired twins in 1996 at the age of 77. His wife was 50 years younger than him. He lived 8 more years and passed away in 2004 at the age of 84. So his twins lived to about age 7 before losing their father.

In addition to having all of Randall's movies and TV shows(The Odd Couple) to watch, the kids were evidently gifted with taps of Tony speaking to them directly on various subjects and memories.

This is 2024, so those twins are about 28 years old now. It might be interesting for someone to interview them sometime.

To me, other than the "losing a father young" proposition(which can happen if a father leaves or dies at ANY age), my main curiosity is: are there any health implications to so old a father? Doesn't really matter, though.

reply