I think it does. Really. Maybe I'm a dreamer..........
Uhhhhhhh......Savannah, you are a dreamer. Love is wonderful but you can't live off of it forever.
Just as an example:
A Jew marries a black Catholic and their respective families
totally disapprove. I can guarantee you that those dynamics
will eventually destroy that marriage, no matter how much Luvvvvv
there is. Hell, a simple matter of ongoing financial problems will
squash LOVE.
Love may have conquered a lot many years ago, but in today's
hedonistic, materialistic and superficial world everyone and everything
is disposable. I'm not even sure how many people truly know what
love is anymore to be honest.
Marriage is difficult enough without stacking the deck against yourself
with a multitude of circumstances that from the outset, has a couple
navigating a host of conflicts.
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
resignedPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:32 pm
SavannahStar wrote:
Heli wrote:
SavannahStar wrote:
Love conquers all.
If only it did ...
I think it does. Really. Maybe I'm a dreamer..........
Love makes the good times better and the bad times not as bad. IMO
Click your heels together...
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27035
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
IsanahPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:55 pm
resigned wrote:
Love makes the good times better and the bad times not as bad. IMO
That was very relaxing!
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7467
woebedamnedPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:14 pm
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
HeliPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:29 pm
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
woebedamnedPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:34 pm
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
Oh, I agree, the pregnacy will be rough, no doubt. the delivery will no doubt be a scheduled C-section. I sure wouldn't want to be pregnant at 47, but different pokes for different folks, I guess.
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
HeliPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:39 pm
woebedamned wrote:
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
Oh, I agree, the pregnacy will be rough, no doubt. the delivery will no doubt be a scheduled C-section. I sure wouldn't want to be pregnant at 47, but different pokes for different folks, I guess.
A candid shot reveals that pregnancy has already taken its toll on
Miss Nancy
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
BhamMomPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:42 pm
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
I'm happy for anyone that wants kids to have kids at whatever age. Like Savannah, I'm a dreamer and think that love should conquer all but learned it does not. He must love her or he would not have married her. After all, it is 2007. I just hope that marrying and having babies so soon doesn't cause conflict; especially at an age when you should be looking forward to grandchildren.
How old is this guy? Do we know? Did I miss it somewhere in this post because I was shocked at the having twins at 47? Then again, forget what I said above. Those babies will have a nanny and yes, the two lovers can spend time alone together and work on that love. In the real world, you work on being a couple and when kids arrive, you work on being a family. You can love each other with all of your heart but once those kids become part of the mix, many conflicts can arise. That is why I said you can't live on love forever. You love on working together and sharing values with your kids. When those clash........look out.
** Banned **
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 13086
Location: Posting with bitter people
CSIPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 pm
Did Kimberly G. every have her baby? Since I don't watch her, I have not heard.
I just can't imagine Nancy Disgrace having twins. I find it hard to believe it was planned. From the looks of that picture, she looks further than a couple months pg, as she said she was due in Jan.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2233
resignedPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:29 pm
CSI wrote:
Did Kimberly G. every have her baby? Since I don't watch her, I have not heard.
I just can't imagine Nancy Disgrace having twins. I find it hard to believe it was planned. From the looks of that picture, she looks further than a couple months pg, as she said she was due in Jan.
He's got his Mommy's face.
Click your heels together...
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27035
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
BhamMomPosted:
Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:41 pm
CNN's Nancy Grace Pregnant With Twins
NEW YORK, NY (June 26, 2007) -- TV's legal eagle, Nancy Grace, has revealed that she is four months pregnant with twins. But that's not her only headliner: she also snuck off and got married!
"I always said I wanted a family," Grace told Access Hollywood. "I grew up in happy, loving family [and] I wanted it too. But until now I just thought it wasn't meant to be for me. And as part of God's mysterious plan, I'm given this wonderful blessing late in life -- and I could not be happier."
47-years-old, and happier than ever! The CNN "Headline News" host married Atlanta-based banker David Linch in April. The couple reportedly met when they attended Mercer College together in the late 1970s.
She is giddy in the video. She looks extremely happy and I'm excited for her.
** Banned **
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 13086
Location: Posting with bitter people
HeliPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:11 am
resigned wrote:
CSI wrote:
Did Kimberly G. every have her baby? Since I don't watch her, I have not heard.
I just can't imagine Nancy Disgrace having twins. I find it hard to believe it was planned. From the looks of that picture, she looks further than a couple months pg, as she said she was due in Jan.
He's got his Mommy's face.
And under those lips, his mommy's teeth
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
frazerclanPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:31 am
Twins at 47....I had twins at 21 and another set at 26 and I must admit I'd like to have them again....unfortunately, as I'm now 55 that means that the twins would be almost that old too.
Sometimes the memories are better than the real thing!
As for a woman having twin babies at 47, I guess it's a bit like abortion....no-one's business but hers.
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 1466
Location: Oz
SavannahStarPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:44 am
BhamMom wrote:
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
I'm happy for anyone that wants kids to have kids at whatever age. Like Savannah, I'm a dreamer and think that love should conquer all but learned it does not. He must love her or he would not have married her. After all, it is 2007. I just hope that marrying and having babies so soon doesn't cause conflict; especially at an age when you should be looking forward to grandchildren.
How old is this guy? Do we know? Did I miss it somewhere in this post because I was shocked at the having twins at 47? Then again, forget what I said above. Those babies will have a nanny and yes, the two lovers can spend time alone together and work on that love. In the real world, you work on being a couple and when kids arrive, you work on being a family. You can love each other with all of your heart but once those kids become part of the mix, many conflicts can arise. That is why I said you can't live on love forever. You love on working together and sharing values with your kids. When those clash........look out.
Actually when I said "love conquers all" I was primarily speaking of the love of a mother for a child/ren.
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 20775
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
HeliPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:13 am
frazerclan wrote:
Twins at 47....I had twins at 21 and another set at 26 and I must admit I'd like to have them again....unfortunately, as I'm now 55 that means that the twins would be almost that old too.
Sometimes the memories are better than the real thing!
As for a woman having twin babies at 47, I guess it's a bit like abortion....no-one's business but hers.
A first pregnancy at 47 is bad enough, but a first pregnancy at 47
with twins -- she's a smart woman so I expect she's been medically
assessed prior to and ongoing throughout this "endeavour"
Given the odds of a variety of birth defects that escalate dramatically
after the age of 35 and incrementally thereafter, I can't imagine doing
this with 47 year old eggs, on purpose -- perhaps she got a donation
of fresh, healthy eggs from a young law student somewhere
I'm of the school that just because something can be done, it doesn't
necessarily follow that it's wise that it should be done, particularly
when we're talking about menopausal women having babies. But we
do live in a world where personal desires and personal fulfilment
trump most other considerations .... "I want what I want when I want it
and I shall have it" I think that sums it up pretty well
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
HeliPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:17 am
SavannahStar wrote:
BhamMom wrote:
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
I'm happy for anyone that wants kids to have kids at whatever age. Like Savannah, I'm a dreamer and think that love should conquer all but learned it does not. He must love her or he would not have married her. After all, it is 2007. I just hope that marrying and having babies so soon doesn't cause conflict; especially at an age when you should be looking forward to grandchildren.
How old is this guy? Do we know? Did I miss it somewhere in this post because I was shocked at the having twins at 47? Then again, forget what I said above. Those babies will have a nanny and yes, the two lovers can spend time alone together and work on that love. In the real world, you work on being a couple and when kids arrive, you work on being a family. You can love each other with all of your heart but once those kids become part of the mix, many conflicts can arise. That is why I said you can't live on love forever. You love on working together and sharing values with your kids. When those clash........look out.
Actually when I said "love conquers all" I was primarily speaking of the love of a mother for a child/ren.
I would say that LOVE can conquer all providing it's a true
and pure love, unblemished by selfishness and too much
romanticism. There isn't much of that around anymore
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
frazerclanPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:22 am
Heli wrote:
frazerclan wrote:
Twins at 47....I had twins at 21 and another set at 26 and I must admit I'd like to have them again....unfortunately, as I'm now 55 that means that the twins would be almost that old too.
Sometimes the memories are better than the real thing!
As for a woman having twin babies at 47, I guess it's a bit like abortion....no-one's business but hers.
A first pregnancy at 47 is bad enough, but a first pregnancy at 47
with twins -- she's a smart woman so I expect she's been medically
assessed prior to and ongoing throughout this "endeavour"
Given the odds of a variety of birth defects that escalate dramatically
after the age of 35 and incrementally thereafter, I can't imagine doing
this with 47 year old eggs, on purpose -- perhaps she got a donation
of fresh, healthy eggs from a young law student somewhere
I'm of the school that just because something can be done, it doesn't
necessarily follow that it's wise that it should be done, particularly
when we're talking about menopausal women having babies. But we
do live in a world where personal desires and personal fulfilment
trump most other considerations .... "I want what I want when I want it
and I shall have it" I think that sums it up pretty well
I love you Heli and you have my utmost respect....but....what she does in her personal life is none of our business. Always, take the piss but don't get serious about another's life choices....and don't take me seriously, ever....this isn't reality.
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 1466
Location: Oz
HeliPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:48 am
frazerclan wrote:
Heli wrote:
frazerclan wrote:
Twins at 47....I had twins at 21 and another set at 26 and I must admit I'd like to have them again....unfortunately, as I'm now 55 that means that the twins would be almost that old too.
Sometimes the memories are better than the real thing!
As for a woman having twin babies at 47, I guess it's a bit like abortion....no-one's business but hers.
A first pregnancy at 47 is bad enough, but a first pregnancy at 47
with twins -- she's a smart woman so I expect she's been medically
assessed prior to and ongoing throughout this "endeavour"
Given the odds of a variety of birth defects that escalate dramatically
after the age of 35 and incrementally thereafter, I can't imagine doing
this with 47 year old eggs, on purpose -- perhaps she got a donation
of fresh, healthy eggs from a young law student somewhere
I'm of the school that just because something can be done, it doesn't
necessarily follow that it's wise that it should be done, particularly
when we're talking about menopausal women having babies. But we
do live in a world where personal desires and personal fulfilment
trump most other considerations .... "I want what I want when I want it
and I shall have it" I think that sums it up pretty well
I love you Heli and you have my utmost respect....but....what she does in her personal life is none of our business. Always, take the piss but don't get serious about another's life choices....and don't take me seriously, ever....this isn't reality.
I'm not taking Nancy's escapades seriously at all and as she made this
choice, so shall she reap the consequences. My concern is for the
choice she's made for her children to have a granny and gramps for
their parents. The reality is, these children will likely not know their
real grandparents, uncles and aunts likewise. Reality and the odds
speak to these children not having their parents alive past their 20th
birthdays ... Maybe I'm just strange, but I've always felt parents have
a responsibility to provide the very best odds for their children to grow
up in a psychologically and physically healthy environment that as closely
as possible approaches the ideal. I just can't accept that choosing to bring
a child into the world at 47-48 focuses on the long term best interests
of the child.
I know my views aren't popular in this age of "it's all good" "don't judge"
and "it's her choice". Pity the children ... we conceive them by every
bizarre means that science can come up with, we kill them in the womb,
we birth them and raise them in child warehouses, with nannies and
absentee parents; we indulge them and spoil them with all material things
to appease our guilty consciences of spending little time with them; we
abuse them in every imaginable manner; we fail to parent them, choosing
instead to be their buddies ... I'm ever so happy not to be a child today
But Nancy Grace is nothing more than today's blip on my radar; I don't
dwell on matters I have no control over. I've long thought she's a wacko
and this only buttresses my views
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23386
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
CSIPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:39 am
So, did Kimberly G. ever have her baby yet?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2233
RollsPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:45 am
-Rolls
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 1821
Location: Australia
resignedPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:21 pm
October 11, 2006 -- THAT it's a boy for Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric Villency. Ronan Anthony Villency arrived Oct. 4 at 4:14 a.m. at New York Hospital, weighing in at 7 pounds, 9 ounces. Mother, child and dad are doing great . .
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27035
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
EzgoingPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:17 pm
BhamMom wrote:
Heli wrote:
woebedamned wrote:
Twins at 47? Good Lawd, what is she thinking???
Of course, she will have a live in nanny, no doubt, so it isn't like the average 47 year old woman having twins, but still...
Quite an undertaking for a 47 year old, probably menopausal or at the
very least perimenopausal woman to use her old, deteriorated eggs to
make twins. I'm trying to imagine how those 47 year old bones and
muscles are going to like this experience
Better her than me is all I have to say
I'm happy for anyone that wants kids to have kids at whatever age. Like Savannah, I'm a dreamer and think that love should conquer all but learned it does not. He must love her or he would not have married her. After all, it is 2007. I just hope that marrying and having babies so soon doesn't cause conflict; especially at an age when you should be looking forward to grandchildren.
How old is this guy? Do we know? Did I miss it somewhere in this post because I was shocked at the having twins at 47? Then again, forget what I said above. Those babies will have a nanny and yes, the two lovers can spend time alone together and work on that love. In the real world, you work on being a couple and when kids arrive, you work on being a family. You can love each other with all of your heart but once those kids become part of the mix, many conflicts can arise. That is why I said you can't live on love forever. You love on working together and sharing values with your kids. When those clash........look out.
If her anger and rage are part of her shtick as a television personality - that would be wonderful - but if it is not, I pity those poor kids and the husband. Hopefully her real personality is much nicer and softer. I do wish her well. The death of her fiance was life changing for her.
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 745
juno1Posted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:41 pm
I'm not taking Nancy's escapades seriously at all and as she made this
choice, so shall she reap the consequences. My concern is for the
choice she's made for her children to have a granny and gramps for
their parents. The reality is, these children will likely not know their
real grandparents, uncles and aunts likewise. Reality and the odds
speak to these children not having their parents alive past their 20th
birthdays ... Maybe I'm just strange, but I've always felt parents have
a responsibility to provide the very best odds for their children to grow
up in a psychologically and physically healthy environment that as closely
as possible approaches the ideal. I just can't accept that choosing to bring a child into the world at 47-48 focuses on the long term best interests of the child.
As opposed to say a younger woman whose children have several different fathers b/c she can? An individual who uses every available state & federal government program to pay for hospital expenses & health care - is eligible & a recipient of 'welfare', wic, food stamps et al? One who works the system, has questionable work ethics, files for EITC,
& generally speaking is not a good role model due to her age, her lack of education, her upbringing etc.? On the plus side, however, the child has a host of aunts, uncles, grandparents who are often secondary caregivers, who provide a healthy & happy home environment with numerous other siblings & for whom unfortunately the cycle continues...frankly, i like my odds with the older parents
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 84
Location: USA
IsanahPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:52 pm
Excellent points Juno. Although I would rather address the latter issues than believe that women this old should be having babies. I guess it goes back to career women believing they are entitled to have "it all". It seems they choose to not view children as a priority, but an inconvenience, while they have strive to achieve their "rights" to attain a certain level of personal gain. These women have made their self-centered choices to achieve, then want the "status" of being mothers. Of course they love these late life children, but are they entitled to create the destiny of looking like grandparents at the PTA meetings?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7467
IsanahPosted:
Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:53 pm
resigned wrote:
October 11, 2006 -- THAT it's a boy for Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric Villency. Ronan Anthony Villency arrived Oct. 4 at 4:14 a.m. at New York Hospital, weighing in at 7 pounds, 9 ounces. Mother, child and dad are doing great . .
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
