Whole or Term?

A couple of months ago I made an inquiry online to get a quote on life insurance policies. The biggest question I had was which is better to purchase after the age of 50, whole life or term life insurance policy? While whole life insurance seems to be the choice of many at an early stage in one's life, it might make more sense for someone after 50 to choose term life which might serve them better. My concern is that if longevity is predominant in our genes, then why not go for the whole life policy? My great-grandfather lived to be 97, and his daughter, my grandmother lived to be 93. That means if I chose term life it would run out when I am either 72, 77, or 82. Can you do an additional thirty years if necessary, and if so does the cost stay the same? I've not received an answer to my questions, so which one would you choose?

Life Insurance ... Term or Whole?

When I was younger, having life insurance meant that you were paying a set amount of money each month to ensure that if you were no longer alive, your family could bury you, and possibly have some money left over for living expenses if you had a large enough policy. I guess things in this department have not changed much at all, except that when I was younger, whole life was the only type of life insurance my family talked about they discussed their policies.

Then as a younger adult, I had heard about a company that offered term life insurance. From what I understood, term life insurance was for a set time frame of ones life, say until the age of 70. What good is that? If you lived a day past 70 did that mean you were out of luck when it came to getting your burial taken care of, or that your family was left out in the cold when it came to settling your financial affairs?

How do the two types really differ and how do they benefit the average individual? Which one is better?