I wish society didn't encourage people to put off having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you have young kids now and feel you are old and busted, you want all of society to avoid your mistake? There is something seriously wrong with your thinking. I definitely don’t want my DD having kids until she gets to enjoy her own life first.

Yeah but if everyone does this, then no one gets to know their grandkids and vice versa. And lots of adults in their 40s-50's end up losing their parents - my own parents were in their 60's when their parents started dying. You have to wonder whether it's worth the trade off. Isn't it really family and relationships that life is all about?

I dunno, people are living longer these days and are healthier at older ages. Some people suggest the healthiest boomers could potentially live up to 120. My dad in particular is freaking out about saving enough for retirement because his grandmother lived until 100 between those genes, modern medicine and his pretty healthy, active lifestyle, he'll probably live for a while.

Yeah — I’m not seeing that. I’m seeing people in their 40’s and 50’s dropping like flies from terrible cancers . Our environment is filled with carcinogenic crap thanks to capitalism and I don’t see this abating anytime soon.

Dropping like flies? Sounds like you need to call the experts

I don’t think that most people in this age group are “dropping like flies.” I think that this PP once posted on a job thread that someone shouldn’t go back to school in their 50s because all of PPs friends were dying by that age and therefore we should all expect to too.

Maybe they are trying to get away from her.

[Anonymous]

Do what you want. Only weak people do what others want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every person who reproduces, men too, in their forties actively and willfully ignores the health risks and repercussions (mother and child) of doing so. As does every woman over the age of 35 who gets pregnant. That doesn’t mean they aren’t going to do it, it just requires a very special type of arrogance to do so.

Sorry you had your kids in you twenties and missed out on a bunch of fun. But excuse me while I have my cake and eat it too!

+1. And Miss High and Mighty is suggesting that people who have kids after 35(!) are “arrogant” ? Self awareness much? I assume that some young guy who didn’t know any better married her at 24 and knocked her up at 25, and now she thinks that she’s superior because of this. It’s not exactly a huge personal accomplishment, so get over yourself, lady.

There is a lot of evidence that it’s risky, I’m not making that up. So, for well educated people who generally trust scientific evidence, it is A KNOWN risk factor to put off having kids. Willfully ignore these stats seems very arrogant to me. You are saying, “yeah, all the science is saying it’s a bad idea, but I’ll do it anyway, because I’m just THAT awesome!” And no, I don’t need to get laid nor did I have kids in my 20s nor did I get knocked up. I just Do not understand why well-educated people who can understand basic reproductive science, time, economics, etc. wait around until their junk essentially goes bad to have kids. Unless you get really unlucky, finding a good partner, establishing a career, saving money, getting a graduate degree, AND having fun is all completely doable in your 20s. There is no good reason to wait until your forties to start having children. To me, it is unfair to your children - they have increased health risks, as do you, and you will be firmly middle aged before they hit middle school. Ask anyone who had old parents growing up, it kind of sucks. And it’s completely avoidable.

As a 50-year-old mom of an 11-year-old...all I can say is that I'm sorry you had a bad experience with your own middle-aged folks.

As for my own family: neither of us had finished graduate school or saved enough to have a child in our 20s (that would've required parents who were able to pay for both university + graduate school). We had student debt; we lived in rental apartments. And as a result we made a WISE decision: to avoid trying to conceive until we really felt that we could support a child. We do, after all, live in the USA, where paid parental leave is a unicorn and childcare is astronomically expensive. We work in nonprofits. So: late 30s was the time to conceive. Fortunately, that part was easy for us.

We made the right choice for us. Might've been different were there more structural/economic/social supports. But so far, so good. Our kid is thriving. So are we. And, to misquote Monty Python, "We're not dead yet!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability to delay having children, and society’s acceptance of that, has been nothing short of a revolution for women. It’s something that previous generations could only dream of.

+100000. this is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure my own mother would've loved the ability to better control the number and timing of her births (all seven of them).

[Anonymous]

Honestly, it's best for the planet that the human race *doesn't* reproduce at its theoretical optimal.

We've already half-killed the place, and it doesn't need zillions more greedy First Worlders running around with their single-use plastics and their giant SUVs.

May the downward trend continue until every child is a wanted and supported one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s one of the huge mistakes of today’s society and I silently shake my head in sad confusion whenever I see a pregnant person in their 40s or late 30s. It’s not right. Our bodies know it’s not right, but science makes it possible.

Well, I know a number of women that got pregnant late 30's/ early 40's without help.

+1 and I am one of them. Pregnant with no help at 35 and 38.

Okay, but those eggs are not your best work. Just saying. You may have had a viable birth, but you would have better kids if you had had them earlier. Mic drop. But I’m sure the ones you have are just adorable!

Actually, had a miscarriage at 34 (aka not late 30s) so yes, I would say they are better work than that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's best for the planet that the human race *doesn't* reproduce at its theoretical optimal.

We've already half-killed the place, and it doesn't need zillions more greedy First Worlders running around with their single-use plastics and their giant SUVs.

May the downward trend continue until every child is a wanted and supported one.

This.

[Anonymous]

I am one of those women who put my education and career first and kept putting off kids because I thought I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, I started trying too late. I was 35 and had a horrible time conceiving. After a lot of money and treatments, I had my DD at 38. I am now 49 and so tired. I wish I had the energy my mom had when I was growing up. We are 20 years apart and best friends. I may have a PhD, a great career, and lots of money, but looking back, I wish I would have put more emphasis on life and not my career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am one of those women who put my education and career first and kept putting off kids because I thought I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, I started trying too late. I was 35 and had a horrible time conceiving. After a lot of money and treatments, I had my DD at 38. I am now 49 and so tired. I wish I had the energy my mom had when I was growing up. We are 20 years apart and best friends. I may have a PhD, a great career, and lots of money, but looking back, I wish I would have put more emphasis on life and not my career.

Yes, but consider the counterfactual. Not being able to have lots of money - not being able to afford a house, or one in a good school district, enrichment activities for children, savings for your own retirement, none of that if you have a kid at 20, like your mom did (and mine too). And then once the kids went to college - your own dimmer prospects without a good degree in an increasingly competitive job market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of those women who put my education and career first and kept putting off kids because I thought I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, I started trying too late. I was 35 and had a horrible time conceiving. After a lot of money and treatments, I had my DD at 38. I am now 49 and so tired. I wish I had the energy my mom had when I was growing up. We are 20 years apart and best friends. I may have a PhD, a great career, and lots of money, but looking back, I wish I would have put more emphasis on life and not my career.

Yes, but consider the counterfactual. Not being able to have lots of money - not being able to afford a house, or one in a good school district, enrichment activities for children, savings for your own retirement, none of that if you have a kid at 20, like your mom did (and mine too). And then once the kids went to college - your own dimmer prospects without a good degree in an increasingly competitive job market.

Wow, what a generalization that is. I had my first child at 20, was a SAHM until my second child was 10, bought and sold five different houses while raising our kids, went to college and got a BS between 35 and 40, lived in literally the best school district in NoVa (I know, debatable, but I researched it before we moved there), and both my husband and I will enjoy a nice retirement without depending on our kids to provide it. My husband supported us first in the military and then later as a self-employed contractor. Don't assume how others manage their lives despite what your parents may or may not have done.

And BTW, I am more than thrilled to have had my kids young, now that they are adults and I have grandchildren I do not envy others my age still raising kids, no thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a biologist, I wish more people understood that fertility peaks in your early 20s. Emphasis on early.

However, that is too young for many people to have a stable source of income without depending on a spouse, parents or the government. We should not encourage people to have kids they cannot support.

It's a case of biology vs. economics.

Two parents typically depend on EACH OTHER.
It's a two-way street. No one does it all alone,
at least not very well. Believe me.

[Anonymous]

Very glad I live in a society where women have the choice (and methods) to never have children. We still have a lot of work to do to get the point where it's not just assumed that every woman will or wants to be a broodmare.

[Anonymous]

We had our DS later and absolutely no regrets. I would do it all again in a heartbeat. Besides schooling and getting an advance degree, I have lived in multiple cities, did fun things in my youth, and traveled extensively. No regrets whatsoever of anything that I wished I had done before being a mom.

We intentionally did not start a family till later. Now we are more than financially stable, and I have an established career which offers more flexibility. So I am able to plan my work schedule around my family and not the other way around like so many people. I’m active at my sons school and able to participate in some of his class activities and go on field trips in addition to being successful in my career.

Life is good, and we are able to expose our DS to travel and lots of other enriching activities. We are in a financial position to give him the best education and pay for his college and any other graduate/med/law studies should he be interested, in addition to saving fully for retirement.

None of the above would be possible if I had my DS in my 20’s or early 30’s. It was the right decision for me.

Others may choose to have kids young and don’t mind struggling with balancing careers and finances. Others may choose to have kids young and be home and not have a career at all.

Who cares what society or other people think. I could care less. Only you know when it is the right time to plan and start a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's best for the planet that the human race *doesn't* reproduce at its theoretical optimal.

We've already half-killed the place, and it doesn't need zillions more greedy First Worlders running around with their single-use plastics and their giant SUVs.

May the downward trend continue until every child is a wanted and supported one.

This.

x1000000 I wish schools do a better job educating the next generation about population effects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's best for the planet that the human race *doesn't* reproduce at its theoretical optimal.

We've already half-killed the place, and it doesn't need zillions more greedy First Worlders running around with their single-use plastics and their giant SUVs.

May the downward trend continue until every child is a wanted and supported one.

This.

x1000000 I wish schools do a better job educating the next generation about population effects

First Worlders is pejorative and dated. OCED countries fertility rate is 1.8; replacement level is about 2.1. The major drivers in population growth are in low income areas. The issue with OCED countries is a high-consumption life-style, a distinct issue. Further, a declining fertility rate won't render every child wanted and supported unless you get to really dystopian world.