U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2013, 04:49 PM
 
215 posts, read 246,073 times
Reputation: 229

Advertisements

Many of us remember a time of large families, like seven or eight kids.

Women had kids into their forties, especially before birth control, but not usually their first kids.

My father's oldest brother was old enough to be his father, and my father's nephew was his age. My best friend in grade school had nieces and nephews closer to our age because her parents were over 40 when they had her.

My parents were in their early twenties when they had me, and they passed away when I was younger. My best friends' parents who had her in their forties, great-grandparents now, are still alive. So as far as I am concerned there are no guarantees in life, and people should not be so smug that they know how life is going to turn out.

Last edited by curly_Q; 09-10-2013 at 05:03 PM..

 
Old 09-10-2013, 05:02 PM
 
215 posts, read 246,073 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Consider:

From WebMD and although not what one might say absolute proof, it is interesting:

"Women over age 40 are 77% more likely than women under age 25 to have a child with autism.
Women over age 40 are 51% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Women aged 35-39 are 31% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Women aged 30-34 are 12% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Women under age 25 are 14% less likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.
Men over age 40 are twice as likely as men under age 25-29 to have a child with autism, but only if the mother is under age 25."

In the conversation about older couples or women having children past 40, the topic always seems to be more about the parents than the child. The woman's need to have a child, the joy the woman gets and so on. There is no "need" to have a child, it is a want, desire or choice.

Isn't it time to think first of the child and put everything else secondary? Anyone else notice the rapid increase in autism in children since it became a more frequent choice to have children in later years?

I saw one post about women in their 40s or later having children long ago. Well, that was long before contraception and women's choices were more accepted than now. Society has become far too accepting in the both the taking of and creating of life. Too often the choice has little to do with the child but the self centered wants of the "parent". I would say "needs" but no one "needs" to have a child, it is a choice if you also subscribe that abortion is too a choice. It has to work all the way around, not just when it is convenient.
We diagnose autism in school age kids more than we have in the past. Who even heard of autism until the film Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise? It's possible, without having read the studies you're citing from WebMD, that children of the younger parents just have not been diagnosed yet. It's usually not something parents observe until around age two or three, when kids, especially boys, start having language delays. There are also more boys diagnosed with autism than girls, so it's possible our schools just are not doing a very good job of accommodating the modern world.

Autism is a spectrum disorder, and not every autism diagnosis means the child is going to have a difficult life. I think Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerber have autism, but they weren't diagnosed. Kids with autism can be extremely bright, just a little off with their social skills, like making eye contact, fixating on one topic (like computer programming), not reading facial expressions, or missing social cues.
 
Old 09-12-2013, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Central Illinois -
19,629 posts, read 13,276,644 times
Reputation: 12802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
My parent's were both in their mid 40s when I was born. If I missed out on anything in childhood as a result I didn't know it. They were wonderful parents.
Exactly. The entitlement mentality on threads like this is truly sad. All kids want to think everything should revolve around them. If your parents loved you and provided for you, quit whining and start being grateful for a change in your self centered lives.

My parents both died of cancer before I was 20. Those complaining their parents are not young enough should try trading places with me. Appreciate them while you can and be grateful. Gratitude is in short supply these days.
 
Old 09-19-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Boca Raton, FL
4,851 posts, read 8,319,922 times
Reputation: 5483
Smile Haven't read all the posts but.....

Sometimes, you don't meet the right person at 22. Sometimes, you're 34. My own parents married when my mom was 32, dad was 25. Mom had a lot of children starting at 34 and yes, into the 40's - this is in the 1960's too so not as common as today.

My parents were super energetic and having children later kept my mom young. No one ever knew she was older than so many moms.

I have a daughter who just turned 29. I wish she would meet someone but living single, Manhattan style, all good so she's happy. I'm sure she's got her own agenda; she does not need me telling her when to do something.

There are people "old" at 35 and young at 75. You just never know.
 
Old 10-05-2013, 03:00 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,382,550 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
And with all those numbers the vast majority of children with autism are born to young parents. The vast majority of children with every kind of disease or disadvantage are born to children of young parents, simply because there are more of them. Having a child when you are not educated, have little means of financial support, have marital instability, and can only offer an impoverished to mediocre life holds a laundry list of potential issues as well. You might as well demand that the vast majority do not procreate. The reality is that we each do it when we are ready. There's just no way of cutting that reality out of it.

Anyhow, if you actually read the entire article where you got that quoted information above, which you forgot to link here, you would find this...

"It's tempting to think that the trend for women to delay childbirth is behind the continuing rise of autism. But that's not the case. This trend accounts for less than 5% of the autism increase in California over the decade 1990-1999, calculate study researchers Janie F. Shelton, Daniel J. Tancredi, PhD, and Irva Hertz-Picciotto, PhD."

So what's going on? That isn't clear. Older parents' genes can undergo changes caused by aging and by the environment.

"We need to understand biologically why this is happening," Shelton tells WebMD. "It would be premature to tell older moms not to have a child. It could be the risk is associated with an exposure, and avoiding the exposure would be more important than not having kids at age 40."
Autism Risk Increase and Older Parents

And they make a very good point. There is likely an exposure risk. Is it the hormone pumped factory farmed meat products people are consuming, industrial pollution or polluted waterways, chemical leached from the plastics we use, pesticides on the veggies we buy? Who knows.
California is not the entire USA or world, something Californian's often forget. A study in a single State does nothing except show an exception.

All that you said would mean something if those older parents who now according to some, have acquired education, financial stability and so on actually behaved like parents instead of behaving the same way much younger people do:

Running around all over the place, mouth and ears on the phone while driving (so much for education), dropping the children off at day care, evening care because of all the social functions now the thing to do and lets not forget the now far more important height of productive earning years job.

Yeah, older parents don't seem to lend the benefits of all that "maturity" to their children.

When Mother and Father look like Grandma and Grandpa, somehow saying that it is better for the children doesn't quite seem like it is. Those children who by the time they graduate college are saddled with parents ready for assisted living and by the time they have children of their own can't show their children anything of their Grand Parents other than a headstone in some cemetery or maybe if they are lucky an urn full of ashes, yeah that is so much better.

Older parents tend to "manage" their children, not raise them. Made a joke in class? Off to the doctor, get some meds. All this started with the advent of the accessory child, a child conceived because somehow once the education and finances so to speak were taken care of, the parents were ready.

You said it yourself. It is all about the parents and not the child.

In nature, it is the strong that have offspring. They do so when the health of the adult is optimum. Along comes intelligence and now we can choose between life and death and the result is nothing more than a degradation of society.
 
Old 10-07-2013, 07:11 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,194,953 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
California is not the entire USA or world, something Californian's often forget. A study in a single State does nothing except show an exception.
Ok, but why did you quote information coming from these same studies? I'm simply taking the information right out of the article that you quoted from. Although, maybe you don't understand this?

Quote:
All that you said would mean something if those older parents who now according to some, have acquired education, financial stability and so on actually behaved like parents instead of behaving the same way much younger people do:

Running around all over the place, mouth and ears on the phone while driving (so much for education), dropping the children off at day care, evening care because of all the social functions now the thing to do and lets not forget the now far more important height of productive earning years job.

Yeah, older parents don't seem to lend the benefits of all that "maturity" to their children.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. Do you take issue with educated people and/or professionals?

Scientists, physicians, attorneys, et al professionals have every right to conduct their lives as they see fit just as those who enter service industries, or the trades, where lengthy education commitment is not a demand. Besides, what you're talking about is SAHP's on the one hand, which is a minority of people really. Also, one thing to keep in mind as far as educated professionals go is that there is a greater degree of life/balance flexibility.

With all that said, your charges about us older folk are wrong and you don't even have the sense to link evidence. Age negatively correlates with cell phone usage while driving. Not only do younger people use their cell phones while driving at greater rates, they fall into this sad category- "The age group most at risk for cell-phone related injuries while walking is adults under 30 — and chiefly those between the ages of 16 and 25, whose injuries ranged from falling off walkways or bridges to walking in front of moving traffic."

Quote:
When Mother and Father look like Grandma and Grandpa, somehow saying that it is better for the children doesn't quite seem like it is.
I suppose that's the case for some, but keep in mind that SES plays a significant role in how we age. Educated, financially stable people eat better, exercise more, take better care of their health, are more knowledgeable about their health, etc.

Quote:
Those children who by the time they graduate college are saddled with parents ready for assisted living and by the time they have children of their own can't show their children anything of their Grand Parents other than a headstone in some cemetery or maybe if they are lucky an urn full of ashes, yeah that is so much better.
I suspect you are an older person. So, you're telling me at 60-65 years old you are ready for assisted living. Really? It's not 1950. Put down the fast food. Pick up the veggies, go outside and get some exercise before you kill yourself. There is no reason for any person to be in assisted living that young.
Quote:
Older parents tend to "manage" their children, not raise them. Made a joke in class? Off to the doctor, get some meds. All this started with the advent of the accessory child, a child conceived because somehow once the education and finances so to speak were taken care of, the parents were ready.
Wow, you just make it up as you go. Honestly, you sound a bit bitter and jealous. Why worry yourself about problems you don't have? Are you really worried about the kids of older, educated parents who tend to have the world as their oyster? Projections for the costs of college in 20 years, based college financial advising seminars at my job, are ~300k. That alone is insane and you're worried about the kid who will not only have college funded by her aging parents, but being raised in a life of privilege, being well traveled, well educated, planned for and entirely, unquestionably wanted? What a complete waste of time.

Quote:
You said it yourself. It is all about the parents and not the child.

In nature, it is the strong that have offspring. They do so when the health of the adult is optimum. Along comes intelligence and now we can choose between life and death and the result is nothing more than a degradation of society.
I think this point still stands, although today that strength is found in brains, not brawn. Although, given the health of our nation who can really say. My best friend had her kids in her mid-20s and she had preeclampsia due to her obesity. We're a nation of fast food, cold cuts, meat, and starch. Life style just cuts into the age argument. As far as degrading society goes, meh, we all draw different lines in the sand. What's good for you isn't necessarily going to be good for the next person. We all want what we have to offer for our families, so you're being a bit short sighted imo.
 
Old 10-11-2013, 11:30 AM
 
1,859 posts, read 1,958,482 times
Reputation: 2351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan29 View Post
I would like to give you all a different perspective into having children in your 40s....I'm a child of parents who were in their 40s when they had me.
You are in exactly the opposite position I was in. My parents were childhood sweethearts. My mother was 15 and my father was 17 when they met. My mother married right out of highschool, and I was born ten months later. My father worked in a factory at the young age of 20, and my mother was a homemaker at 18. By todays standards it would be unthinkable for "kids" this age to assume this type of responsibility as parents with no formal education, and no chance of really enjoying their younger years.

To make a long story short, my parents did not have the full maturity to continue this lifestyle at their early age. When I was only five years old, my parents divorced (very common with young marriages), and my mother and I lived in poverty. My father eventually landed a high paying iron-workers job, and eventually re-married. My mother also remarried. My parents went on to have more children with their new spouses, and from my observation, both seemed to be more mature, insuring more care in maintaining their new marriages. As a result, I was the step-child that was out of place. I was always a rather responsible type; I studied in school, I stayed out of trouble, and worked hard. Neither of parents were impressed, they were too busy with their new families, which at their older age provided them with more fullfillment. I was seen as the "step-child" aka, the constant reminder of a past life neither of my parents wanted to be reminded of. When my father divorced my mother, he also divorced me. He worked hard, and vacationed hard with his "new" family. I remember when I was 17 (in 1979), at Christmas time I was over my fathers house, and his wife, and children were opening gifts. I bought my father some nice gifts, and I had only one gift from him. If it weren't for my step-mother, I would not have had a gift at all. It was a plastic scrapper for my car. While I opened it, my step-mother openend her gift from my father which was a diamond watch. It was really unbelievable, and so hurtfull. I recieved nothing from my father for my graduation and most birthdays. One year I received a savings bond, which I was very pleased to get. My mothers current husband was an alcholic, and there was no way I could go on to higher education in hopes of getting a good paying job with my current family situation. I felt lucky to land a relatively decent paying factory job after highschool, living on my own, sharing an apartment at 18. The moral of the story is, things could be much worse with younger parents.

While some people might think having young parents would be great, because they'll be around much longer, my father died when he was 52, my mother died when she was 57. I thought, if anyone had to lose their parents at a young age, it might as well be me, because I was not close to either one of them.

Last edited by 9162; 10-11-2013 at 11:41 AM..
 
Old 10-15-2013, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,757 posts, read 32,896,894 times
Reputation: 11780
Sometimes you cannot choose when you have children. My father was about to go to college when World War II broke out and he was drafted and sent to Europe. He didn't enter college until after the war ended. Then he finished his Master's and began working to build his career. By the time he got married, he was in his late 30s. And he didn't start to have kids right away. My brother was four years old when my dad fell ill. My mother was pregnant with me and he died six weeks after I was born.

I'm sure that if he had been able to have kids earlier in life he would have, but his life was interrupted by war and then he tried to build his career and financial stability. He had no idea he was going to die and have to leave two babies behind.
 
Old 10-17-2013, 07:03 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
515 posts, read 623,808 times
Reputation: 1228
I find it interesting that someone thought they were cheated because they were born to older parents. I can't even imagine that. I'm one of 15 born to the same parents. My mother, God rest her soul in heaven, was 39 when I was born and 40 when my younger brother was born the same year (I was born in January and he was born in December of 1953). Then she gave birth to another brother in 1955 and finally my youngest sister in 1957, just a couple months before her 44th birthday. We were all born healthy and only 2 have passed. Mom and Dad were amazing parents and I feel blessed to have so many brothers and sisters.They taught us good moral values and a good work ethic and we've all done well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top