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 01-25-2011, 12:08 PM
 
43,012 posts, read 89,059,506 times
Reputation: 30261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeavingMassachusetts View Post
I come from the opposite scenario...I didn't have the young and free partying days because I was a Mom. Now I am in my 40s, in a much better financial place than I would have been in my 20s and I am loving the hell out of my life.
This is so true. I would have preferred to have my fun later in life than in my 20s.

In hindsight, I do wish I had my children when I was in my early 20s instead of my late 20s.

 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:14 PM
 
5,652 posts, read 5,115,896 times
Reputation: 10163
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post

Is there an age it should stop? Guess it depends. It's all very relative to the person.

I agree. I think its hard to use absolutes when talking about people. The OP raises some good points, but to me if individuals think they can address things like that then it's up to them.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 34,669,759 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post
I've seen some great soccer moms at 58 & some awful parents at 22 who have no clue what it means to raise a child.

My mom just did a zip line in Costa Rica & she is 69. Grandma to 7.

My dad is 72 & my brother is getting married in the summer. Yep, he'll be walking down an aisle.

Just had a mom of 4 die of a heart attack in our church. She was 32.

I've found so many very young parents who find it very easy to pawn off the grandkids on the grandparents for days on end so they can continue to live their life. I've found older parents to be more mature in understanding that grandparents are not a babysitting service.

Is there an age it should stop? Guess it depends. It's all very relative to the person.
You're giving anecdotes of the exception to the rule. The rule is:

Peak childbearing years - PEAK - not merely possible - end prior to age 40. If you are planning on being a healthy mom, and having healthy kids, if you are PLANNING this - then your kids would be finished being born, before you turn 40. All of them - not just the oldest. Accidents happen - but if you are -intentionally- having children, you serve your children best, if you -intentionally- have them before you turn 40.

The further past 40 you have them, the more difficult it is to get pregnant, to be pregnant, to give birth, and to raise a child to 18 years.

The older you are, the more likely you are to suffer from illness. The longer you wait to have children past the peak childbearing years, the closer you are to death by the time they're adults able to take care of themselves.

There are exceptions. Most grandmas of age 67 do not zipline, nor have they any interest in ziplining. And if they're grandmas at age 67, then either THEY had THEIR kids when they were at their peak childbearing years, or their children did. Or both. So again - the anecdote has no relevancy to this topic. In fact, I'd say it might even support the topic: if grandma waited til she was 45 to have her first child, then when she was 67, her first child would be 18. She would have spent the last 17 years raising a child, and not training for the African jungle tour.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago's burbs
1,013 posts, read 4,064,797 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
Was she unqualified to adopt? There are so many babies who need parents - who don't have them. I'm not a religious person - and I'm not one to soapbox on the topic of fate. However - I believe, in my heart of hearts, that if people can't get pregnant and have children the "old fashioned way - by having sex" - then maybe they need to stop insisting that their womb be the incubator, and look around for a child who is already born, who desperately needs a family who can love it.

She could have been a mom long before she ever turned 40. Instead, she chose to be selfish - which is my point, which is the OP's point - and demanded that the world bend to her will. Not because a baby needed her - since clearly, she didn't care about that - there was no baby yet, and her own womb had decreed that wasn't gonna happen without a fight.

I just can't grasp the mentality that goes into people who insist on infertility treatments, ESPECIALLY if they're over 40 - when nature has very clearly, very loudly, very pointedly informed them that they should not bear children of their own.
Sorry, but it DRIVES ME CRAZY when people think that anyone dealing with infertility should "just adopt". I mean, if age is the problem, then the woman is going to be an older mother to an adopted child just as much as to a biological child. The kid is still going to have to take care of his/her parents at a relatively young age, lose his/her parents at a relatively young age. I'm not sure how old is "too old" to be a parent. But it sounds like you feel that anyone who deals with infertility issues (not just older parents) should "just adopt" and that "nature has very clearly, very loudly, very pointedly informed them that they should not bear children of their own". Infertility is usually caused by a medical issue, a malfunction of the body, just like any other health problem. Should all health problems be ignored, go untreated, and be chalked up to "nature" then? I'm in no way against adoption - I think its a great choice for those who wish to become parents. But choice is the key word, adoption comes at a high price with tons of emotional stress. Going through infertility treatments is a choice too, and I don't think one should be judged for whatever choice they make. Fertile people can just as easily forgoe having bio children and adopt a needy child too. Off my soapbox now, this mentality just drives me nuts!
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:25 PM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,530,890 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes View Post
This is so true. I would have preferred to have my fun later in life than in my 20s.

In hindsight, I do wish I had my children when I was in my early 20s instead of my late 20s.
It sure beats road trips from MA to FL with 300 bucks between 4 people. lol.

It could not have been more "tragic" when I got pregnant but I couldn't be more thrilled now that it did. Not just because I love my kids, but because I have a whole new life at a young age. It was tough at first because I had no idea how to be an adult. Not a Mom, just an adult. I figured it out though

People would sometimes look down on me because I was young, I guess the same holds true for the older parents. I am not sure which is right or wrong, I just know me. I know I have zero business having a child now.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:31 PM
 
5,652 posts, read 5,115,896 times
Reputation: 10163
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
You're giving anecdotes of the exception to the rule. The rule is:

Peak childbearing years - PEAK - not merely possible - end prior to age 40. If you are planning on being a healthy mom, and having healthy kids, if you are PLANNING this - then your kids would be finished being born, before you turn 40. All of them - not just the oldest. Accidents happen - but if you are -intentionally- having children, you serve your children best, if you -intentionally- have them before you turn 40.
But, is that really the right rule? It seems one could easily read this thread and say the "rule", if there has to be one, should be "Have children when you are wiling and able to provide for them financially and emotionally, and when you are ready to give them lots of your time and energy for the next 18 years. Think ahead about your long term health and how that can factor into your children's lives down the road. Make provisions to handle any expenses that might arise from chronic health needs in your old age."

That would work no matter the age of the parents. So 20 year olds that are not ready to stop partying and don't have careers would need to pause. And 42 year old emotionally ready fitness nuts with really thriving careers and a fantastic retirement fund wouldn't be "wrong" by default.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:35 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 34,669,759 times
Reputation: 20198
I was responding to a post clearly specifying that the parents had tried to start a family while the woman was still in her early 30's. The fact that she knew, in her early 30's, that she could not have kids, should not have driven her to the infertility clinic. It should've driven her to the adoption agency. She would have been a mother DURING HER 30's. I don't think people over 40 should be adopting newborns, either. If someone over 40 wants to adopt an older child (and there are SO MANY who need families) then that's awesome.

I am also against infertility treatments in general, for as long as there are babies who need to be adopted. If you can't bear children, adopt one. Don't force your body to do something it doesn't want to do, just because YOU want someone else's life to begin in your womb. To me, that is the epitomy of selfishness.

"All health problems" don't result in a child being born in a world where there are already children whose parents don't want them. Only childbirth results in that. ONLY childbirth. So you can just light that strawman on fire and call it a burnt field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbd78 View Post
Sorry, but it DRIVES ME CRAZY when people think that anyone dealing with infertility should "just adopt". I mean, if age is the problem, then the woman is going to be an older mother to an adopted child just as much as to a biological child. The kid is still going to have to take care of his/her parents at a relatively young age, lose his/her parents at a relatively young age. I'm not sure how old is "too old" to be a parent. But it sounds like you feel that anyone who deals with infertility issues (not just older parents) should "just adopt" and that "nature has very clearly, very loudly, very pointedly informed them that they should not bear children of their own". Infertility is usually caused by a medical issue, a malfunction of the body, just like any other health problem. Should all health problems be ignored, go untreated, and be chalked up to "nature" then? I'm in no way against adoption - I think its a great choice for those who wish to become parents. But choice is the key word, adoption comes at a high price with tons of emotional stress. Going through infertility treatments is a choice too, and I don't think one should be judged for whatever choice they make. Fertile people can just as easily forgoe having bio children and adopt a needy child too. Off my soapbox now, this mentality just drives me nuts!
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:38 PM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,247,279 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes View Post
This is so true. I would have preferred to have my fun later in life than in my 20s.

In hindsight, I do wish I had my children when I was in my early 20s instead of my late 20s.
And I was the exact opposite!

I didn't want to wait to travel & stay out late & not have anyone or anything to be responsible for...so I did it all in my 20s & early 30s.

I didn't want to wait 20+yrs to go to Australia or buy expensive shoes on a whim.

Now, I have kids, a mortgage, car payments, tuitions.

"Maybe" in 15 -20yrs I won't have any of those things on my plate. But its not a guarantee. So, I did all the things that would hinder me if I had kids.

And some get to do it when the kids have left.

Just all relative to the person.

Would "I" want a newborn when I was 55? Ah, no. And I don't think that is the norm. Are there many having babies in their early 40s? Yes. Most I know are due to fertility problems. I've never dealt w/ that, so I can't tell those women they are doing their child a disservice. I have a SIL who is in her late 20s & has 3 kids. She had no business even having children.

From a medical standpoint, there are many risks having children later in life. From a mental wellbeing standpoint, same thing.

But I've never read or seen anything where a younger parent has done a better job just b/c they had kids at such a such age as compared to be say, 41.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago's burbs
1,013 posts, read 4,064,797 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
I was responding to a post clearly specifying that the parents had tried to start a family while the woman was still in her early 30's. The fact that she knew, in her early 30's, that she could not have kids, should not have driven her to the infertility clinic. It should've driven her to the adoption agency. She would have been a mother DURING HER 30's. I don't think people over 40 should be adopting newborns, either. If someone over 40 wants to adopt an older child (and there are SO MANY who need families) then that's awesome.

I am also against infertility treatments in general, for as long as there are babies who need to be adopted. If you can't bear children, adopt one. Don't force your body to do something it doesn't want to do, just because YOU want someone else's life to begin in your womb. To me, that is the epitomy of selfishness.

"All health problems" don't result in a child being born in a world where there are already children whose parents don't want them. Only childbirth results in that. ONLY childbirth. So you can just light that strawman on fire and call it a burnt field.
So what's stopping you from adopting? Why is adoption a job for the infertile while the fertile can blissfully go around popping out as many children as they want? Again, I'm not against adoption, but I also realize its not as easy as going to an orphanage and picking out a cute little baby to take home. There's a heck of lot more that goes into it. And some people do want to experience pregnancy and childbirth. I don't think a person with fertility problems wanting that experience is any more or less selfish than a fertile person wanting that. The woman in the post you were referring to didn't know her fertility treatments would be unsuccessful. If she wanted to try, that's her business. Fertility treatments are successful for many, especially women under 35.

If you are so worried about all the children who need to be adopted, then adopt one. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX!!!!
3,764 posts, read 7,704,044 times
Reputation: 1743
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
I was responding to a post clearly specifying that the parents had tried to start a family while the woman was still in her early 30's. The fact that she knew, in her early 30's, that she could not have kids, should not have driven her to the infertility clinic. It should've driven her to the adoption agency. She would have been a mother DURING HER 30's. I don't think people over 40 should be adopting newborns, either. If someone over 40 wants to adopt an older child (and there are SO MANY who need families) then that's awesome.

I am also against infertility treatments in general, for as long as there are babies who need to be adopted. If you can't bear children, adopt one. Don't force your body to do something it doesn't want to do, just because YOU want someone else's life to begin in your womb. To me, that is the epitomy of selfishness.

"All health problems" don't result in a child being born in a world where there are already children whose parents don't want them. Only childbirth results in that. ONLY childbirth. So you can just light that strawman on fire and call it a burnt field.
I call foul. When I got married at 30 we immediately started trying. I had several miscarriages before I went to a fertility specialist to find out I had something called a luteal phase defect. You know how they solved it, they gave me progesterone pills; after that I carried my son to term when I was thirtyfive.

We looked into adoption during the interim and there are NOT a lot of babies waiting to be adopted. The waiting lists are long, it doesn't matter whether you are willing to adopt a child of color either. Most single women now keep their babies. There are plenty of babies in need of FOSTER CARE but they are not adoptable, they have only been taken away from their abusive or neglectful homes temporarily.

Some friends of ours adopted and it took FOUR years for them to finally find a baby. Some people wait forever and are never matched.
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