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.
THE number of women aged over 40 having babies has now overtaken those under 20 for the first time in almost 70 years, new figures reveal.
The fertility rate among older women has more than trebled since the early 80s and experts have put the rise down to the increasing numbers of women having careers and the spiralling cost of having kids.
There were 15.2 live births per 1,000 women aged 40 and over in 2015 compared to 14.5 for those aged under 20 – in 1981 the rate was just 4.9 for older mums
I don't think this means much. Women should have babies when they are ready and can provide for their babies. I certainly don't even know anyone in their 70s in diapers.
Presumably someone over 40 is trying to have a baby and they have the financial resources to take care of it. It isn't ideal but neither is having a baby before you are ready.
People used to have babies all the way through their childbearing years.
I wouldn't want to do that but it is the biological clock ticking away and that can be alarming.
If the American workplace was more childbearing friendly, this situation might not exist. Women have to become secure in their careers before having children, for a variety of reasons.
And Americans are waiting longer to marry, as well, for economic reasons.
Seems to me that a lot of 20 somethings are focusing on school and careers instead of babies which makes sense. I think they then get caught up in their carriers. Many are also getting married later in life. I personally know several women who have had babies between the ages of 40-42. Is it for everyone? No, I had my last baby at 34 and couldn't imagine having one now at 42, but it is a growing trend and who am I to judge? Everyone does what is right for them!
Each to their own but I personally wouldn't have even considered having a baby that late in my life. No desire to have a teenager in my late fifties.
I was 38 when I had my second. (34, close to 35 with the first) So it didn't bother me to have a teenage in my late 50s. I was 60 and still in the workforce when she graduated from college. DH is a year older. Granted, we didn't have a lot of time between college graduation and retirement, but so what? We didn't have the responsibility of kids in our 20 and early 30s, so it all evened out. It's the number of years parenting, not your age, that is the issue. If you have two kids three years apart, that's 21 years of active parenting until the last one is an adult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
If the American workplace was more childbearing friendly, this situation might not exist. Women have to become secure in their careers before having children, for a variety of reasons.
And Americans are waiting longer to marry, as well, for economic reasons.
Except this is an article from the UK.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-12-2017 at 03:59 PM..
I was 38 when I had my second. (34, close to 35 with the first) So it didn't bother me to have a teenage in my late 50s. I was 60 and still in the workforce when she graduated from college. DH is a year older. Granted, we didn't have a lot of time between college graduation and retirement, but so what? We didn't have the responsibility of kids in our 20 and early 30s, so it all evened out. It's the number of years parenting, not your age, that is the issue. If you have two kids three years apart, that's 21 years of active parenting until the last one is an adult.
Except this is an article from the UK.
Like I said not for me but to each their own.
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.