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.
There's an interesting topic of conversation regarding the ability of humans to, eventually, live for centuries. I think it is in the not-too-distant future, with advances in nanotechnology and biotechnology showing promise to slow down or even reverse the aging process. One luminary likens aging to a disease. We get older, our bodies don't work as well, we get sick more often, and eventually become a burden. Well, their aim is to have people be able to choose to be 100+ years old with the bodies of 20-somethings. A lofty goal, but one which I think is worthwhile to pursue.
Since, though, that women are born with all their eggs at birth, I think one thing they should consider is freezing their eggs or using gene splicing technology to create new ones. This will be a necessity once this technology comes about.
In the very near future though, I do think women should realize that nature doesn't give a damn about your social drive, your career plans, or your desire to not "be dependent" on a man.
I would like to see some statistics and some scientific basis for some of the claims on this thread. And as to what nature wants as opposed to what women want, who cares what nature wants? Women control their bodies, and they have and always will have the right to choose when and if they have children. No government will ever be able to force women to have children earlier. Also, young girls do not need to have babies. How ridiculous! This sounds like an idea perpetuated by a cult or a backwards religion.
I had my daughters in 1979 and 1984 when I was 30 and 35 years old. It took about 6 months to conceive my first. In between the 2, I had an ectopic pregnancy where my tube burst. It took six months of not really trying before I conceived my second daughter with only one fallopian tube. I cannot you tell how many people, doctors included, who said I would have a hard time achieving another pregnancy, because of my advanced age and only having one fallopian tube. It wasn't any more difficult than conceiving the first being "younger" and having all my "parts".
BTW, I started having periods at the age of 10, so I had been "losing" eggs for over 20 years when I had my kids.
It sound to me like certain people have an agenda and want to change society back to the 19th century.
I had my daughters in 1979 and 1984 when I was 30 and 35 years old. It took about 6 months to conceive my first. In between the 2, I had an ectopic pregnancy where my tube burst. It took six months of not really trying before I conceived my second daughter with only one fallopian tube. I cannot you tell how many people, doctors included, who said I would have a hard time achieving another pregnancy, because of my advanced age and only having one fallopian tube. It wasn't any more difficult than conceiving the first being "younger" and having all my "parts".
BTW, I started having periods at the age of 10, so I had been "losing" eggs for over 20 years when I had my kids.
It sound to me like certain people have an agenda and want to change society back to the 19th century.
My mother had her last child in 88, and the doctors told her that the only way that could happen, is if she had non stop sex, and sat upside down for two days afterwards, so gravity would help the sperm.
My middle sister, had three kids in 4 years. The last one, was when she had an IUD, which is supposed to be 99.9% effective.
Some people, some women, are just SUPER fertile. I've seen that before. However, the vast majority of women aren't that fertile. Most pregnancies occur before the age of 30 now, even now. The only difference is, if they are 18, then they'll have to drop out of college, raise their kids, then try and get a job while raising a child, usually living off of their parents, or welfare, or other social programs.
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 15,850,322 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANaples
I had my daughters in 1979 and 1984 when I was 30 and 35 years old. It took about 6 months to conceive my first. In between the 2, I had an ectopic pregnancy where my tube burst. It took six months of not really trying before I conceived my second daughter with only one fallopian tube. I cannot you tell how many people, doctors included, who said I would have a hard time achieving another pregnancy, because of my advanced age and only having one fallopian tube. It wasn't any more difficult than conceiving the first being "younger" and having all my "parts".
BTW, I started having periods at the age of 10, so I had been "losing" eggs for over 20 years when I had my kids.
It sound to me like certain people have an agenda and want to change society back to the 19th century.
Anecodotal stories of easy and prolonged fertility posted by some commenters here doesn't reflect reality for most women. Most women begin to lose their fertility by age 27, fertility loss accelerates after age 35, and by age 40, their fertility sharply declines even further (that is, if they have any fertility potential left by then).
The field of reproductive endocrinology has advanced a great deal in the past two decades, partly because of the large volume of patients seeking this kind of medical care. Not only are more women delaying childbearing only to learn the heartbreaking, devastating news that they waited too late, but environmental factors have led to increased fertility problems in both males and females. Many problems have been overcome by medical technology, but doctors have yet to figure out what to do with an old egg that is unable to divide chromosomes competently.
It is easy to be flippant about not wanting children, or not thinking people should have children, or being smug because you DO have children and had them late without any difficulty -- but you don't have to provide care to the emotionally devastated infertile couples I used to see every day in my previous job. The sorrow is unimaginable and probably something you cannot comprehend if you have not experienced it yourself. For those who have children, imagine all your children dead right now, that's right, do it: that is how infertile couples feel about finding out they will never be able to have children or that they might never succeed with treatments -- all their children are dead.
To the OP, I think that this does present a social problem that will have to get worked out some way. I can't see how society would benefit from more teen mothers, though. I do think that the younger generation of women have been eyeing their older sisters going through IVF and they are making different choices. If a young man or woman is on track with their education, they should graduate from college in their early 20's, be established in a job by their mid-twenties, and should be able to have children at that time. Waiting until the 30's is just asking for trouble.
Anecodotal stories of easy and prolonged fertility posted by some commenters here doesn't reflect reality for most women. Most women begin to lose their fertility by age 27, fertility loss accelerates after age 35, and by age 40, their fertility sharply declines even further (that is, if they have any fertility potential left by then).
The field of reproductive endocrinology has advanced a great deal in the past two decades, partly because of the large volume of patients seeking this kind of medical care. Not only are more women delaying childbearing only to learn the heartbreaking, devastating news that they waited too late, but environmental factors have led to increased fertility problems in both males and females. Many problems have been overcome by medical technology, but doctors have yet to figure out what to do with an old egg that is unable to divide chromosomes competently.
It is easy to be flippant about not wanting children, or not thinking people should have children, or being smug because you DO have children and had them late without any difficulty -- but you don't have to provide care to the emotionally devastated infertile couples I used to see every day in my previous job. The sorrow is unimaginable and probably something you cannot comprehend if you have not experienced it yourself. For those who have children, imagine all your children dead right now, that's right, do it: that is how infertile couples feel about finding out they will never be able to have children or that they might never succeed with treatments -- all their children are dead.
To the OP, I think that this does present a social problem that will have to get worked out some way. I can't see how society would benefit from more teen mothers, though. I do think that the younger generation of women have been eyeing their older sisters going through IVF and they are making different choices. If a young man or woman is on track with their education, they should graduate from college in their early 20's, be established in a job by their mid-twenties, and should be able to have children at that time. Waiting until the 30's is just asking for trouble.
Thank you for your insight, I haven't seen anyone with your kind of experiences position.
If you graduate at 18, then go to college the following fall (which a lot of people don't decide to do, they like to take a year off) then you'll be 22 at the earliest, with a 4 year degree. If you go for a masters, thats 24 at the earliest.
It takes about 5 years to really become established in a job. So thats 27 for one group, 29 for the other group.
Already, we are knocking at the door of 90% egg loss.
My thinking would be that, if you want children, it would be better to have them at the age of 18 or 19. Then, you can go to college, while you are raising your child. Daily childcare can be given at the advanced schools that would take care of the babies, until you graduate college. Then, by the time you graduate, your child will be almost in school, or in school already. It could also be used to start teaching our youngest children, as studies have shown that children aged 1 to 4 have the quickest ability to learn language. This could give us the ability to concentrate on math and science in grade school, and decrease the gap our current education system has with other countries.
Also, it would guarantee that the parents have at least one child. Later, if they decide to have another, they can, but if they can't have another child, at least they have the one. Also, the most productive years of a parents life, they will spend with older children, which makes the parents more likely to be better parents. I know to many friends with older parents (in their 40's) while they were in grade school, and their parents just seemed to be out of touch with their childrens needs. I had a young mother and father, who had the energy to keep up with me.
Oh darn. Gosh golly gee, another program by the Gubmint I'd have no interest in. Whatever shall I do?
Not much of a loss when no amount of money could convince me to pop a screaming load of something the size of a watermelon out of my nether regions.
Let the other population of women recieve this "benefits package" (Which is silly..the disdvantages of having kids FAR exceed any sort of benefits from having them)...
I'll be the free one who has actually LIVED my life and not saddled with snot-nosed brats, laughing as I pass by at those who jumped at the "benefits package".
Yes, with your attitude towards children (I wonder if when you were a child, someone saw you as a "snot-nosed brat") I am GRATEFUL you aren't reproducing yourself! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
it's the opposite. if an organism were to put off childbirth til later, nature will compensate and they will live longer. of course this evolution would happen gradually. this is best for mental/emotional and physical maturity to have offspring.
humans have some differences than other animals. even though a human can produce offspring physically, they are not ready to have offspring mentally or emotionally at a young age. this is what separates us and continues to separate us from lower animals because it's not about just numbers and mere survival. to be 'human' is about quality of life too.
as humans evolve more, they put off childbirth til later rather than sooner.
it's the opposite. if an organism were to put off childbirth til later, nature will compensate and they will live longer. of course this evolution would happen gradually. this is best for mental/emotional and physical maturity to have offspring.
humans have some differences than other animals. even though a human can produce offspring physically, they are not ready to have offspring mentally or emotionally at a young age. this is what separates us and continues to separate us from lower animals because it's not about just numbers and mere survival. to be 'human' is about quality of life too.
as humans evolve more, they put off childbirth til later rather than sooner.
Or, evolution could simply start giving you a drive to reproduce earlier.
No on knows what evolutions decision is, until it happens. Often times, it tries several different approaches.
One could argue that its trying two different approaches now. One, families that live longer, but reproduce less. The second, families that reproduce early, but die earlier as 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.
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.
