Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2012, 01:54 PM
 
Location: North Dakota
10,309 posts, read 13,843,925 times
Reputation: 18204

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman View Post
If a couple can afford to have many children, why is it considered "asinine" to want a large family? Am I insane because I want 4 kids?
If you can actually afford it it's not bad, but considering how overpopulated the world is I think it is more responsible to have smaller families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2012, 02:06 PM
 
9,408 posts, read 13,715,991 times
Reputation: 20394
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoEagle View Post
If you can actually afford it it's not bad, but considering how overpopulated the world is I think it is more responsible to have smaller families.
Uh, not like that breeder Michelle Duggar. Disgusting and repulsive
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 02:16 PM
 
Location: North Dakota
10,309 posts, read 13,843,925 times
Reputation: 18204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna View Post
Uh, not like that breeder Michelle Duggar. Disgusting and repulsive
Agreed! Add the word irresponsible to that list as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,160,486 times
Reputation: 6958
Sixteen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
4,489 posts, read 10,923,462 times
Reputation: 3698
I hate the argument "There's never a perfect time to have a kid, so have it whenever you want". There may not be a "perfect" time, but there sure as heck are better times than others. I don't think that because you might lose your job tomorrow, you should throw away "have a stable job" as criteria to be ready for a child.

I think 27-35 is an idea age for the first baby. My friends and coworkers are some of the most responsible people I know--we all had job offers or grad school acceptances straight out of undergrad at 22, went straight into our careers when we finished schooling, weren't huge party people...and I still don't see how having a child before 27-28 would have benefited the kid. My friends are just starting to have their first babies at 30-32. They have 7+ years experience in their field (meaning if a job is lost, they have contacts and a solid resume to get a new one!), stable jobs and salaries that afford college savings accounts and day care or a stay-at-home parent, and they had time to just be married for at least 3-4 years before becoming mom & dad.

Had any of these new parents become parents at 25, neither parent would have an established career path, they'd have to have put off grad school, they couldn't save for their kids' college because they'd be busy still paying off their own, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 04:02 PM
 
2,488 posts, read 4,315,930 times
Reputation: 2936
I did some research and found that the average woman has her first baby when she's 25 years old. More women have their first baby between the ages of 20-24 than at any other age.

This data also varies from state to state. Women in Mississippi have babies the youngest, at 22 years and Massachusetts, the latest (I think either 27 or 28).

The age shown is where 50% of the women were younger or older. For instance, Mississippi is 22, that means half the women having their first baby are 22 or younger and 50% are 23 or older.

Blacks and Hispanics have babies the youngest and Asians the latest. Whites are in between Asians and Hispanics. People in the south, the Midwest and in the NW area (Idaho, Montana, Utah, etc.) have babies the youngest. Women in the NE, the latest.

Last edited by 90sman; 01-07-2012 at 04:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 04:03 PM
 
1,801 posts, read 3,547,427 times
Reputation: 2017
Currently, late 20s to mid 30s for both men and women. The levels of energy are still high, reproductive health is (usually) good at this point and both parents are probably mature enough to make the decision and carry on with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 04:29 PM
 
15,714 posts, read 21,041,166 times
Reputation: 12818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulysses61 View Post
I think the 30's is the best time. People change more between the ages of 20-30 than at any other time of their lives. Your 20's should be a time for you to discover yourself, have fun and evolve.

I'm surprised so many posts cut off the age to have kids at 35. Why? I think a healthy 40 year old woman is far more ideal to have a child than a 19 year old girl. Who cares if she'll be 58 when her kid graduates HS? My parents were in their early 40's when they had me and I didn't suffer one bit, in fact I think older parents are the best parents. They bring wisdom and experience to the table.
There are a lot more health risks to a woman and the baby if she is in her 40's, I'm guessing that's why people are using that age cut-off.

Of course there is never a guarantee at any age that you will have a healthy pregnancy and delivery but the risks increase the older you get.

Pregnancy after 35 | Pregnancy | March of Dimes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 04:36 PM
 
15,714 posts, read 21,041,166 times
Reputation: 12818
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTerp07 View Post
I hate the argument "There's never a perfect time to have a kid, so have it whenever you want". There may not be a "perfect" time, but there sure as heck are better times than others. I don't think that because you might lose your job tomorrow, you should throw away "have a stable job" as criteria to be ready for a child.

I think 27-35 is an idea age for the first baby. My friends and coworkers are some of the most responsible people I know--we all had job offers or grad school acceptances straight out of undergrad at 22, went straight into our careers when we finished schooling, weren't huge party people...and I still don't see how having a child before 27-28 would have benefited the kid. My friends are just starting to have their first babies at 30-32. They have 7+ years experience in their field (meaning if a job is lost, they have contacts and a solid resume to get a new one!), stable jobs and salaries that afford college savings accounts and day care or a stay-at-home parent, and they had time to just be married for at least 3-4 years before becoming mom & dad.

Had any of these new parents become parents at 25, neither parent would have an established career path, they'd have to have put off grad school, they couldn't save for their kids' college because they'd be busy still paying off their own, etc.
We may be the exception but we became parents at 25, my husband has a very solid career and makes good money (mine is on hold now while I stay home with the kids but I do have a BS degree), he has an advanced degree, our school loans have all been paid off (didn't have much there to begin with) and we have savings for both college and retirement (and more than most people our current age, 37)

They aren't going completely on our dime however, they are going to carry a loan so they can pay it off in good faith and establish their own credit rating. Nothing wrong with teaching a little responsibility along with their education.

Having our children early may not have been a benefit but there were no drawbacks either. They are all very intelligent, all in advanced placement classes or receiving services for more challenging academics and they are all healthy and very athletic.

My point being...the only person that knows if it's a good time to start a family is the couple considering the life change. There are so many factors to consider and it's difficult to say across the board "this is the best age". It will vary for every couple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2012, 04:41 PM
 
15,013 posts, read 21,608,099 times
Reputation: 12334
Quote:
Originally Posted by justthe6ofus View Post
There are a lot more health risks to a woman and the baby if she is in her 40's, I'm guessing that's why people are using that age cut-off.

Of course there is never a guarantee at any age that you will have a healthy pregnancy and delivery but the risks increase the older you get.

Pregnancy after 35 | Pregnancy | March of Dimes
Although they never become infertile, sperm quality declines for men as they age as well.

Semen quality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top