But if you're a 30 year old single woman and you want to have kids with an actual person to whom you're committed? 30 is kind of a scary age. Because it takes time to find someone you even want to be with, and then you're probably together for a couple years before you (if you're like most people) get married, and then you probably wait a year or two before you start trying, and now you're in your mid-to-late-30s where even conceiving can be tricky. I know multiple women who wanted to have a first or second kid in their later 30s and can't because their reproductive systems basically said "fuck this shit" and shut down. A miscarriage or two later and they're wishing they'd started a lot earlier.
3) Individuals should consider their own histories and not assume vague news reports about statistics apply rigidly to them.
If you are a woman who has a family history of women running into early reproductive trouble, that may definitely influence your decision on when to have kids. It's also the case that quite a bit of "oh noes I got too old to have kids" has to do with reproductive health rather than age per se. (For example, if a woman picked up chlamydia from a college boyfriend and never knew it, she might find out in her 30s that whoops, not so much with the fertility.)
So you seem to think that I am wrong in what I posted.
Given that what I posted was, basically, "It can be tougher to have children when you get older," your opinion is apparently "Getting older has no effect on your ability to have children at all and you needn't put any thought into the prospect ahead of time, because deciding to have kids when you're 40 or 50 or, hell, 60 is perfectly viable"?
Stop getting pissy because somebody with a Y-chromosome dares to have an opinion.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That stance to me dovetails nicely into my view on this thread, no one else gets to make the decisions involved in conception and childbirth other than the principals involved. You don't want to have a child in your late 30s because you think the risk is too high? Then don't do it. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to make the other decision.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
Yeah yeah you're just trying to help, good for you, but like I'm saying, nobody runs any aspect of their lives on the goddamn numbers. Sometimes things just don't work out that way.
All of this of course ignores the underlying assumption that there's something terribly wrong with not getting around to having children because you had other concerns at the time. Reproducing is something that has to happen on aggregate, but you're not wasting your life if you don't, even if you don't by accident. It isn't some dreadful life failure to have been too busy to get around to breeding. Its also not a problem if you dive in early, unless other people decide to make it a problem for you.
Cat, I'm a little confused by the hostility in this part of your post. While I agree with you that this thread has a lot of problems, I haven't seen anyone arguing that women should be having children by 30 or should be having children period. It seems to me that the majority of the posters in this thread are arguing that women should have an extraordinary reason to even consider having kids before age 30. While this is rather contrary to the wisdom and social pressures in society at large (and IMO, equally wrong as the more conventional logic) it is still what people have been arguing in this thread.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
That stance to me dovetails nicely into my view on this thread, no one else gets to make the decisions involved in conception and childbirth other than the principals involved. You don't want to have a child in your late 30s because you think the risk is too high? Then don't do it. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to make the other decision.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
So you don't think anyone should ever have a kid? There are always risks. They go up significantly past a certain age but the total magnitude of the risk is still low. There is no optimal time frame that assures a healthy kid. Down's syndrome is far from the only genetic or congenital condition with life-long effects.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
That stance to me dovetails nicely into my view on this thread, no one else gets to make the decisions involved in conception and childbirth other than the principals involved. You don't want to have a child in your late 30s because you think the risk is too high? Then don't do it. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to make the other decision.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
So you don't think anyone should ever have a kid? There are always risks. They go up significantly past a certain age but the total magnitude of the risk is still low. There is no optimal time frame that assures a healthy kid. Down's syndrome is far from the only genetic or congenital condition with life-long effects.
Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
[Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
That's a bit much. Simply having a kid after thirty isn't "harming the kid" in the same way that chain-smoking or shooting up crack is. It very slightly increases the risk that your kid might have some sort of disorder maybe, but there are all manner of things that could potentially risk quality of life in minute ways. It's impossible to eliminate every possible risk and it's irrational to try.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
[Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
That's a bit much. Simply having a kid after thirty isn't "harming the kid" in the same way that chain-smoking or shooting up crack is. It very slightly increases the risk that your kid might have some sort of disorder maybe, but there are all manner of things that could potentially risk quality of life in minute ways. It's impossible to eliminate every possible risk and it's irrational to try.
Put it this way:
By having a child later you slightly increase the risk of said child possibly having some sort of disorder but at the same time you will be able to provide your child a higher quality of life due to more life experience, wealth and networking.
Has anyone brought up prenatal screening like amniocentesis? Seems like an awful lot of what people are worried about (chromosomal defects) are caught pretty efficiently, by it. Or is that too close to opening the can of worms known as abortion?
If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
Hrmmm. I have to admit, I consider being alive to be of considerable benefit to me, so I'm not sure I agree with you.
[Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
That's a bit much. Simply having a kid after thirty isn't "harming the kid" in the same way that chain-smoking or shooting up crack is. It very slightly increases the risk that your kid might have some sort of disorder maybe, but there are all manner of things that could potentially risk quality of life in minute ways. It's impossible to eliminate every possible risk and it's irrational to try.
I meant waiting after you hit 30, as in each year after 30 is a problem.
I'll have to disagree with you that it is irrational to try to reduce all risks that can be reduced and eliminate all that can be eliminated.
Has anyone brought up prenatal screening like amniocentesis? Seems like an awful lot of what people are worried about (chromosomal defects) are caught pretty efficiently, by it. Or is that too close to opening the can of worms known as abortion?
If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
Hrmmm. I have to admit, I consider being alive to be of considerable benefit to me, so I'm not sure I agree with you.
Prenatal screening solves the whole "issue" of the potential risks of having a child later on - with the only problem being it possibly being too pricey and socially objected for most older women to utilize.
I'm not even sure pre-natal screening is offered to prospective parents in any country with public health care.
It certainly should but the question is if it'd be too expensive to do so.
If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
You are not harming your child. You are slightly increasing their risk of one particular disorder. You do realize that there are other risk factors and other disorders with different risk profiles? Plus where did you get the age of 30? The risk of down's goes up after age 35, not 30.
Do you really want me to sit here and list out situations where a woman can actually decrease her risk of having a complications during conception, pregnancy and childbirth by waiting until after age 35?
So... is the conclusion of this thread now that it is socially irresponsible for women to have kids before the age of 30 and biologically irresponsible for women to have them after the age of 30? Do you people really think that women should only be allowed to pop out kids on their 30th birthday or something?
People have kids when it is right for them. I disagree with the Cat, I think there are a significant number of people out there that don't realize when fertility starts to decrease and don't know the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth. I think we need to do a better job of educating people on these biological facts and then butt the fuck out of their lives and let them make the decision that is best for them and their life. I don't think we should look down on people for looking at their options and choosing to have kids whether they are 20 or 40 or anywhere in between.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
I'm not even sure pre-natal screening is offered to prospective parents in any country with public health care.
It certainly should but the question is if it'd be too expensive to do so.
I know it is in Ontario for any expecting mother over the age of 35. Other provinces apparently have slightly different standards but it looks like it's an option for those of the appropriate age. I'd expect a doctor's recommendation for specific high-risk patients would also get the procedure done under universal coverage regardless of age.
It'd be shocking for it not to be covered, because to be frank it costs society a lot more money to take care of a child with chromosomal damage than to run a couple tests, even if they're expensive. At some point someone breaks out a calculator and figures out which one costs more at x age. Assuming, again, you live in a place like Canada where there's actually a lot of government support for the developmentally disabled.
I'm not even sure pre-natal screening is offered to prospective parents in any country with public health care.
It certainly should but the question is if it'd be too expensive to do so.
Are you just making stuff up? Because google strongly disagrees with you.
EDIT: And since when is prenatal testing socially objectionable? There are a number of conditions that are easier to treat if diagnosed in utero, and even for those that aren't, there are improved health outcomes when the diagnosis is known ahead of delivery even if the parents have no interest in considering abortion.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
[Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
That's a bit much. Simply having a kid after thirty isn't "harming the kid" in the same way that chain-smoking or shooting up crack is. It very slightly increases the risk that your kid might have some sort of disorder maybe, but there are all manner of things that could potentially risk quality of life in minute ways. It's impossible to eliminate every possible risk and it's irrational to try.
I meant waiting after you hit 30, as in each year after 30 is a problem.
I'll have to disagree with you that it is irrational to try to reduce all risks that can be reduced and eliminate all that can be eliminated.
Except pretty much every decision you can potentially make has probably repercussions for the child. Should people who live in major cities not have kids because of air pollution? Or should they first move to the statistically cleanest city in the nation before they do so? Diet affects prenatal health - should the mother only eat the statistically least problematic foods? Microwave radiation might have an effect - should she not let anyone in the house use the microwave for nine months?
There are serious and obvious risks - smoking, drugs, professional wrestling, trying to have a kid when you're fifty - and then there are minor and inconsequential risks. "Reduce all risks that can be reduced" involves literally questioning every action you ever take. And saying that you are unequivocally "harming your child" by not OCD-ing about those risks is reactionary and retarded.
It's a bit like the way that every single thing you can do has an associated cancer risk - if you obsess over every one, you are irrational.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I meant waiting after you hit 30, as in each year after 30 is a problem.
[citation needed]
[oh who are we kidding, this is such bullshit]
30 is a magic number only because that's the point at which we think women stop being young and start being all over the hill and shit. (Think of the Japanese insult 'Christmas cake' - the concept's the same, we just wait five years longer.)
You have some seriously weird opinions about childbearing. A woman is not "harming her child" if she waits until she is 32 to have the first kid.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
That stance to me dovetails nicely into my view on this thread, no one else gets to make the decisions involved in conception and childbirth other than the principals involved. You don't want to have a child in your late 30s because you think the risk is too high? Then don't do it. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to make the other decision.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
By that logic poor people shouldnt have children, because the child is more likely to suffer than people who aren't poor. I mean to extrapolate your logic anyone who isn't in the 100% optimal position shouldn't have a child.
Also a key wording in your argument is "might." Firstly we can never know the true chance of a child suffering, secondly even if we did, what level of risk would be acceptable to you? And how would you determine that level of risk?
I think this thread should be about the widespread misconception that the age 30 is "advanced maternal age". I don't know why Bagginses, the women in the OP, and other folks are rounding down. *sighs* I mean, it's covered in the actual thread. Even after 35, I wouldn't consider a pregnancy risky until age 40 or so without extenuating family history of disease. Advanced Maternal Age, doesn't mean "you can't maek babby"... it means "let's give you a couple more screening tests just in case".
I thought Jeffe's modpost meant that we should talk about the best choices for having children, not which people are wrong for having children (poor people, old people, womenwomenwomen etc). Hell, some of you, such as Shanadeus, will use the words 'breeders' unironically and think no-one should have children.
But I may have interpreted it in my favour, of course.
Anyway, quite aside from Jeffe's sensible point, what do you do it you're 38 and want a child?
Weigh the potential consequences of your different options and make the decision like any other rational adult?
I mean that you can't choose to have a child at the optimal time. You can only choose whether or not to have a child in your circumstances.
Which is the problem I have with thinking about the 'optimal circumstances' - most people in the world don't get to choose their life, or when they have a chance to have a child.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
That stance to me dovetails nicely into my view on this thread, no one else gets to make the decisions involved in conception and childbirth other than the principals involved. You don't want to have a child in your late 30s because you think the risk is too high? Then don't do it. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to make the other decision.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
So you don't think anyone should ever have a kid? There are always risks. They go up significantly past a certain age but the total magnitude of the risk is still low. There is no optimal time frame that assures a healthy kid. Down's syndrome is far from the only genetic or congenital condition with life-long effects.
If we can count a slightly higher risk of downs syndrome in children from older parents in the negative category can we put having parents who are statistically more likely to make more money, be more mature and be more stable in the positive category for older parents?
If we can count a slightly higher risk of downs syndrome in children from older parents in the negative category can we put having parents who are statistically more likely to make more money, be more mature and be more stable in the positive category for older parents?
That's different, since those factors aren't actually unknown. Parents can't know whether any particular child will have downs syndrome before they conceive it, but they should have a much better grasp on their earning potential and stability, enough to evaluate whether those factors will benefit or harm their potential children.
Posts
So you seem to think that I am wrong in what I posted.
Given that what I posted was, basically, "It can be tougher to have children when you get older," your opinion is apparently "Getting older has no effect on your ability to have children at all and you needn't put any thought into the prospect ahead of time, because deciding to have kids when you're 40 or 50 or, hell, 60 is perfectly viable"?
Stop getting pissy because somebody with a Y-chromosome dares to have an opinion.
My problem is that these factors might have negative impacts on their children. Wanting to have a child despite risks to the health of a possible child seems exceedingly selfish. A child might suffer their whole life due to the negative impacts of their parents having children outside of the optimal time frame.
Cat, I'm a little confused by the hostility in this part of your post. While I agree with you that this thread has a lot of problems, I haven't seen anyone arguing that women should be having children by 30 or should be having children period. It seems to me that the majority of the posters in this thread are arguing that women should have an extraordinary reason to even consider having kids before age 30. While this is rather contrary to the wisdom and social pressures in society at large (and IMO, equally wrong as the more conventional logic) it is still what people have been arguing in this thread.
So you don't think anyone should ever have a kid? There are always risks. They go up significantly past a certain age but the total magnitude of the risk is still low. There is no optimal time frame that assures a healthy kid. Down's syndrome is far from the only genetic or congenital condition with life-long effects.
Where did he say that childbirth had to be risk free He said that raising the risks to the child you plan on taking responsibility for is inherently irresponsible. If you plan on having a child and, for whatever reason, and are delaying after you reach 30, you have to own up to the fact that you are harming your child for your own benefit.
That's a bit much. Simply having a kid after thirty isn't "harming the kid" in the same way that chain-smoking or shooting up crack is. It very slightly increases the risk that your kid might have some sort of disorder maybe, but there are all manner of things that could potentially risk quality of life in minute ways. It's impossible to eliminate every possible risk and it's irrational to try.
Put it this way:
By having a child later you slightly increase the risk of said child possibly having some sort of disorder but at the same time you will be able to provide your child a higher quality of life due to more life experience, wealth and networking.
Hrmmm. I have to admit, I consider being alive to be of considerable benefit to me, so I'm not sure I agree with you.
I meant waiting after you hit 30, as in each year after 30 is a problem.
I'll have to disagree with you that it is irrational to try to reduce all risks that can be reduced and eliminate all that can be eliminated.
Prenatal screening solves the whole "issue" of the potential risks of having a child later on - with the only problem being it possibly being too pricey and socially objected for most older women to utilize.
It certainly should but the question is if it'd be too expensive to do so.
You are not harming your child. You are slightly increasing their risk of one particular disorder. You do realize that there are other risk factors and other disorders with different risk profiles? Plus where did you get the age of 30? The risk of down's goes up after age 35, not 30.
Do you really want me to sit here and list out situations where a woman can actually decrease her risk of having a complications during conception, pregnancy and childbirth by waiting until after age 35?
So... is the conclusion of this thread now that it is socially irresponsible for women to have kids before the age of 30 and biologically irresponsible for women to have them after the age of 30? Do you people really think that women should only be allowed to pop out kids on their 30th birthday or something?
People have kids when it is right for them. I disagree with the Cat, I think there are a significant number of people out there that don't realize when fertility starts to decrease and don't know the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth. I think we need to do a better job of educating people on these biological facts and then butt the fuck out of their lives and let them make the decision that is best for them and their life. I don't think we should look down on people for looking at their options and choosing to have kids whether they are 20 or 40 or anywhere in between.
I know it is in Ontario for any expecting mother over the age of 35. Other provinces apparently have slightly different standards but it looks like it's an option for those of the appropriate age. I'd expect a doctor's recommendation for specific high-risk patients would also get the procedure done under universal coverage regardless of age.
It'd be shocking for it not to be covered, because to be frank it costs society a lot more money to take care of a child with chromosomal damage than to run a couple tests, even if they're expensive. At some point someone breaks out a calculator and figures out which one costs more at x age. Assuming, again, you live in a place like Canada where there's actually a lot of government support for the developmentally disabled.
Are you just making stuff up? Because google strongly disagrees with you.
US (medicaid - NY came up first in google): http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/standards/prenatal_care/
Canada: http://www.ccmg-ccgm.org/policy.html
UK: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Antenatal-screening/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Australia (PDFs under antenatal care): http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/collegestatements.shtml
EDIT: And since when is prenatal testing socially objectionable? There are a number of conditions that are easier to treat if diagnosed in utero, and even for those that aren't, there are improved health outcomes when the diagnosis is known ahead of delivery even if the parents have no interest in considering abortion.
Except pretty much every decision you can potentially make has probably repercussions for the child. Should people who live in major cities not have kids because of air pollution? Or should they first move to the statistically cleanest city in the nation before they do so? Diet affects prenatal health - should the mother only eat the statistically least problematic foods? Microwave radiation might have an effect - should she not let anyone in the house use the microwave for nine months?
There are serious and obvious risks - smoking, drugs, professional wrestling, trying to have a kid when you're fifty - and then there are minor and inconsequential risks. "Reduce all risks that can be reduced" involves literally questioning every action you ever take. And saying that you are unequivocally "harming your child" by not OCD-ing about those risks is reactionary and retarded.
It's a bit like the way that every single thing you can do has an associated cancer risk - if you obsess over every one, you are irrational.
[citation needed]
[oh who are we kidding, this is such bullshit]
30 is a magic number only because that's the point at which we think women stop being young and start being all over the hill and shit. (Think of the Japanese insult 'Christmas cake' - the concept's the same, we just wait five years longer.)
You have some seriously weird opinions about childbearing. A woman is not "harming her child" if she waits until she is 32 to have the first kid.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
By that logic poor people shouldnt have children, because the child is more likely to suffer than people who aren't poor. I mean to extrapolate your logic anyone who isn't in the 100% optimal position shouldn't have a child.
Also a key wording in your argument is "might." Firstly we can never know the true chance of a child suffering, secondly even if we did, what level of risk would be acceptable to you? And how would you determine that level of risk?
But I may have interpreted it in my favour, of course.
Anyway, quite aside from Jeffe's sensible point, what do you do it you're 38 and want a child?
Get in a time machine?
Adopt?
I mean that you can't choose to have a child at the optimal time. You can only choose whether or not to have a child in your circumstances.
Which is the problem I have with thinking about the 'optimal circumstances' - most people in the world don't get to choose their life, or when they have a chance to have a child.
This. A thousand times this.
That's different, since those factors aren't actually unknown. Parents can't know whether any particular child will have downs syndrome before they conceive it, but they should have a much better grasp on their earning potential and stability, enough to evaluate whether those factors will benefit or harm their potential children.