StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just a simple question for people here, some of whom are parents, what is the best age to be when you become parents and why?

Natural or adoption? Obviously, alot depends on the parent, but it is recommended not to have a kid when you are my age. Too late and you get genetic problems and dying before the kid grows up.

I clearly don't have a family, but it wouldn't the answer be "Whenever you have the resources to support a family?" People don't reach a certain age and are just "ready" to have a family, it depends on the circumstances of the person.

I also don't have a family yet, but it seems pretty basic: you start a family when you feel you're ready, and when you have the resources to take care of kids. Having the other person (if you're not adopting) agree they want to is good too!

My wife is slowly ramping up the pressure to have kids ATM. I'm 28 and she's 31. I have to admit that if we are going to do it it should be in the next four years.

It depends on your society to a certain extend. In some families and societies, it is normal for parents to support their children until they have a degree.

If that's the case, it will be wise not to start a family at a older age. The older you get, the harder it is for the kids to earn enough to go to universities.

ray245 wrote:It depends on your society to a certain extend. In some families and societies, it is normal for parents to support their children until they have a degree.

If that's the case, it will be wise not to start a family at a older age. The older you get, the harder it is for the kids to earn enough to go to universities.

That seems to give an estimate of very late twenties to very early forties

I'd say 30 - 35. It's before a woman's fertility starts declining sharply after 35, it gives you with modern life expectancies a solid 45 - 50 years to be involved in your childrens' lives, and it gives you a fair chance to be fully established in you profession(s) and financially, emotionally, mentally stable to the point where having children is a viable proposition. Before 30 you're not yet mature or responsible enough for the most part to properly raise children, and after 35 you start running into very severe fertility issues, so for natural families I'd argue that 30 - 35 is the sweet spot. This also guarantees, as I think reasonable, though you can fully support your children through graduate school easily within a normal working life (i.e., working full time until the age of 70), as in this case even at 35 you'd only be sixty when your last child, say, is 25 after 8 years of collegiate education. I am a firm believer that having children is a commitment to take care of every single expense in their lives until they have a doctorate, if required, but at the same time it's also your obligation to raise them so that they don't take that for granted, they minimize their use of that support, and they maturely recognize their responsibilities under it to become fiscally solvent and responsible enough to then proceed to take care of you.

Yeah, but physiologically, it's best to give birth before 30, isn't it? The risk of diseases, pathologies, birth defects and other unpleasant outcomes is minimal in the 20-25 period and starts rising markedly after that.

Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, but physiologically, it's best to give birth before 30, isn't it? The risk of diseases, pathologies, birth defects and other unpleasant outcomes is minimal in the 20-25 period and starts rising markedly after that.

The risk starts increasing after 27, which is the peak ideal for female fertility, but only skyrockets at age 36 and later, I think women who have children after 36 can have 1.5 times the rate of birth defects and by the time you hit 42 - 44 it reaches three times.

So 30 - 35 is the outer range of the safe zone, which combined with the fact that from an ethical and monetary standpoint you should delay reproduction as long as possible means it's the ideal time to reproduce in.

Yeah, that's more or less true. I looked up Down syndrome but I'm thinking the pattern is similar for most such things.

And the monetary standpoint is important. However, if someone is stable enough both mentally and financially at 25 already, I don't see a reason for her to delay reproduction.

Off to OT.

Ghost Rider wrote:Off to OT.

I am sorry, thought that family planning would be a part of morality....

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, but physiologically, it's best to give birth before 30, isn't it? The risk of diseases, pathologies, birth defects and other unpleasant outcomes is minimal in the 20-25 period and starts rising markedly after that.

The risk starts increasing after 27, which is the peak ideal for female fertility

No, Duchess, peak human female fertility is 20-25, and even starts falling within that period. Arguably, the ideal would be 18-24 from a biological standpoint. Our society, however, tends to keep people socially and mentally immature through the mid-20's (earlier societies were more focused on turning out young adults capable of self-support and raising families, as opposed to churning out MBA's and "financial experts").

I'd argue that if having children is really important to a woman then having them between 20 and 35 is best, the younger the better. However, if an otherwise healthy woman older than 35 wants children and is willing to deal with the increased risk of problems then I wouldn't oppose her going forward with reproduction. There are advantages to being a relatively older mother, but they aren't biological.

To be honest, I think part of the reason for the extended infantilization of our population is the prevalence of late childbirth. Once you get out of university and get a job, you've made a big step up from childhood because you're paying your own bills now. But that's a plateau, not a continuous growth process. In order to take the next growth step, you need to take on more responsibilities.

Parenthood is an example of a huge responsibility, and it forces a certain amount of maturation, at least among those who are decent human beings and who accept that responsibility. Of course, there are always those who reject parental responsibility even when they become parents, but that's true of any kind of responsibility: there are plenty of people who reject the responsibility of paying bills too; they're a large part of the reason the current financial crisis occurred.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I think part of the reason for the extended infantilization of our population is the prevalence of late childbirth. Once you get out of university and get a job, you've made a big step up from childhood because you're paying your own bills now. But that's a plateau, not a continuous growth process. In order to take the next growth step, you need to take on more responsibilities.

Parenthood is an example of a huge responsibility, and it forces a certain amount of maturation, at least among those who are decent human beings and who accept that responsibility. Of course, there are always those who reject parental responsibility even when they become parents, but that's true of any kind of responsibility: there are plenty of people who reject the responsibility of paying bills too; they're a large part of the reason the current financial crisis occurred.

I know. I agree with you in principle, but I don't support people having children early and more people having children because I don't want people who're bad parents having children and we don't know need surplus children, especially ones raised by shitty parents in our brave new world.

Broomstick wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, but physiologically, it's best to give birth before 30, isn't it? The risk of diseases, pathologies, birth defects and other unpleasant outcomes is minimal in the 20-25 period and starts rising markedly after that.

The risk starts increasing after 27, which is the peak ideal for female fertility

No, Duchess, peak human female fertility is 20-25, and even starts falling within that period. Arguably, the ideal would be 18-24 from a biological standpoint. Our society, however, tends to keep people socially and mentally immature through the mid-20's (earlier societies were more focused on turning out young adults capable of self-support and raising families, as opposed to churning out MBA's and "financial experts").

I'd argue that if having children is really important to a woman then having them between 20 and 35 is best, the younger the better. However, if an otherwise healthy woman older than 35 wants children and is willing to deal with the increased risk of problems then I wouldn't oppose her going forward with reproduction. There are advantages to being a relatively older mother, but they aren't biological.

Forgive me; I'd mixed up the point at which aging begins--the human peak physical condition, which is at 27--as opposed to peak fertility.

I am really enjoying being a young mom. I have luxury (? it seems that way these days) of being able to stay home with the kids. I also am fortunate to have a husband with a good job and a position of my own, which allows me to work evenings and choose to go full time whenever I am ready.

But our first was unplanned at 22 just months before our marriage date, and we were lucky that it all fell into place since our plans had not originally included having another mouth to feed.

So I would obviously say "when you are ready" but, if asked how I felt personally, I would throw out my experience of loving being a young mom. I feel energized and able to both be a stay at home mom and a working mom once my husband comes home. I also feel my easy pregnancies and births were partially due to my age and health as well.

Our child was unplanned, and we had him early (me = 23, my wife = 19 when he was born, but 20 a little under a month after his birth). I was originally wanting a child later in my life, but, now that I have him, I consider it a good thing to have him now instead of later. Sure, I'm not at the peak of my earning capabilities, but, government helps to shore things up and when he's younger, he's not going to need as much as when he's older. Clothes are much cheaper ($3 for a pair of pants now, as opposed to nearly $30 when he's going to be a teenager, using current prices for comparison), as is food.

Plus, there's the fact that I'll be able to keep up with him a lot better when he's 10 and I'm 33, then if he were 10 and I was 43. And, he'll be in college when I'm 41, hopefully, and any future sibling of his will also hopefully be in college by the time I'm 45, meaning I'll get 20-40+ years of goofing around to do.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Forgive me; I'd mixed up the point at which aging begins--the human peak physical condition, which is at 27--as opposed to peak fertility.

Quite alright - the fact is, the average person today is so much better nourished and more healthy than in the past that most women do have longer reproductive lives than way back when, and many complications and birth/infancy problems have dropped in occurrence. This means that the slight drop in fertility in the late 20's (mainly slightly greater difficulty conceiving and slightly more miscarriages) is hardly notable. Still, I would recommend that for any woman for whom having children is a very important part of her life starting a family before 30 is best if circumstances can be arranged to allow it.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I know. I agree with you in principle, but I don't support people having children early and more people having children because I don't want people who're bad parents having children and we don't know need surplus children, especially ones raised by shitty parents in our brave new world.

Well, let's put it this way: a guy who would make a shitty parent at 25 will probably make a shitty parent at 35. The kinds of personality traits associated with being a bad parent don't magically go away during that period. If anything, they only become reinforced because the childless lifestyle is quite self-centred by nature, and you're not really supposed to live that lifestyle for 15-20 uninterrupted years after becoming an adult. Unless you're doing something else to compensate (eg- those people who do tremendous volunteer work) and grow as a person, that 10 year time lag won't help at all, and might hurt.

Is there something to be said for being young and flexible? We're having a daughter in a few months, and since I guess I'm not done fully maturing, I'll be able to adapt to these conditions more easily than if I had my first child at 35.

Surlethe wrote:Is there something to be said for being young and flexible? We're having a daughter in a few months, and since I guess I'm not done fully maturing, I'll be able to adapt to these conditions more easily than if I had my first child at 35.

I've got to be perfectly honest: in my experience, people that I see having children very late have spent so long pampering themselves that they have trouble stopping. I am quite aware that this is not a scientifically meaningful sample size, but after observing this I worked out the reason why it might happen, and it seems to make sense.

It seems to me that shitty trailer-trash parents neglect their kids to drink, but shitty middle and upper-class parents neglect their kids by using the phrase "I need some me time".

Having a child in your early twenties obviously makes life harder than it might otherwise have been. Emily decided to continue on with her undergrad degree, which I supported by dropping out of my own undergrad(who wants to be a journalist anyway?) and getting a full time night job, leaving myself available for some hours during the day to be caring for the child. The idea was that when she finished, our daughter would be old enough to go into care, she could move on into a career, and I could go back to uni so that I wouldn't be working a dead-shit night job. But then Emily decided to go on to masters, which I conceded as it was only another eighteen months. During that time she fell pregnant again and our son was born before she had finished. Doing masters meant having her own office, so she was taking Ethan in with her, but after three months he was 'too much of a distraction' and I found myself in the position of looking after two children full time by day, and still working five nights a week. In one famous incident, before Ethan was born, I got home from a first night on shift after the weekend(meaning I had already been awake for nearly 24 hours) to be informed that she needed go in to uni and work until 11pm(the time that I start my next shift) because she had a huge backlog. After Ethan was born she finished her masters and decided, without consulting me, and even lambasting me for not being supportive of the idea, to continue on with a PhD.

The end result of all this is that we've both wound up being shitty parents; her because of the workload that she places on herself, and me because I'm too tired all the time to give two children the attention they deserve. I'm sure other people will have solutions or tell me how I might have done it right, but I can tell you now that I had no business being a parent at a young age and despite trying to do the right thing, I've really fallen short. With this in mind I wouldn't recommend parenthood before the late 20's.

It's easier here in Russia where universal higher education finishes at 21/22, so the person is free to pursue a family in the mid-twenties already if he finds a stable job.