8 ms·

In your 30s, if you are waiting to have kids for various reasons, you really need to stop delaying. Your probability of successfully having kids goes down every

In your 30s, if you are waiting to have kids for various reasons, you really need to stop delaying. Your probability of successfully having kids goes down every year, and by your early 40s your options for medical help if you have infertility stop being available because even those interventions lose effectiveness. If you want kids, just have the kids. You're not going to care that you were being responsible and waiting when you find out waiting means you never get to have them.

hughrr 5y ago
This. I had kids in my early 20s. It’s great because I still have a connection with them even though two are adults. Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird.
- riversflow 5y ago
  > Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. My experience is that kids from older parents are wise beyond their years, and tend to be far more well-adjusted adults.
- cannabis_sam 5y ago
  > Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. They are, in every quantitative and qualitative measure, far more well-adjusted than the poor children, like yours, who had no choice but to grow up with literal children as parents. (Or maybe we shouldn’t generalize like this…?)
  - hughrr 5y ago
    No please do. You’re on the mark there. I was waiting for someone to make this point. The weirdness comes from the social disparity and disconnectedness from peers their own age due to different social attitudes from parents. The generalisation comes from the observation that older parents tend to lead to less progressive attitudes.
    - anemoiac 5y ago
      Are these assumptions based on your personal experience? I ask because mine has been completely different than what you describe.
      - cannabis_sam 5y ago
        Thank you, this was my point in the post they responded to.
    - fouc 5y ago
      I think there could be a couple of confounding factors here: 1) What demographics are these older parents in? Are they basically baby boomers or Gen X having kids late? Milennials are approaching 40 years old, so they could potentially be more chill as first time parents perhaps or not. 2) If both parents are old, then I could see the mother potentially feeling overprotective, feeling like all her eggs are in one basket so to speak. I'd kind of think that an older father would probably be more chill. In 2006 I worked with a software developer that was 50 years old and was equally new to Ruby on Rails and also had his first baby on the way. He was chill and young at heart.
    - cannabis_sam 5y ago
      Well, you’re clearly way of the mark here, since you completely missed my point. The weirdness is in your head, mate. (Although the generalization is your responsibility.) I mean, people like you, i.e. people who become parents at a relatively young age, literally have their brain chemistry altered to protect their offspring, WAY before you have actually experienced life as an adult. I could make grand speculative declarations about your children based on this, but I actually realize it’s meaningless, so I won’t.
      - positr0n 5y ago
        > people like you, i.e. people who become parents at a relatively young age, literally have their brain chemistry altered to protect their offspring, WAY before you have actually experienced life as an adult. Do you have any links or terms to Google to support this? On one hand it sounds reasonable. But on the other hand for the entirety of human history up until the last several decades what you think of as "relatively young" would have been completely normal or even unusally old. So it wouldn't make sense evolutionarily for that to be disadvantageous. Disclaimer: had kids young and I think people that want kids and are emotionally mature enough to handle the challenge with a similarly minded partner should not wait and do it young. What is a definition of "ready for kids" that wouldn't cause 99% of people in the world to never have the opportunity to have kids.
- kashunstva 5y ago
  > Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. By what measure? I was 42 and my wife was 40 when we had our daughter who is now 13 and headed off to full time pre conservatory program in violin next year. Well adjusted, sensitive and empathic, I can’t think of any way in which she’s ‘weird’ Certainly not by any conventional definitions of the word.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    > Well adjusted, sensitive and empathic I'd say that's an unfortunately rare outcome. Perhaps even a "weird" one.
- guenthert 5y ago
  > Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. Yeah, I love you too.
- shetill 5y ago
Xeoncross 5y ago
Yes, I had no idea "advanced maternal age" was only 35
- fatjokes 5y ago
  It's the type of thing only a doctor can say. I mentioned it off-hand to an ex-girlfriend and was called a sexist (not in an angry/confrontational way, but pretty much dismissed equally off-hand).
  - walkhour 5y ago
    > It's the type of thing only a doctor can say. This information is the first result when you Google "fertility by age" [0]. This should be mentioned more often, not to be sexist, but so everyone has the complete information, it's way more cruel to allow people to be deluded until their forties just for them to realize one day they can't have children. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
    - unmole 5y ago
      From the Wikipedia article itself: > While many sources suggest a more dramatic drop at around 35, this is unclear since few studies have been conducted since the nineteenth century. One 2004 study of European women found fertility of the 27–34 and the 35–39 groups had only a four-percent difference.
      - edanm 5y ago
        I don't think it's just fertility that people are talking about. In most cases that I hear this talked about, it's generally around the fact that pregnancies are riskier after 35. From the article: > Women who become pregnant after age 35 are at increased risk for complications that affect the parent and fetus.
  - drnonsense42 5y ago
    Someone who refutes conventional medical knowledge, which was presumably crafted in part by women and is likely regularly scrutinized by a large body of female medical researchers, as sexist without any counter argument, does not sound like someone to take seriously, let alone are they a good partner choice.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Additionally, If you're waiting for the "right time" it'll never happen.
- failingslowly 5y ago
  This is the point I'd stress. There's never a "right time", you'll always wonder if you're doing the right thing, and there'll always be reasons why you should wait a year or two more.
- agent008t 5y ago
  That is not a good reason to have children when it is not the right time. You are gambling with someone else's life. Absolutely do wait until it is the right time, and if it never comes - do not have children.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I don't think you're quite following where I'm coming from and maybe because I didn't provide much detail. "The right time" is usually a moving target, right job, right house, right income, right mindset, right location... you can "just another year" things for a decade... if you wait too long that window won't come and you'll be too old. Having children gets much much harder if you wait until the last minute (in terms of biology). I spent a lot of time wanting things to be perfect, but realized that there's never a perfect time. Other parents and prospective parents I know have said similar things. Having kids is always a gamble, whether you've got a perfect life or not. You do have to decide if you're ready to shoulder the challenge, and don't force it if you're not, but if you're waiting for external factors to be just right you're probably wasting your time. "Do not have children" probably isn't going to resonate with anyone. If someone wants that experience for their life it's going to be hard to dissuade, and who are you to make that decision? Should only the rich have children? only the fit? only the wise?
    - agent008t 5y ago
      And why is this part of life one where selfishness - "I want that experience for my life" - is applauded and encouraged? Especially given that here, the child suffers if you make a mistake. Humans tend to be far more judgmental about selfish desires where mostly just the selfish person suffers if a mistake is made. There are other ways to experience the joys of parenthood, especially given that most parents seem to look for any way they can find to offload such joys for some reason. Offer to look after your nieces and nephews for a time, for example. Run a volunteer daycare. If you are not willing or able to be a good driver, you should not drive. If you are not willing or able to be a good parent, do not have children. Do think about the decision very, very carefully - the stakes are very high. If you don't end up having children - well, at least you didn't end up causing others any harm. But I understand what you are saying - you should also recognize the situation where you are, in fact, ready. It's like being able to choose when to sit an exam - there is always another week you can spend studying, and at some point you have to decide you are ready once you are in fact reasonably prepared.
dartdartdart 5y ago
Waiting is not bad, most child abuse cases come from people who shouldn't have had kids in the first place. The worst case if you wait is that you'll have to adopt kids, which is arguably way more humane than introducing another hungry soul into the world.
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  It's not that we have too many mouths to feed, it's that we have too many selfish people in positions of leadership and authority who exploit the masses to line their own pockets. Having 50% less people would reduce the overall hunger numbers, but not the ratio.
  - dartdartdart 5y ago
    Right, best would be if rich people adopt poor kids
    - Xeoncross 5y ago
      or simply stopped stealing the relief aid meant for their village/city/state/country
      - nsonha 5y ago
        Which is a non existent phenomenon. You don't help people by not giving birth, or do nothing in general, you do that by actually donating/adopting etc
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    > Having 50% less people would reduce the overall hunger numbers, but not the ratio. This argument is flawed because of the we're consuming significantly more resources then our planet could provide sustainably. Increasing the quantity of consumers will always be detrimental for as long as resources are finite.
    - 5y ago
shetill 5y ago
that's for women right? Cause I don't see what's stopping me spreading the seed even at 50. My wood going stronger at 30 than it's ever been at 20
- anaisbetts 5y ago
  The older you are, the more likely that you will pass genetic abnormalities to your child. Sperm gene quality (i.e. the genetic version of not having bitflips in memory) deteriorates with age. If you have a choice it's probably better to have a similar timetable as women
- jusssi 5y ago
  If you want to participate in parenting, you'll want to be somewhat fit. You can expect a lot of lifting, carrying, squatting and sitting on floor, stroller pushing, running after etc. Better chance you won't get exhausted by that at your thirties than fifties.
agent008t 5y ago
"If you want kids, just have the kids" sounds very irresponsible - a good way to create a lot of suffering. It is not a decision you can reverse. You should give it a lot more thought than to choosing your career, where/how you live, or to getting a pet. It is shocking that so often it is the opposite, and people 'yolo' into this decision. If anything, you should err on the side of not having children, unless you are very, very sure: 1. You will still want to be spending overwhelming majority of your time on children in 1, 2, 5, 10 years at least and will be enjoying it. 2. You are in a position to be consistently spending enough time and effort and other resources on them. 3. You are very confident you will be able to be a good parent, and that you are bringing new life into a good environment that both you and them will enjoy. You need to be in a very good, stable place both physically and mentally for sure before you even consider it.
- drnonsense42 5y ago
  This is the type of modern wisdom that the person you’re responding to is deliberately contradicting. This modern wisdom is why our birth rate (at least for citizens) is so catastrophically low. Sure, you can’t be a 20yo janitor with a housewife, 3 kids, a home, and new iPhones every 2 years, but plenty of people go for kids before they’re “ready” and make it just fine.
  - agent008t 5y ago
    Why is it 'catastrophically' low? It is not obvious to me that the UK, for example, would not enjoy much higher standards of living if it had half the population. Technology and innovation does not increase the availability of good land and nice housing, but it does massively increase productivity in other areas. I would also argue that plenty of people that go for children who are not ready for it don't make it just fine. More importantly, their children, that didn't ask for any of it, end up suffering because of their mistakes. Plenty of people have psychological issues of various degrees because of poor parenting. 15% of families in the UK are lone parent families! By age 12 a staggering 40% (!) of children are not living with both birth parents! [1] And these figures are almost twice as bad for low-income families. And out of the children that do live with both birth parents, 11-28% of the parents report an unhappy relationship. That is the catastrophe. Humans have this strange blindspot where they tend to be irrational and irresponsible about the decision to procreate. Previous generations did not have much of a choice because of lack of available contraception, lack of knowledge. Our generation has no excuse. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223251/Children_both_parents_income_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
free-malloc 5y ago
This. It might suck financially but perfect is the enemy of possible.

hughrr 5y ago

This. I had kids in my early 20s. It’s great because I still have a connection with them even though two are adults. Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird.

riversflow 5y ago
> Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. My experience is that kids from older parents are wise beyond their years, and tend to be far more well-adjusted adults.
cannabis_sam 5y ago
> Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. They are, in every quantitative and qualitative measure, far more well-adjusted than the poor children, like yours, who had no choice but to grow up with literal children as parents. (Or maybe we shouldn’t generalize like this…?)
- hughrr 5y ago
  No please do. You’re on the mark there. I was waiting for someone to make this point. The weirdness comes from the social disparity and disconnectedness from peers their own age due to different social attitudes from parents. The generalisation comes from the observation that older parents tend to lead to less progressive attitudes.
  - anemoiac 5y ago
    Are these assumptions based on your personal experience? I ask because mine has been completely different than what you describe.
    - cannabis_sam 5y ago
      Thank you, this was my point in the post they responded to.
  - fouc 5y ago
    I think there could be a couple of confounding factors here: 1) What demographics are these older parents in? Are they basically baby boomers or Gen X having kids late? Milennials are approaching 40 years old, so they could potentially be more chill as first time parents perhaps or not. 2) If both parents are old, then I could see the mother potentially feeling overprotective, feeling like all her eggs are in one basket so to speak. I'd kind of think that an older father would probably be more chill. In 2006 I worked with a software developer that was 50 years old and was equally new to Ruby on Rails and also had his first baby on the way. He was chill and young at heart.
  - cannabis_sam 5y ago
    Well, you’re clearly way of the mark here, since you completely missed my point. The weirdness is in your head, mate. (Although the generalization is your responsibility.) I mean, people like you, i.e. people who become parents at a relatively young age, literally have their brain chemistry altered to protect their offspring, WAY before you have actually experienced life as an adult. I could make grand speculative declarations about your children based on this, but I actually realize it’s meaningless, so I won’t.
    - positr0n 5y ago
      > people like you, i.e. people who become parents at a relatively young age, literally have their brain chemistry altered to protect their offspring, WAY before you have actually experienced life as an adult. Do you have any links or terms to Google to support this? On one hand it sounds reasonable. But on the other hand for the entirety of human history up until the last several decades what you think of as "relatively young" would have been completely normal or even unusally old. So it wouldn't make sense evolutionarily for that to be disadvantageous. Disclaimer: had kids young and I think people that want kids and are emotionally mature enough to handle the challenge with a similarly minded partner should not wait and do it young. What is a definition of "ready for kids" that wouldn't cause 99% of people in the world to never have the opportunity to have kids.
kashunstva 5y ago
> Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. By what measure? I was 42 and my wife was 40 when we had our daughter who is now 13 and headed off to full time pre conservatory program in violin next year. Well adjusted, sensitive and empathic, I can’t think of any way in which she’s ‘weird’ Certainly not by any conventional definitions of the word.
- NateEag 5y ago
  > Well adjusted, sensitive and empathic I'd say that's an unfortunately rare outcome. Perhaps even a "weird" one.
guenthert 5y ago
> Kids from much older parents (40+) are also almost completely weird. Yeah, I love you too.
shetill 5y ago

Xeoncross 5y ago

Yes, I had no idea "advanced maternal age" was only 35

fatjokes 5y ago
It's the type of thing only a doctor can say. I mentioned it off-hand to an ex-girlfriend and was called a sexist (not in an angry/confrontational way, but pretty much dismissed equally off-hand).
- walkhour 5y ago
  > It's the type of thing only a doctor can say. This information is the first result when you Google "fertility by age" [0]. This should be mentioned more often, not to be sexist, but so everyone has the complete information, it's way more cruel to allow people to be deluded until their forties just for them to realize one day they can't have children. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
  - unmole 5y ago
    From the Wikipedia article itself: > While many sources suggest a more dramatic drop at around 35, this is unclear since few studies have been conducted since the nineteenth century. One 2004 study of European women found fertility of the 27–34 and the 35–39 groups had only a four-percent difference.
    - edanm 5y ago
      I don't think it's just fertility that people are talking about. In most cases that I hear this talked about, it's generally around the fact that pregnancies are riskier after 35. From the article: > Women who become pregnant after age 35 are at increased risk for complications that affect the parent and fetus.
- drnonsense42 5y ago
  Someone who refutes conventional medical knowledge, which was presumably crafted in part by women and is likely regularly scrutinized by a large body of female medical researchers, as sexist without any counter argument, does not sound like someone to take seriously, let alone are they a good partner choice.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Additionally, If you're waiting for the "right time" it'll never happen.

failingslowly 5y ago
This is the point I'd stress. There's never a "right time", you'll always wonder if you're doing the right thing, and there'll always be reasons why you should wait a year or two more.
agent008t 5y ago
That is not a good reason to have children when it is not the right time. You are gambling with someone else's life. Absolutely do wait until it is the right time, and if it never comes - do not have children.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I don't think you're quite following where I'm coming from and maybe because I didn't provide much detail. "The right time" is usually a moving target, right job, right house, right income, right mindset, right location... you can "just another year" things for a decade... if you wait too long that window won't come and you'll be too old. Having children gets much much harder if you wait until the last minute (in terms of biology). I spent a lot of time wanting things to be perfect, but realized that there's never a perfect time. Other parents and prospective parents I know have said similar things. Having kids is always a gamble, whether you've got a perfect life or not. You do have to decide if you're ready to shoulder the challenge, and don't force it if you're not, but if you're waiting for external factors to be just right you're probably wasting your time. "Do not have children" probably isn't going to resonate with anyone. If someone wants that experience for their life it's going to be hard to dissuade, and who are you to make that decision? Should only the rich have children? only the fit? only the wise?
  - agent008t 5y ago
    And why is this part of life one where selfishness - "I want that experience for my life" - is applauded and encouraged? Especially given that here, the child suffers if you make a mistake. Humans tend to be far more judgmental about selfish desires where mostly just the selfish person suffers if a mistake is made. There are other ways to experience the joys of parenthood, especially given that most parents seem to look for any way they can find to offload such joys for some reason. Offer to look after your nieces and nephews for a time, for example. Run a volunteer daycare. If you are not willing or able to be a good driver, you should not drive. If you are not willing or able to be a good parent, do not have children. Do think about the decision very, very carefully - the stakes are very high. If you don't end up having children - well, at least you didn't end up causing others any harm. But I understand what you are saying - you should also recognize the situation where you are, in fact, ready. It's like being able to choose when to sit an exam - there is always another week you can spend studying, and at some point you have to decide you are ready once you are in fact reasonably prepared.

dartdartdart 5y ago

Waiting is not bad, most child abuse cases come from people who shouldn't have had kids in the first place. The worst case if you wait is that you'll have to adopt kids, which is arguably way more humane than introducing another hungry soul into the world.

Xeoncross 5y ago
It's not that we have too many mouths to feed, it's that we have too many selfish people in positions of leadership and authority who exploit the masses to line their own pockets. Having 50% less people would reduce the overall hunger numbers, but not the ratio.
- dartdartdart 5y ago
  Right, best would be if rich people adopt poor kids
  - Xeoncross 5y ago
    or simply stopped stealing the relief aid meant for their village/city/state/country
    - nsonha 5y ago
      Which is a non existent phenomenon. You don't help people by not giving birth, or do nothing in general, you do that by actually donating/adopting etc
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  > Having 50% less people would reduce the overall hunger numbers, but not the ratio. This argument is flawed because of the we're consuming significantly more resources then our planet could provide sustainably. Increasing the quantity of consumers will always be detrimental for as long as resources are finite.
  - 5y ago

shetill 5y ago

that's for women right? Cause I don't see what's stopping me spreading the seed even at 50. My wood going stronger at 30 than it's ever been at 20

anaisbetts 5y ago
The older you are, the more likely that you will pass genetic abnormalities to your child. Sperm gene quality (i.e. the genetic version of not having bitflips in memory) deteriorates with age. If you have a choice it's probably better to have a similar timetable as women
jusssi 5y ago
If you want to participate in parenting, you'll want to be somewhat fit. You can expect a lot of lifting, carrying, squatting and sitting on floor, stroller pushing, running after etc. Better chance you won't get exhausted by that at your thirties than fifties.

agent008t 5y ago

"If you want kids, just have the kids" sounds very irresponsible - a good way to create a lot of suffering. It is not a decision you can reverse. You should give it a lot more thought than to choosing your career, where/how you live, or to getting a pet. It is shocking that so often it is the opposite, and people 'yolo' into this decision. If anything, you should err on the side of not having children, unless you are very, very sure: 1. You will still want to be spending overwhelming majority of your time on children in 1, 2, 5, 10 years at least and will be enjoying it. 2. You are in a position to be consistently spending enough time and effort and other resources on them. 3. You are very confident you will be able to be a good parent, and that you are bringing new life into a good environment that both you and them will enjoy. You need to be in a very good, stable place both physically and mentally for sure before you even consider it.

drnonsense42 5y ago
This is the type of modern wisdom that the person you’re responding to is deliberately contradicting. This modern wisdom is why our birth rate (at least for citizens) is so catastrophically low. Sure, you can’t be a 20yo janitor with a housewife, 3 kids, a home, and new iPhones every 2 years, but plenty of people go for kids before they’re “ready” and make it just fine.
- agent008t 5y ago
  Why is it 'catastrophically' low? It is not obvious to me that the UK, for example, would not enjoy much higher standards of living if it had half the population. Technology and innovation does not increase the availability of good land and nice housing, but it does massively increase productivity in other areas. I would also argue that plenty of people that go for children who are not ready for it don't make it just fine. More importantly, their children, that didn't ask for any of it, end up suffering because of their mistakes. Plenty of people have psychological issues of various degrees because of poor parenting. 15% of families in the UK are lone parent families! By age 12 a staggering 40% (!) of children are not living with both birth parents! [1] And these figures are almost twice as bad for low-income families. And out of the children that do live with both birth parents, 11-28% of the parents report an unhappy relationship. That is the catastrophe. Humans have this strange blindspot where they tend to be irrational and irresponsible about the decision to procreate. Previous generations did not have much of a choice because of lack of available contraception, lack of knowledge. Our generation has no excuse. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223251/Children_both_parents_income_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

free-malloc 5y ago

This. It might suck financially but perfect is the enemy of possible.