5 ms·

I think this piece of writing is quite worrisome. I feel like the message of the text is: It’s the right time when you feel like it is. Certainly, true for ma

by mo_42 3y ago

I think this piece of writing is quite worrisome. I feel like the message of the text is: It’s the right time when you feel like it is. Certainly, true for many things in life. Having children later in life has risks for mother and child. It sounds more like a rationalization because the current situation is not in favor for having children. But I cannot accept this feel-good writing and leaving out the real issues that need to be fixed like student loans, housing etc.

paxys 3y ago
Having a child when you are not ready for one is a lot worse for the physical and mental health of everyone involved.
- sublinear 3y ago
  I can't agree with this more. Starting a family should not be taken lightly as some kind of whimsical selfish destiny. When people have kids later, it's because they're not ready. Some people are never ready because they are needed more elsewhere. Family will consume all of your free time, money, and effort. It's a big sacrifice.
  - slily 3y ago
    I think a lot of people are simply anxious and have trouble making long-term commitments, and conflate that feeling with this abstract idea of readiness. No one is "ready" to do something for the first time including child-rearing.
aetherson 3y ago
I had my first child when I was 38. Not as part of a well-conceived strategy, just, like, that's how life turned out. My wife was 33. All in all, I'm happy that we did end up having kids, but if I could go back through my life and rearrange things in some godlike way that let me still marry the same person and have the same children, I'd definitely have kids earlier. I feel like it's hard in my 40s to have the same energy that I did 10 years ago, and raising kids is definitely something you have to pour energy into. Also, my mother died a year and a half ago, in her mid-70s, and I really feel like both she and my kids would have benefited from having longer together. My father is 80 now and while he remains healthy, it seems very unlikely that he'll actually see his grandchildren grow up. My father-in-law died when his first grandchild was an infant. I think it'd also be nice to have my late 40s as a time when I could really heavily concentrate on my career because my kids were old enough to handle a lot of the small day-to-day things by themselves, since this feels like probably my prime earning time. None of this is stuff that makes me say, "I screwed up, I should have made any sacrifice to have it different." Overall, life is great. But if you're 28 and you're thinking, "I could go either way -- wait a decade to have kids or have them now," I'd personally recommend "have them now."
- georgeecollins 3y ago
  And it is worth pointing out that it may be safer to have a kid at 33 today then it was at 26 fifty years ago. People were smoking, the air was dirtier, a lot of medical imaging was rarer, etc.
  - mo_42 3y ago
    There is certainly an age-dependent point of maximum utility for the family. It consists not only of physical health but also economic stability and other factors. 33 seems totally fine. But generally people tend to be a little more cautious for pregnancies after 35 (mothers's age).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Having kids later in life keeps the total population smaller while still allowing the same number of people to exist spread out over time. This has a theoretical positive effect of reducing crowding. Would you rather your children have the opportunity to live in a house, or be permanent apartment/condo dwellers?
  - bitcurious 3y ago
    I guess it’s highly regional, but for the US as a whole at least hasn’t had a population decline in ever. Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. I think a more practical bit of advice, if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. This is a collective action problem. Everyone benefits in terms of room with a smaller population. But yes, the individual benefits by defecting from the collective action. > if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in. Not raise in, live in. It would be economically convenient to pass your house down to one of your children at the point when you are downsizing for retirement and they are wanting to begin a family.
soligern 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mi_lk 3y ago
> Having children later in life has risks for mother and child. Say more?
- auntienomen 3y ago
  Well known higher rates of illness, death, genetic abnormalities, you name it. Only benefit to waiting is you have more cash.
- mo_42 3y ago
  I'm not a medical professional but webmd.com seems like a ok source for the general public: https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35 https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35
x3874 3y ago
Nobody forces you to spend 200k on a student loan, and people which nonestly and dutyfully paid back theirs -or never applied for one!- shouldn't pay off yours. I am pretty sure even in the US there are many well-earning people that didn't went to college. It is just that it is seen as a must b/c marketing something works with most people. One top-important thing in life you need are connections, solves many things.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > there are many well-earning people that didn't went to college and there are many more of those who have much weaker access to opportunities because of no college degree.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by mo_42 3y ago

paxys 3y ago

Having a child when you are not ready for one is a lot worse for the physical and mental health of everyone involved.

sublinear 3y ago
I can't agree with this more. Starting a family should not be taken lightly as some kind of whimsical selfish destiny. When people have kids later, it's because they're not ready. Some people are never ready because they are needed more elsewhere. Family will consume all of your free time, money, and effort. It's a big sacrifice.
- slily 3y ago
  I think a lot of people are simply anxious and have trouble making long-term commitments, and conflate that feeling with this abstract idea of readiness. No one is "ready" to do something for the first time including child-rearing.

aetherson 3y ago

I had my first child when I was 38. Not as part of a well-conceived strategy, just, like, that's how life turned out. My wife was 33. All in all, I'm happy that we did end up having kids, but if I could go back through my life and rearrange things in some godlike way that let me still marry the same person and have the same children, I'd definitely have kids earlier. I feel like it's hard in my 40s to have the same energy that I did 10 years ago, and raising kids is definitely something you have to pour energy into. Also, my mother died a year and a half ago, in her mid-70s, and I really feel like both she and my kids would have benefited from having longer together. My father is 80 now and while he remains healthy, it seems very unlikely that he'll actually see his grandchildren grow up. My father-in-law died when his first grandchild was an infant. I think it'd also be nice to have my late 40s as a time when I could really heavily concentrate on my career because my kids were old enough to handle a lot of the small day-to-day things by themselves, since this feels like probably my prime earning time. None of this is stuff that makes me say, "I screwed up, I should have made any sacrifice to have it different." Overall, life is great. But if you're 28 and you're thinking, "I could go either way -- wait a decade to have kids or have them now," I'd personally recommend "have them now."

georgeecollins 3y ago
And it is worth pointing out that it may be safer to have a kid at 33 today then it was at 26 fifty years ago. People were smoking, the air was dirtier, a lot of medical imaging was rarer, etc.
- mo_42 3y ago
  There is certainly an age-dependent point of maximum utility for the family. It consists not only of physical health but also economic stability and other factors. 33 seems totally fine. But generally people tend to be a little more cautious for pregnancies after 35 (mothers's age).
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Having kids later in life keeps the total population smaller while still allowing the same number of people to exist spread out over time. This has a theoretical positive effect of reducing crowding. Would you rather your children have the opportunity to live in a house, or be permanent apartment/condo dwellers?
- bitcurious 3y ago
  I guess it’s highly regional, but for the US as a whole at least hasn’t had a population decline in ever. Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. I think a more practical bit of advice, if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. This is a collective action problem. Everyone benefits in terms of room with a smaller population. But yes, the individual benefits by defecting from the collective action. > if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in. Not raise in, live in. It would be economically convenient to pass your house down to one of your children at the point when you are downsizing for retirement and they are wanting to begin a family.

soligern 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mi_lk 3y ago

> Having children later in life has risks for mother and child. Say more?

auntienomen 3y ago
Well known higher rates of illness, death, genetic abnormalities, you name it. Only benefit to waiting is you have more cash.
mo_42 3y ago
I'm not a medical professional but webmd.com seems like a ok source for the general public: https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35 https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35

x3874 3y ago

Nobody forces you to spend 200k on a student loan, and people which nonestly and dutyfully paid back theirs -or never applied for one!- shouldn't pay off yours. I am pretty sure even in the US there are many well-earning people that didn't went to college. It is just that it is seen as a must b/c marketing something works with most people. One top-important thing in life you need are connections, solves many things.

riku_iki 3y ago
> there are many well-earning people that didn't went to college and there are many more of those who have much weaker access to opportunities because of no college degree.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]