<p>I work as a pharmacist in a small town and have the privilege of meeting people from all walks of life, which is quite a contrast from the upper class suburb where I live. Two children by the age of 20 is not at all uncommon there -with two different last names at that! These children are destined to a life of poverty. While I found the article on late in life parenting interesting, I wonder which group is doing the most to “upend American society?”</p>
<p>In Nebraska where my D’s friend attends pharmacy school, she’s one of the few among her new friends who aren’t married. None of her HS friends are married (even tho many have now finished college), but the kids she’s met from Nebraska and nearly are all married in college or sooner and thinking of starting their families (the husbands typically are farmers or not students). She cautions her friends to wait but they don’t see the point. She can’t imagine going to pharmacy school while caring for babies and toddlers.</p>
<p>^sure, but the risks of early, possible unstable parenthood are frequently addressed. Warning about the other end of things is a relatively unusual topic.</p>
<p>ksm, yes, and it is sad that the slice of the population that naturally can produce the healthiest and cared for offspring is not doing it. So we could end up with a bunch of genetically healthy babies born to unfit young parents and destined for life in poverty with its health consequences AND a bunch of kids with genetic birth defects and hidden genetic time bombs born to post-40 parents and well taken care of by their doting parents.</p>
<p>So maybe it evens out? Genetically healthy kids with irresponsible parents push on with their excellent genes and the genetic bombs born by older parents may not blow up with excellent care. Both kids grow up to be contrubuting citizens?</p>
<p>If it evens out, then each family has to do what is right for itself.</p>
<p>Reminds me of the statistic with frequency of left-handers. General percent in the population is (and this is from memory-- ) is about 11%. But if you look at the ends of the spectrum-- the really bright folks and the folks with developmental issues, the percent increases to 22% at both ends of the spectrum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t resist responding. I’m from Nebraska, and while the western part of the state is more agricultural, the eastern part runs from cliche suburban to downright urban. I’ve lived here most of my life and I don’t know any farmers. Maybe their husbands are farmers, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case to marry early here.</p>
<p>In response to TVenee and HImom, I’d say it’s more of a midwestern thing than a ‘farmer’ thing–I’m from Indiana and a large proportion of my HS classmates are married and have children (I’m only 25), whereas most of my college and post-graduate friends from the coastal regions aren’t married or even in long term relationships (in their mid to late 20s), let alone with kids.</p>
<p>No, I was surprised when D’s friend told me that so many of her classmates in pharmacy school were women and married very young, and for some reason many married farmers or men who were working (not students).</p>
<p>Some folks in my mom’s generation also had kids relatively later in life as well, especially when they had larger families. My younger sibs are no healthier (or unhealthier) than the older ones of us–we span 12 years. H’s family is 3 kids–there is 5 years between him and older sis, younger brother is 7 years younger. All appear genetically fine.</p>
<p>Genetic time bombs sound scary. One wonders whether the doting financially able parents who have more resources perhaps get better med treatment and diagnoses for their kids than younger poorer parents.</p>
<p>“Older couple” pushing 40 “****ed” that their IVF resulted in pregnancy of twin boys.</p>
<p>[Babble</a> bloggers: ‘We’re pissed’ to be pregnant with twins - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/health/babble-twins-ivf-multiples/index.html?hpt=hp_c3]Babble”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/health/babble-twins-ivf-multiples/index.html?hpt=hp_c3)</p>
<p>Interesting perspective to say the least.</p>
<p>No, the main point is that it does not “even out”, because statistically either end produces less healthy offspring than the middle. Of course, it is up to the individual couple to make a decision when and if to have a child. I’m just saying that the overall health of the population will inevitably decline as the result if the trend continues. </p>
<p>What age do you think is “too old” for someone to have a child (not surrogating for someone else)? Women can give birth as long as they have a healthy enough uterus and someone else can provide an embrio…</p>
<p>My HS grad class (mid-80’s grad year) runs the gamut…one had his first child at around 25 yo - as far as I know he was first in our class. Another just had a baby last year. I had mine at 28 and 31 and was definitely earlier than most, many of my HS friends have young children now if they have kids at all. In fact many of my friends and family have opted not to have children at all, but if they did it was mostly later.</p>
<p>I am glad my kids got to know their GREAT-grandmother, she babysat my S when he was small while I worked half days. My D remembers her but not nearly as well. Fortunately, all of the grandparents they had when they were born are still around and in their lives, doing cool grandparent things.</p>
<p>I will say deciding to have kids then was an economic hit. I gave up several opportunities over the years to expand my business in order to be their primary caretaker.</p>
<p>Very mixed feeling on this topic–living both ends of it. I have 7 kids/17 year age span. H and I were poor grad students in our 20s when we had our first two. Then several more through our 30s, with the last two at 39.5 and 42. (Also lost 3 more pregnancies between 38-45).
Our oldest is 25 and out of college 3+ years. We share A LOT of history with him and our second child because we moved many times and they are the only ones who remember ALL of the different places we lived. S jokes with us about all the mistakes we made raising him, too.<br>
It was a fun time with our oldest 4–in a two bedroom apartment! When I first got pregnant with #7, I was a little sad thinking she would have “old parents.” I knew I just wouldn’t have the energy to do all the things I’d done with the older ones. Lost some of my idealism, and discipline with age, too. I’m tired. Been mistaken for the grandma of my youngest two several times. I do think younger is better–I encourage my adult kids to have children in their 20s! (And they do have a lot a friends who married right out of college and had kids right away–even if the job situations aren’t the best.) It is easier to finish education before kids, but if you have kids in school, it all works out in the end. (D’s friend, 22, just started med school–and just got pregnant!–She will make it work.) IMO too many people are worried about getting all the material things in perfect order BEFORE having kids. Little kids don’t care if you have a nice house/furniture/vehicle. I would like to have grandchildren before I’m too old to do stuff with them.
H and I are both from big families, but with smaller age spreads. H’s mom was a decade younger than his dad–and she died of a heart attack at 63. Never saw most of her grandchildren. My parents are still living, though old and sick. They were in their 20s when I was born. Never can tell.</p>
<p>My mom had me when she was 37 and my dad was 48 - and I’m the oldest child, currently 21. Five years later, they had my sister when my mom was 42 and my dad was 53. </p>
<p>Both of them are doctors, which is part of the reason for the delayed start. They also didn’t meet until later in life. It’s really a mixed bag - on one hand, our family was always very financially stable, which is nice. On the other hand, it makes me sad to think that my dad will be in his 70s and my sister will still be in high school. It’s hard not to realize that we will likely lose both of them, though especially my dad, earlier than many of our peers.</p>
<p>^^^^I’m in my early 50’s and it seems every couple of weeks we’ve been getting an email notifying us that a friend has lost a parent. </p>
<p>You may be right about yours, so treasure every moment. </p>
<p>I need to call my Dad. He’s such a Teddy Bear, so loving, so wonderful…</p>
<p>I volunteer at funerals lunches at my church and see plenty of 40 and 50 years olds die of cancer, heart attacks, accidents. I don’t think a decision to have children earlier should be based on something as unpredictable as when you might die.</p>
<p>Bunsen, my mom was 41 when I was born, and I had my kids at 28, 30, and 32. so what kind of genetic time bombs would they be, since I apparently am genetically deficient, but I had them early?</p>
<p>I know a couple in their late 40s who are expecting their first child together. They have others from previous relationships between age 8 and 14. They both have very demanding careers and it is likely a young, energetic nanny will do most of the child rearing rather than the stressed-out workaholic parents. Even so, I feel exhausted just imagining all the tiring aspects of parenthood STARTING now, rather than being almost done with it all.</p>
<p>One relative and her H opted to adopt–they were in their 40s. They adoption agency DOES consider age of the parents, what the extended family is like and did a VERY thorough study. She and her H got an older child who was nearly 7 when he met them. He has been with them nearly two years now and seems very happy and well-adjusted. She’s counting herself fortunate that it was such an apparently great match. The boy is smart and very social. They didn’t have to deal with diapers, waking all through the night, and all of that (though actually H & I enjoyed a lot of the early infancy through age 7).</p>
<p>I’m very happy for them and their young son. It has worked well. Adoption is definitely a crap shoot though, you generally don’t know all that much about the genetics of the parties involved, or often too much about the medical history of the child being adopted.</p>
<p>My h’s father was significantly older than is mother (Like about 15 years or so). He outlived her by about 23 or so years, and was generally healthier and more spry than she was.</p>