If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Delaying having a baby 'defies nature'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
.
0
Comments
Women simply can't win. If they have children at any age it seems to upset someone.
Yep. If they're 17, they're irresponsible, if they wait until they're 38, they're selfish. My grandmother was 47 when she had my dad! :eek:
Bully for them if they can find the love of their life, be settled down etc by then. I'd rather wait for the right partner to breed with than the wrong one, and when the time is right for me.
It's upsetting news for some people, but nothing new.
Yeah, you've said what I couldn't articulate. I'm too tired.
The thing is, I wouldn't mind being a youngish mum at all. But I have a degree to finish, the training at least for a year afterwards before I'm fully qualified, then a loan to pay off while trying to establish myself in getting a house etc. Not to mention trying to find the man I'd want to spend the rest of my life with. So realistically, it probably won't happen in my twenties, as much as I'd like it too.
btw a woman over 40 has a FAR larger chance of having a genetically deformed children like downes syndrome compared to an under 35
I love the way that if you have a baby aged 21 or 22 you're "wasting the resources spent on you", but if you wait until 36 you're "defying nature". Good to see that female equality is alive and well.
But like people have said not everyone finds the right person early on.
As long as they don't start demanding free IVF because of it.
This isn't just about women anyway.
Most people conceive with people of a similar age, it is just as much a problem for the man if their partner miscarriages, can't conceive, has ill babies etc
So who is being sexist exactly?
Or is it just dangers relating to pregnancy, not genetics?
what about that 63 year old woman who got IVF and had a baby?
off topic I love that picture they use of the babies legs. They use that in nearly every article about babies ive noticed
It says somewhere that men having babies older also has its risks, more risk of disability etc being the main thing I think.
Also sperm count falls making conception more difficult etc...........
These doctors aren't just having a go (and again I will point out that this is not just about women)
They are pointing out that for their own good women should consider having kids in the before they are 35 else they may find that they can never have them and that will cause a lot of emotional problems as well as stretch resources etc as this trend fuels the massive surge in demand for IVF.............
although I am in a stable relationship with someone I plan to have children with I don't really want to consider it until I'm at least in my thirties, the fact is, very often it takes longer for women to get their careers off the ground, not helped by the very fact that employers think that by employing or promoting a woman of ' a certain age ' all she wants to do is have babies and then they'll have to pay a load of maternity leave.
It is also putting pressure on women who maybe haven't found 'that special someone' by their mid-thirties to feel like some kind of freak or have babies in an unsuitable relationship because they feel it is their 'last chance.'
:banghead:
*puts feminist ideals back into her pocket.*
It is actually factually correct and I find it interesting that there has been an attempt here to turn this into a "feminism" issue. It isn't.
Simply put, if you chose to delay having a child until you are in your mid thirties then you may find yourself disappointed because the risks of not conceiving or carrying to full term are higher. That's all that is being said here.
There is not suggestion that you should have children for the hell of it earlier, just that you should consider the implications of putting your career first.
I mean, heaven forbid that you have enough information for make an informed decision...
I hate to be the one to tell you this girls, but nature is not an equal opportunities employer.
That is as may be, but it really is nothing new. The 'dangers' of having a child later in life have been known for years, before it was mainly just said that you had an increased chance of having chromosomal problems such as those that cause Downs Syndrome. What is really worrying me is the amount of press coverage this has suddenly got, like its a revelation. The fact still is that the majority of mothers of this age, even if they have complicated births, go on to regain their health and the babies grow into healthy children.
As such, I feel it is more important for mothers to have their children at 'the right time' in their own lives ie when they are emotionally and financially ready to give as much to motherhood as they possibly can. The underlying message in this news story seems to have been very critical of women exercisisng personal choice like they are bad mothers before they start.
What is the underlying social message again? sorry too lazy to read your posts
yes, i agree :thumb:
What underlying social message? There isn't one. Except the one which you are putting on it, I suspect that your feminist ideal are getting in your way here, that you aren't able to see the message which is coming out.
There is just a medical message here. Leave children until after you are thirty five and you might not be able to have them.
Not morally. Physically.
Interesting that you use the expression mothers there, because that only happens if there is a successful conception and pregnancy. What this release highlights is that the potential of that happeneing reduce. Not disappear, reduce.
Of course, after birth the majority have "normal" lives. That isn't the point being raised.
I think that you are being a little touchy here.
There is no moral spin here, no suggestion that women who leave it late are in anyway unfit parents. In fact I'd love you to show me a passage which might give you that impression.
I agree that women should be emotionally prepared, that it should be the "right time" for both parents. However, in assessing that "prepared-ness" they should also be aware that time is not on their side and there does come a point when you have to ask yourself exactly what you mean by "prepared" and is it something important enough for you to want to risk not being able to have a child for.
Who's moaning?