The age of 25

[lostnscared]

I don't think there is anything remotely wrong with a woman choosing to have kids when she is younger. Just like there is nothing wrong with a woman building a nest egg for 10 years THEN having children after they've built that nest-egg. I just don't really think you need the latter to have children. Like OG said I would never have a child if I could not afford one. I've always had a goal to have a house, a steady career, and to be married, before having children. All of which I would accomplish before I made the decision to have kids. But it is VERY possible in my situation to have all three of those things before I'm 30 and therefore I see nothing wrong with "not" waiting until I'm 30 to have children.

[Firiel]

I'm not saying one has to be a CEO before having kids, but they should be able to completely support them without relying on outside help, whether parents or worse taxpayers.

 

I think extravagant lifestyles contribute more to needing to wait to have kids than anything else, really. Note that I would NEVER do this, but my mother-in-law got pregnant unexpectedly with my husband's older brother. They raised him for awhile on $500 dollars a month (25 years ago, but still...) with no help from the government. I think that more important than what you make is what you spend. Sure, kids cost plenty, but some of that cost can be absorbed by having a reliable $2,500 used car instead of a $10,000-$20,000 used one and cutting out other such luxuries. You should definitely have enough money before having kids, but it probably doesn't have to be as much as you might think.

[OptomisticGirl]

I think extravagant lifestyles contribute more to needing to wait to have kids than anything else, really. Note that I would NEVER do this, but my mother-in-law got pregnant unexpectedly with my husband's older brother. They raised him for awhile on $500 dollars a month (25 years ago, but still...) with no help from the government. I think that more important than what you make is what you spend. Sure, kids cost plenty, but some of that cost can be absorbed by having a reliable $2,500 used car instead of a $10,000-$20,000 used one and cutting out other such luxuries. You should definitely have enough money before having kids, but it probably doesn't have to be as much as you might think.

 

Exactly. I have never cared for expensive cars or anything like that, I have just always wanted to be a mom. IN turn, my 19 year old sister and her husband are raising my nephew on his Wal Mart salary. Do they have all the wonderful bell and whistles of a brand new nursery and brand new stuff for the baby? No, but that child wants for nothing.

[lostnscared]

I think extravagant lifestyles contribute more to needing to wait to have kids than anything else, really. Note that I would NEVER do this, but my mother-in-law got pregnant unexpectedly with my husband's older brother. They raised him for awhile on $500 dollars a month (25 years ago, but still...) with no help from the government. I think that more important than what you make is what you spend. Sure, kids cost plenty, but some of that cost can be absorbed by having a reliable $2,500 used car instead of a $10,000-$20,000 used one and cutting out other such luxuries. You should definitely have enough money before having kids, but it probably doesn't have to be as much as you might think.

 

I agree. There are plenty of ways to cut corners. Move to an area with a low COA. Buy clothes from hand-me-down stores--for your child. Live on coupons, deals, and go to stores like Aldi's for food. Have used cars, instead of expensive cars. Live in a smaller apartment, or a small house, instead of getting a Mcmansion and an SUV. Be frugal with your money. You can buy strollers, and many other baby furniture "used" at many stores. I could go on and on, but where people mess up is that they spend too much money on trying to have "luxury" items for themselves, and their children. There is nothing wrong with that. But you don't need those things to have children. My parents had 4 kids, and were quite broke. It was hard(and I wouldn't do it their way), but they cut corners a lot with us, and we were fine and didn't even know we were considered "poor" the first 5-10 years of our lives. Over time, my dad became really wealthy, and so it ended up not mattering that he had us young.

Just because you have children doesn't mean life stops, and you can no longer climb up the career ladder, accumulate wealth, and buy a nice house. Those things come in time. And you don't have to sacrifice either to have children, if your smart about it. If there is a "will" there is a way. Part of the issue is that so many people believe that in order to have kids you have to have a Mcmansion, a nice car, a comfy high paying six figure salary, ipods, iphones, designer clothes, money to go on expensive vacations each year, and so on. That wasn't the way my parents raised us. I mean I think it's nice if you value those things. But you don't need to have to have children.

[newwave]

I think extravagant lifestyles contribute more to needing to wait to have kids than anything else, really. Note that I would NEVER do this, but my mother-in-law got pregnant unexpectedly with my husband's older brother. They raised him for awhile on $500 dollars a month (25 years ago, but still...) with no help from the government. I think that more important than what you make is what you spend. Sure, kids cost plenty, but some of that cost can be absorbed by having a reliable $2,500 used car instead of a $10,000-$20,000 used one and cutting out other such luxuries. You should definitely have enough money before having kids, but it probably doesn't have to be as much as you might think.

 

I don't believe in lots of luxuries myself but feel a child deserves a decent standard of living before it's born. Yes people can save but what happens in many cases I've personally seen is the child was born before the parents had a chance to have a decent life. The kid often got things like hand me downs instead of new clothes and used toys. Sounds like no big deal but it's part of a bigger issue. I've seen far too many kids raised by taxpayers instead of the parents. Btw I don't live an extravagant lifestyle and that's something I don't like, but you always need money in cases of emergencies.

 

To those who say I'm attacking younger parents, many of you are attacking older parents and it's the same thing. I've seen so many things here and other sites that contradict things my gynecologist has said about having kids. Many people are under the impression that a 25 year will always have a healthy baby while a 40 year old will not. What many don't know is this isn't true and in fact risks are a case by case thing. Every single woman I know who had a baby after 35 had healthy kids while those who had kids with disabilities were all younger. Coincidence? Perhaps but don't think because you are younger you'll have healthy kids more likely than a 40 year old because you may not.

 

Having said that, no I don't think marrying way too early to have kids is a good idea and I wouldn't think that no matter the age.

[OptomisticGirl]

If someone marries just to have children, yes, it's wrong. But for many couples, such as CS and myself, being able to start our family early is just a perk of being married. It's obviously not the only reason we are getting married. I agree odler women can have healthy children as well but for me, I just don't want to be that old having children. Other women don't mind, I do. It's a personal preference.

[lostnscared]

No one has attacked older parents in here. No one even brought up health risks in this thread. Though it is well documented that the older you are the more risks there are. Just like you know several young people that had kids that had disabilities, in my experience EVERY older woman I know that had kids old, had kids with disabilities, or suffered from post-labor because they were older when they had a baby. People only talk about risks of older parents, because scientifically it has been documented that the chances of having a disabled child increase significantly if we waited to have children at 40 than if we had children at 25. I could easily say that I think your "too" old to have a kid at 40, because of the health risks. But it just is such a personal decision, that it doesn't really matter. I think you should have the same stance toward younger people having babies.

I wouldn't rely on taxpayers money to have children. I wouldn't need it. I'M a taxpayer. You think young people aren't tax payers?????

And why in the world does a child need to have "new clothing" when the child grows all the time? Even if I had the money I wouldn't invest too much on buying my children brand new clothing, when 6 months later they won't be able to fit it. A decent standard of living is: shelter, food, water, clothing on the back, a decent neighborhood, reliable transportation, the ability to have savings/emergency fund, and the child feeling loved, happy, and not wanting for anything. That can all be done without being 30-40, making six figures, and so on.

So you've lost me there.

I think YOU feel attacked, because you want to have children older. There is nothing wrong with that. But how can you, in the same breath, state that there is something wrong with a stable young person wanting to have children young? Why is your case different?

BTW My reasoning for wanting to children young, has little to do with the "myths" of older parents and more to do with my own personal desire(one at which I've always had) to be a younger parent.

[newwave]

I go with my gynecologist about my risks, I certainly wouldn't read articles about it online because she's a trained professional and incidentally she has said more NATURAL (yes this is right) pregnancies ocurring after 40 with healthy women. The word is HEALTHY. An obese 25 year old who has a poor diet, has diabetes, etc has a higher risk than a healthy woman. Btw my doctor has told several women they were high risk and most of these were younger women. The majority of the women who were older are much wealthier and healthier.

 

I didn't say anything about making 6 figures, however there's a difference between making $30,000 and making $100,000. I wouldn't recommend someone making $30,000 having kids unless both are making that. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on clothes for a child because they outgrow them, I was making a point.

 

And yes taxpayers do pay for kids that parents can't afford. Here in Illinois we have medical care for kids and their parents who can't afford to pay for their own medical. Many of these parents make up to $60,000 yet somehow I have to pay for them, while single childless are denied this. So yes anytime I have to pay for kids I will state that I shouldn't have to. The reason I have to support all these kids is because their parents didn't wait to have kids.

[Firiel]

Yeah, I can understand wanting to give your child the best of everything, even material things. That's what my parents did for me. But I think it's more important to give your children the best in things like love and commitment and non-physical things. Now, I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive AT ALL. Plenty of wonderful parents give their children the best things materially and emotionally. Newwave, with your commitment to provide a good life for your kid(s), I'm sure you will be one of those. I know my husband was raised without a lot of "stuff," though, and he turned out well. I think his financial situation growing up taught him to value things more than I was taught to.

 

Also, I hope I don't sound like I was attacking older mothers. I don't believe in any way that there is something wrong with waiting to have kids for awhile. Even though I want to be a younger mother, I am glad to know that I will be waiting awhile longer (to earn money, establish my marriage more, etc.). I kind of have to start having kids younger because I really want a lot of kids. Even if I start at 28, I'm going to be having kids until I'm almost 35.

[OptomisticGirl]

 

I didn't say anything about making 6 figures, however there's a difference between making $30,000 and making $100,000. I wouldn't recommend someone making $30,000 having kids unless both are making that. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on clothes for a child because they outgrow them, I was making a point.

 

.

 

See, I just don't agree with this. I think you can have children on a $30,000 income if you know where to cut corners and what not. My brother-in-law makes about $13,000 a year and although me nephew has a lot of hand me down things, has never wanted for love or anything else. It's all about how you parent.

[newwave]

You're right love is the most important thing. I didn't think you were attacking older mothers at all, but I've seen so many people here and other sites keep talking about risks. To me there's risks in everything in life and pregnancy has a lot of risks no matter the age. I've known several women who almost died during birth and to me is kind of scary. I won't even consider children until I get a complete checkup.

[newwave]

See, I just don't agree with this. I think you can have children on a $30,000 income if you know where to cut corners and what not. My brother-in-law makes about $13,000 a year and although me nephew has a lot of hand me down things, has never wanted for love or anything else. It's all about how you parent.

 

He certainly couldn't support a child on that here nor could he on $30,000. He'd either need assistance from someone else or worse yet taxpayers.

[OptomisticGirl]

He certainly couldn't support a child on that here nor could he on $30,000. He'd either need assistance from someone else or worse yet taxpayers.

 

I agree if you live in a expensive area you couldn't do it on certain amount. I guess the south (or the none cities int he south) are less expensive. I wasn't attacking older mothers either. My ex's mom was 45 when she had him and he was healthy and i believe they can, I just know for me personally we want 4 kids and neither of us want to be over 40 when we finish. I have always wanted to be a young mom, not because of the 'risks' I can have later in life that some women do but just because it's what I have always wanted.

[DN]

Having followed OptomisticGirl and civilservant's story on here I think they are two sensible and well-grounded people who have made a decision that they feel is best for them. Only time will tell if they have made the right decision but I think that they are in the best position to know what they want and how they feel. If it succeeds more power to them, if it fails then it won't be the first relationship to fail whether the people involved have known each other well or not. Personally, I wish them the absolute best of luck, am glad they have found each other and I don't blame them for resenting negativity even if it is well meant. Once adults have made a decision like this then the polite thing thing to do is to congratulate them and wish them well and not make them feel bad.

 

This is not to say that any posts have transgressed ENA rules - but I don't think that some have been particularly helpful to the couple involved.

[lostnscared]

Trained professionals are the ones that do these studies and DOCUMENT them. You think they just came up with that information out of their A**. I'm sure your GYNO is correct in some ways, but just as you don't believe in those studies, I could care less what your gyno has to say about it, since MY gyno has said something different.

A 25 year old can be just as healthy as a 40 year old. If you compared a healthy 25 year old to a healthy 40 year old, the 25 year old has LESS of chance of having a child with disabilities, or having a hard time conceiving. You can scream to your blue in the face about what you believe and your experiences, but there is much documented EVIDENCE and PROOF that a 40 year old faces more risks. I feel as though because you are in that bracket, you are getting offended and are trying to make it seem that you at 40 are more equipped to have a child, and that you don't face risks. That is baffling to me.

Anyway, all I will say is that obviously if one is healthy, and wealthy, than of course they have more probability of having a healthy child. But that can go really for any age(bearing the mother is not at an age where she isn't fertile).

No one here said anything about having kids when they were broke. I make more than 30k, as does my bf. And neither of us would have children if we couldn't afford to. I live in Illinois. Chicago to be exact. So I know what you mean. However just because a young person has a child does not mean that they are getting gov't assistance.There is a clear difference between a 16-18 year old popping out a baby, and a MARRIED, STABLE 23-30 year old popping out a baby. The latter typically doesn't depend on government assistance for her child. Because she is stable and married. The former probably does because she is unmarried and poor. And financial assistance is typically for the CHILD, because the child should not have to suffer because the mother doesn't make much.

Why do you think that young parents can't afford kids? I'm just not getting why you believe the two are associated with one another. We are all(within this thread) talking about having children, once we are married, and stable. The difference is that rather than waiting until we are 30, we are choosing to have children before than. But as Firiel pointed out. Though I'll start having kids in my mid-late twenties, I probably will have kids through the age of 35 or 36. Because I do plan on having(if everything goes well) at least 4 to 5 children. And I plan on spacing it out. That would take a decade if not more of having babies, LOL. I just would prefer not to "start" at 40 and be limited to one or two children. Nor do I want to be that old when I start having kids, for personal reasons.

[tinkerbellkj]

You're right love is the most important thing. I didn't think you were attacking older mothers at all, but I've seen so many people here and other sites keep talking about risks. To me there's risks in everything in life and pregnancy has a lot of risks no matter the age. I've known several women who almost died during birth and to me is kind of scary. I won't even consider children until I get a complete checkup.

 

I will agree with you there. I am 26 and pregnant for the first time, and honestly, it is the scariest thing I have EVER experienced. I am healthy and have shown no signs of problems in my pregnancy, but no one is immune to it. I get nervous every time I go to the doctors office, because I am well aware of this. MANY women miscarry early on and it has NOTHING to do with anything other than chromosomal abnormalities. Regardless of age, bad things can happen when you are pregnant. Your risk for Downs Syndrome DOES go up with age, but it also goes up even if you are 21 and it's hereditary, or if the skin on the back of the babies head is bigger than 3mm.

 

I want to provide a good life for my child, and honestly, finances ARE important for that. My husband always said he would never even married me if he did not feel like he was financially secure enough to care for a family. I don't think you need to give your kids everything (I think we've ALL seen THAT back fire!) but it is important to have a solid base for your own feet before adding little feet to that mix. Sometimes people are able to do that at a younger age, sometimes they are not. I can tell you right now that if I was on my own, without my husbands support (emotionally and financially) I would be in a world of trouble.

[OptomisticGirl]

Younger people can have just as much touble. My best friend had my niece when she was 20 and she was diagnosed with preclampsia and went into labor a month early. My 19 year old sister's placenta started tearing when she was 7 months pregnant and they had to take my nephew via emergency c section. It's a dangerous situation for any woman of any age.

[truegrit]

There's an old saying that a pregnant woman has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel........course years ago it was a lot more dangerous than now with the good prenatal care etc. I was always very lucky to have no pg problems. When I lived way up in the middle of no where I actually never saw a doctor with my 3rd child until I went into labor, not a good idea but worked for me.

 

Just for the records I had my first child at 20 and my 4th at 32 and believe me I had a lot more energy at 20.

 

Also pooh pooh on statistics it is different for everyone. My 2 sister in laws were married at 16 and the other 17 and they have both had their 50th wedding anniversaries. It all depends on the folks involved and a whole bunch of other things including maybe a bit of luck no matter what age you are.

 

I have only GOOD WISHES for these two in question and pooh pooh on the LDR and other factors THEY know what is between them and their reasons are their own. My bet is on a wonderful life together for them..........

[Sparkly Eyes]

This thread is getting a little ridiculous. I actually agree with most of the stuff newwave said. Obviously it's not my place to judge anyone who has kids young or old nor do I care to be honest. But saying that oh we just try to cut on costs but make tons of babies is a bit unrealistic or selfish imo. I'm not sure what kind of life quality you think your children deserve...but I've seen many parents who were struggling financially and that affected their children not only in a financial sense but also affected their mental health. Yes, when parents struggle hard to make money, they don't have enough time or energy to take care of their children's emotional/mental needs.

 

Also, having 4 kids in this day and age is a huge deal. Have you guys all grown up in successful big families or what?! How many young mothers do you know with lots of kids that are actually truly happy about it? I know none so I'm kinda curious.

 

Anyways, at the end of the day, you don't have to justify your choices for anyone. Just realize whatever you do, your children will be the ones who will get directly affected. Don't make decisions based on "I've always wanted to be a young mom or have 5 kids!" but rather think that "I want to have children at this point because of this and that reason and I'm sure it's in the best interest of my child and that I can give her the best quality of life this way".

[OptomisticGirl]

My grandmother was the youngest of 13 kids, my father the youngest of 8. I see no harm in having a large family as long as you can financially and emotionally support them fully. Most women I know don't have the motherhood drive that I have, so unless they have that then no, they aren't going to be happy. Obviously people don't just pop out kids because they want to, if we were not able to support our children we would never think of having them until we could, even with our desire to have children.

[Circe]

You know, whatever statistics say about age and knowing each other - the important thing is having a good man and being compatible. Everything else really can work itself out if the two people are both loving, caring, compassionate, conscientious individuals.

 

Even when there is dramatic personality change.. I don't think its the type that causes a caring and compassionate person to become less so I have to say, I admire the certainty and conviction you guys feel. I didn't have that level of certainty or conviction when I got married - I was scared. I had to learn that my fear was misplaced. If I'd had your confidence to begin with I might not have passed out the morning of the wedding!!! (nearly splitting my head open)

[Circe]

As for giving your child the best of everything - I know anecdotes don't have much evidential weight, but I just want to put my hand up and say, when I was a kid my parents were really poor (new immigrants, really struggling) - and I was a very, very happy, very well looked after, very indulged and very much loved child. And I have so many fond memories looking back on my childhood.

[SayWhen]

The truth in terms of having children young usually is that physically you are less strained, but financially you are spread very thin...of course, this varies from case to case. I have worked with children for six years, of all ages, in all different environments. Financial security of the parents makes a huge difference in child-rearing from what I have seen. Yes, love and nurturing is the most important factor (I especially know this from working in the inner-city where children do not get any support from their families), but money plays a huge role. I also firmly believe that anyone who is planning to try for a baby should spend real time with one first. The best birth control for me was nannying two children under two. It was the hardest job I ever had...and that was not even near the difficulty of parenting. I know a lot of my friends who think they want to have kids because they want a loving family and a little one to "enjoy" but it doesn't work like that in reality. I think there are plenty of wonderful mothers and fathers out there who should have children...but it is a huge decision, IMO even more important than marriage, which should be given much thought and not just seen as "the next step.". My FH and I are not going to TTC until at least five years from now. We still want to travel the world and enjoy each other before turning our focus to a newborn...and then raising and supporting that baby for life. I doubt I'd want more than one in this day and age because of all that's going on. As with marriage, it's a very personal and important decision.

[lostnscared]

I didn't think New Wave was wrong, but I think the idea that just because a person is young they'll struggle is just as silly as you believe this thread has gotten. A majority of us who have stated that we would want to be younger mothers have stated that we would NOT have children until we were married, financially stable, and secure. None of us said that we were planning on having children broke, poor, and young. Thus it was insulting for her to imply that in our twenties, having children, means we'll be welfare parents or irresponsible parents. There is a CLEAR difference from a couple that is NOT stable, and CANNOT Afford a child having a child and therefore becoming a taxpayers burden, and those of us who would NEVER make such a decision and plan to be financially stable before having children. That is where I disagreed with her. Whereas she believes that being 40 means one is stable and can have a child, I do not. No offense to New Wave, but she is 40 and unemployed--clearly if she had a child at this point would she not be a burden to taxpayers? And yet she is of "age" (according to her). There just are too many factors at bay to state that having a child young BUT stable is irresponsible and isn't giving the child what he/she needs.

 

As for struggling financially, my parents DID. I did not have "mental affects" and we had a very HAPPY childhood. We wore handmedowns, we had used furniture, and my parents didn't have a Mcmansion, or a luxury car. I was not scarred emotionally. My parents did the best they could at the time, and we all were loved. Of course that view is idealistic and I would never intentionally put myself in such a situation. But the idea(of what New Wave has suggested) that one must be at a certain "level" of success to have a child is not something I agree with. As I said, you can have a child, and cut corners financially. That does not mean poverty. That does not mean that the child won't eat, won't be able to do the things he/she loves, or that the child will go to school broken down. It just means that rather than indulging and some of the luxuries that many people BELIEVE a child should have(rather than need) you focus on the basics, and cut corners on the "extra's".

It isn't unrealistic, because in my family that is what EVERYONE did.

And yes I came from a family of 4 and we all were happy, up until recently(within the last 5-7 years), and it had nothing to do with the amount of kids my parents had. But more to do with their broken marriage, and other personal issues they HAD. My boyfriend came from a family of 8. He had a very happy childhood. My best friend came from a family of 6, she had a happy childhood. Need I go on?

I come from a big family, so YES that is what I prefer. Actually I never really divulged what my personal reasons were for wanting to have children younger. I DID, state that I wanted to always be a young mom, but I also stated that I want to be one for personal reasons. And yes a lot of that has to do with what the "latter" of which you've said.

Honestly I believe Newwave disagrees because she is 40 and wants to have a child--and knows that she probably waited longer than what she wanted to. And you have already stated on other threads that you have no desire to have kids young. Clearly you two can't understand, or see what me and other posters are talking about since NEITHER of you have the same school of thought regarding "young parents". That's fine, but to call it "silly" is just as insulting as Newwave implying that being a parent at 40 is not risky.

[Sparkly Eyes]

As for giving your child the best of everything - I know anecdotes don't have much evidential weight, but I just want to put my hand up and say, when I was a kid my parents were really poor (new immigrants, really struggling) - and I was a very, very happy, very well looked after, very indulged and very much loved child. And I have so many fond memories looking back on my childhood.

 

Well, that's great. But it doesn't work out like this for everybody. Having children when poor is not something that should be advertised IMO.

 

My grandmother was the youngest of 13 kids, my father the youngest of 8. I see no harm in having a large family as long as you can financially and emotionally support them fully. Most women I know don't have the motherhood drive that I have, so unless they have that then no, they aren't going to be happy. Obviously people don't just pop out kids because they want to, if we were not able to support our children we would never think of having them until we could, even with our desire to have children.

 

Having more children in past generations was pretty common. And I highly doubt the reason was mothers really enjoying having more and more children. And you made my point, I think it's very hard to financially and emotionally support a large family in this day and age, perhaps only if you have so much money that you don't have to worry about that aspect at all.

 

The truth in terms of having children young usually is that physically you are less strained, but financially you are spread very thin...of course, this varies from case to case. I have worked with children for six years, of all ages, in all different environments. Financial security of the parents makes a huge difference in child-rearing from what I have seen. Yes, love and nurturing is the most important factor (I especially know this from working in the inner-city where children do not get any support from their families), but money plays a huge role. I also firmly believe that anyone who is planning to try for a baby should spend real time with one first. The best birth control for me was nannying two children under two. It was the hardest job I ever had...and that was not even near the difficulty of parenting. I know a lot of my friends who think they want to have kids because they want a loving family and a little one to "enjoy" but it doesn't work like that in reality. I think there are plenty of wonderful mothers and fathers out there who should have children...but it is a huge decision, IMO even more important than marriage, which should be given much thought and not just seen as "the next step.". My FH and I are not going to TTC until at least five years from now. We still want to travel the world and enjoy each other before turning our focus to a newborn...and then raising and supporting that baby for life. I doubt I'd want more than one in this day and age because of all that's going on. As with marriage, it's a very personal and important decision.

 

Very good post.