The age of 25

[lostnscared]

Financially you are spread thin, only if you have more than one child(then you can afford) or have a child before you are financially prepared for one. I've already stated on here and other threads, that I would never have a child unless I could afford a house, and other important things that I believe a child should have. Financial security does make a difference, but no one in here has talked about being "poor", or having a child that we can barely afford. We are talking about having a child while stable, and simply not indulging in "luxuries" that a child does not need. Money plays a HUGE role, but it doesn't play a role in the ways at which many people imply it does. A child does not need brand new name brand clothes, an ipod, or their own room in order to be adjusted. And many of us have spent time with children. I have THREE godchildren that I watch frequently, and OG has a nephew that she watches. And of course I understand the reality of parenting, since many of my friends ARE parents. I don't have a "fantasy" of what it is like. That is why I have no intention on having a child until certain things are in order.

But everything else you say I agree.

I've worked with inner city kids as well. Not that it matters at all, but my parents came from the inner city, as did my boyfriends parents, as did some of our family members. I know the reality. And would never have children in that sort of environment.

[lostnscared]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Very good post.

 

No one has stated here that we would have a child poor, lol--I'm actually not even sure why that argument came up, when clearly me, and OG, and Firiel have stated that we would not have a child when we were in dire financial situations.

And actually I know plenty of families in today's generation, that had a lot of children, and they did fine for themselves(and still are). Obviously this boils down to culture. In my culture it is common, and most of those within my culture having larger families are actually pretty content with their choices. Obviously if I didn't think I could afford 4 or 5 children, I wouldn't have 4 or 5 children. If I didn't think I could emotionally support 4 or 5 children, I wouldn't have 4 or 5 children. This is all very much based on what I "want", but is not necessarily what would happen in the future--which is why I stated that I would ideally have 4 or 5 children if everything went as planned.

[Sparkly Eyes]

Being a happy child doesn't mean that they got all the support they needed. My dad was from a dysfunctional family which did affect him and even he had a happy childhood.

 

I think you are just being extremely defensive here. I read some of newwave's posts and didn't get the impression that she was attacking all young moms. Yet I feel like you went on attacking her saying she says those stuff because she is older. And personally like I stated I really don't care at what age people have their children. Just because I don't want kids now or never doesn't mean I disagree with people having kids in their twenties at all. I just think people should treat this as a big decision and don't take it lightly.

[longdist]

I would like to pipe in with a few opinions about the children topic.

1. If we all have 4-5 children as opposed to 2, then in each generation, n, you're increasing the world's population by 2 to the nth power and then you will have the whole world as packed as China.

2. I think NewWave is mainly concerned about taxpayers paying for many of the irresponsible mothers that are out there. Obviously, those posting on this thread probably don't fall under that category (maybe they do), but NewWave is still correct on the fact that taxpayers are paying for many of these mothers who were financially and logically irresponsible. This obviously would get into a political debate (doubtful that anyone will change their opinion), so I'll stop the argument there.

3. I think many poor children with GOOD (I stress good) parents can turn out to be better than children of wealthy families. They may contain a higher sense of appreciation for things in life and generally have a better work ethic. This can happen with wealthy children that aren't spoiled by parents. While this can be true, imo, it is more responsible for a parent to be financially capable of raising a child to cover health insurance, possibly college expenses and all of the things that will set the kid up to live a good life. Unfortunately, there are many selfish parents out there who spend their money on themselves and had the child for their own pleasure while not providing the child the love or financial assistance that he/she may need.

[civilservant]

See this is where the UK and the US differ. To be finacially responsible requires less because (as a taxpayer) all healthcare is free at the point of delivery, and costs for education are met by the student after they have finished and are earning. I simply dont agree with the assumption that because I might be 26 I must be broke and have no idea where Im going in life and that the taxpayer will end up funding my children. Well I'm sorry, but I am a taxpayer also, which means that should my children need a had for something in the future (if for example, I was to loose my job) they can, because I have already paid for that service within my taxes.

 

I really think this thread has run its course, its just the same people banging the same drum over and over again.

[lostnscared]

Being a happy child doesn't mean that they got all the support they needed. My dad was from a dysfunctional family which did affect him and even he had a happy childhood.

 

I think you are just being extremely defensive here. I read some of newwave's posts and didn't get the impression that she was attacking all young moms. Yet I feel like you went on attacking her saying she says those stuff because she is older. And personally like I stated I really don't care at what age people have their children. Just because I don't want kids now or never doesn't mean I disagree with people having kids in their twenties at all. I just think people should treat this as a big decision and don't take it lightly.

 

You can consider my post defensive, but if I was it was because I found your post offensive. It was implying that we all are being "silly" simply because I do believe that you disagree with some of the comments being said by me, OG and others. No one said Newwave was wrong for not wanting a person to have a child they cannot afford. As I said before, we are not talking about having children we cannot afford. So that is why you and her have really lost me. You've also lost me when you started talking about "support". AGAIN, no one is talking about having a child that they can financially afford, support and so on. And for all intent purposes a child CAN still be dysfunctional, not happy, and not get support and be brought up in a "wealthy" family. I don't see a correlation between a middle class income and an upper middle class income and a child not having support. I DO see a correlation between a "poor" child and a "middle class child" but again no one here is talking about having children poor. So therefore it's really "moot" to bring up taxpayers, as well as no "support" as reasons young parents shouldn't have kids or make the decision to have kids because no one has said they were having a child in dire circumstances that would result in us depending on taxpayers or having a child we cannot support.

I was not the only one who felt she attacked young moms--I talked to someone else on here that felt the same way. So we will have to agree to disagree there. Like I said before, and I stand by it, I do feel as though you are in agreement with her because of your own personal opinions on that matter(you say you don't, but the underlining tone in your comments suggest that you do).

If I attacked Newwave at all it's only because I felt as though she was saying things that just didn't apply or weren't true.

And again no one is taking this big decision "lightly". We have all talked about having children when we are financially stable, married, and so on.

[lostnscared]

And I AM a taxpayer so the taxpayer arguments really grow "old" on me. Considering the amount of taxes that I DO pay, I find it a bit amusing that I am told that because I choose to have a children when I'm stable, that I'm a taxpayers burden because I am young. That argument really had no bearing in this thread in the first place. And clearly this thread has been taken off course.

Obviously, there are biases in this thread, so it should probably just be closed.

[longdist]

For everyone that wants the thread closed, just quit adding posts. It will either get back on track or die out. Adding your thoughts on a subject (even if it is your last 2 cents) that is off the main topic won't help end the thread, it just fuels the fire, especially when adding more input on controversial subjects (taxes and the government).

 

As for marriage under the age of 25, it looks like there are arguments going both ways. One is based on statistics and one is based on smart young individuals that have thought things through and may or may not fall into the statistics.

[newwave]

Agreed 100%. I don't care whether one has kids or not, but the whole idea of having large families then "oh we'll cut costs" is kind of scary. I personally am fine having one or two kids (or none at all if that happens) because I'd rather give them a great quality of life than cutting costs. I'm not saying I'd buy nothing but designer clothes and private tuition but things like they need money for a project at school so I can give it to them without borrowing. I've seen people scrimp and save and deny themselves things so the kids can have it. I've seen parents unable to buy new clothes for themselves because they needed to buy school supplies. Plus I'll be a fulltime working mom and I can't imagine working 40hours then come home to many kids. That's just me though. At one time I thought it would be cute to have five kids, but then I thought I'd be a millionaire too.

[Sparkly Eyes]

See, again like I say you are being defensive. My posts were just more of reminders rather than saying you and OG should do this or that or you are not capable. If you have the means for it, by all means go for it. You don't have to tell me YOU are not taking it lightly and perceive every single one of my sentences like it is directed at you or OG. Maybe sit back and read posts with a calmer attitude and you'll see that you might eventually even agree with them!

 

And it's rude for you to tell me why I say the things I do, because trust me, I know better than you what I am talking about. Why would I want others to have children later because just because I want to have them later or perhaps never have them? Sure I wouldn't want having children older to be an stigma but why on earth would I attack having children younger if the parents can support themselves and the kids? What can I gain from it?

 

Also, I NEVER used the word "silly" to describe what you guys want to do. I said this thread has gotten ridiculous because it seemed to me like you were attacking each other instead of just talking in a civil way.

[newwave]

So what if I'm currently unemployed? You are aware the economy is terrible aren't you, or are you so insulated to think that it's all my fault? Just because you got a job doesn't mean it's easy because employers often hire recent grads with the entitlement mentality (as I see in this thread) over more qualified people. I never said anything about having a kid now, just that I would consider it in the next few years. And no I wouldn't have kids until I got a job.

 

I guess because you disagreed with my comments you decided to attack my unemployment status. Once again I CAN'T HELP IT! One job in particular I wanted was given to a snot nosed recent grad, so no wonder 20somethings think they can have everything because mommy and daddy spoiled them and employers prefer their lazy attitude.

[lostnscared]

So what if I'm currently unemployed? You are aware the economy is terrible aren't you, or are you so insulated to think that it's all my fault? Just because you got a job doesn't mean it's easy because employers often hire recent grads with the entitlement mentality (as I see in this thread) over more qualified people. I never said anything about having a kid now, just that I would consider it in the next few years. And no I wouldn't have kids until I got a job.

 

I guess because you disagreed with my comments you decided to attack my unemployment status. Once again I CAN'T HELP IT! One job in particular I wanted was given to a snot nosed recent grad, so no wonder 20somethings think they can have everything because mommy and daddy spoiled them and employers prefer their lazy attitude.

 

I brought it up because you stated that being older means one is wealthy and more healthy. And you implied that younger people cannot afford kids and as though older people can. And yet there are plenty of older people who CAN NOT afford to have children.

Yet there are millions of older women, unemployed, underemployed, or not making much with children. Young parents or old parents--in both cases the key is financial stability. Age in this sense has less to do with taxpayers burdens--that is my point.

[civilservant]

What was a decent topic (personnal attack on me not withstanding) has decended into farce. Newwave all I will say is that that last post sounds very bitter. I dont know who that "entitlement mentality" comment was aimed at but neither that nor the state of the economy was the purpose of this thread. I dont think your employment staus has anything to do with your opinions, but I do find it interesting that you talk about having parents who have money to support their children and then moan about "mummy and daddy spoiling them" when it comes to emplyment prospects.

 

You cant have it both ways.

[lostnscared]

I guess we will just agree to disagree. Some of your comments did directly address me and OG, esp. when you talked about 4 or 5 children amongst other things we said, so if I took your posts too seriously than that is why.

[Sparkly Eyes]

I guess we will just agree to disagree. Some of your comments did directly address me and OG, esp. when you talked about 4 or 5 children amongst other things we said, so if I took your posts too seriously than that is why.

 

Yes but I again said it as a reminder/warning. I don't think saying that having a large family needs a great planning and is hard to achieve is surprising to anyone.And you replied that you'll see what happens and do it gradually which was logical and I didn't object to.

 

Isn't that what ENA is all about? If we all just always act happy and as if none of us can go any wrong with our decisions, what is the point of being on this forum?!

[newwave]

Being a happy child doesn't mean that they got all the support they needed. My dad was from a dysfunctional family which did affect him and even he had a happy childhood.

 

I think you are just being extremely defensive here. I read some of newwave's posts and didn't get the impression that she was attacking all young moms. Yet I feel like you went on attacking her saying she says those stuff because she is older. And personally like I stated I really don't care at what age people have their children. Just because I don't want kids now or never doesn't mean I disagree with people having kids in their twenties at all. I just think people should treat this as a big decision and don't take it lightly.

 

 

Great post and thank you. My intention was never to attack younger women but I often get the feeling they think because I am older I shouldn't consider it, without them knowing my circumstances. They don't realize it wasn't something that was on my mind because I wanted to get my life in control. They also don't know that in my 20's and 30's most of the guys I dated were not father types. I didn't want to have a child with just anyone. I also would have been a terrible mother then. I get so annoyed when they keep bringing up the risks and that feels like a personal attack because they have no way of knowing whether I'd have a healthier kid than they would. Personally before I seriously consider having a child I'll get myself completely checked out and if I have very high risks I won't have one.

 

I would like to pipe in with a few opinions about the children topic.

1. If we all have 4-5 children as opposed to 2, then in each generation, n, you're increasing the world's population by 2 to the nth power and then you will have the whole world as packed as China.

2. I think NewWave is mainly concerned about taxpayers paying for many of the irresponsible mothers that are out there. Obviously, those posting on this thread probably don't fall under that category (maybe they do), but NewWave is still correct on the fact that taxpayers are paying for many of these mothers who were financially and logically irresponsible. This obviously would get into a political debate (doubtful that anyone will change their opinion), so I'll stop the argument there.

3. I think many poor children with GOOD (I stress good) parents can turn out to be better than children of wealthy families. They may contain a higher sense of appreciation for things in life and generally have a better work ethic. This can happen with wealthy children that aren't spoiled by parents. While this can be true, imo, it is more responsible for a parent to be financially capable of raising a child to cover health insurance, possibly college expenses and all of the things that will set the kid up to live a good life. Unfortunately, there are many selfish parents out there who spend their money on themselves and had the child for their own pleasure while not providing the child the love or financial assistance that he/she may need.

 

Agreed. Yes the whole taxpayer supporting kids is the main reason I am concerned with younger women having kids. Here in Illinois we have an underclass of welfare and depending on the area it's a big problem. I've seen many cases of a woman giving up her career to stay at home, leave the marriage (many times this is the only option) then get welfare because they can't find a job. This is why when people completely ignore the financial issues it's scary because it's important to be financially secure before having kids. Even if both parents work, Illinois is expensive and many still have to rely on financial assistance from the state (we have medical for parents, even working parents). Even if one isn't on welfare single people have to pay more when people have large families courtesy of our tax dollars.

[newwave]

I brought it up because you stated that being older means one is wealthy and more healthy. And you implied that younger people cannot afford kids and as though older people can. And yet there are plenty of older people who CAN NOT afford to have children.

Yet there are millions of older women, unemployed, underemployed, or not making much with children. Young parents or old parents--in both cases the key is financial stability. Age in this sense has less to do with taxpayers burdens--that is my point.

 

You brought it up to attack me and you know it. Otherwise it wouldn't even be brought up.

[sweetpea03]

So what if I'm currently unemployed? You are aware the economy is terrible aren't you, or are you so insulated to think that it's all my fault? Just because you got a job doesn't mean it's easy because employers often hire recent grads with the entitlement mentality (as I see in this thread) over more qualified people. I never said anything about having a kid now, just that I would consider it in the next few years. And no I wouldn't have kids until I got a job.

 

I guess because you disagreed with my comments you decided to attack my unemployment status. Once again I CAN'T HELP IT! One job in particular I wanted was given to a snot nosed recent grad, so no wonder 20somethings think they can have everything because mommy and daddy spoiled them and employers prefer their lazy attitude.

 

Not all 20 somethings get a job right out of college. I wouldn't generalize to say all of them are spoiled and have an entitlement feeling. I have a number of friends who just graduated and are unemployed. They are really smart and are hard working, but haven't had any luck. They are just working odd jobs to get by until they can get into a career. I'm 21, still in college, but am unemployed at the moment, too. I was laid off a few months back. I now baby sit a LOT to get by. There are people of all ages who have a feeling of entitlement, there is no one generation who has it. I watch people of all ages act like they should get what ever they want without working for it. I was always taught to "live within your means". I don't spend more than I have and wouldn't consider having a large number of kids because I do want them to have all that they need. Plus I want to be able to give them one on one attention, and it's harder to do with more kids. It can be exhausting with a lot of kids, especially if they are close in age. I watch these 3 kids, who are all under 4 years old and they wipe me out! lol. It's a lot of work. My boyfriend and I said we would have 2 kids and that's it. We are planning to get married in the next couple years and I'll be a young wife and probably a young mother. I'm 21 right now. I know that it can be difficult, but I'm also very realistic. We won't have kids until we know we can afford what is needed. We are both hard working and will get there, but we'll wait until we are ready. We won't rush into it. I think people need to look at things more on a case by case basis. Some young people can really make it work, while others should wait a while. It really depends on who they are.

[lostnscared]

You brought it up to attack me and you know it. Otherwise it wouldn't even be brought up.

 

Again we will agree to disagree. Financial stability is not something that is only attained by older women. That was my point.

[newwave]

You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders. I know there are 20 something who work hard for what they want, but unfortunately I see so many who feel they are entitled to everything because of the way they were raised. I know there are older people who have that attitude too.

[OptomisticGirl]

I say yet again, if you let statistics rule your life, then its not your life. I agree with lostnscared, whether some posters meant for it to be or not, your posts came accross as 'oh, if you want a large family you are expecting help and to be a young mother is silly when you have all the time in the world'.

 

I respect women who want to wait until their 30s to have children, all I ask is for the same respect woman to woman, no matter my age.

[lostnscared]

Yes but I again said it as a reminder/warning. I don't think saying that having a large family needs a great planning and is hard to achieve is surprising to anyone.And you replied that you'll see what happens and do it gradually which was logical and I didn't object to.

Isn't that what ENA is all about? If we all just always act happy and as if none of us can go any wrong with our decisions, what is the point of being on this forum?!

 

I thought that you were saying we were ridiculous--that is really the only reason I was offended by your post. Obviously I misinterpreted what you meant. Sorry.

[DN]

This thread has run its course.