eolh ([info]eolh2005) wrote,
@ 2009-06-12 16:06:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Posted using LJ Talk...
I'd also like to say that if you're trying to have children in your 30s, STOP NOW. It's too late. I know this offends you, but seriously, it's bad all around. You're not young anymore, your body wanted to breed a decade ago. You waited because...? Some excuse. We should have laws in place, or more importantly, breeding inhibiting technology in place to stop people having children when it's not best to do so.

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]liq
2009-06-14 06:38 am UTC (link)
"Bad all around" .. ? There's not much biological difference, & the financial difference is favourable. And some people prefer to bring up their kids independently.

There are some biological implications for people who have kids in their 50s. I think the sperm degrades, but its hard to trace what exact effect that has on the child.

(Reply to this)


[info]noodles_morgyn
2009-06-14 10:49 am UTC (link)
I'm going to wait until I see you in person to argue about this.

(Reply to this)

Good...
[info]eolh2005
2009-06-15 06:07 am UTC (link)
"Egg (oocyte) quality peaks between 16 to 28 years old, women’s reproductive prime. Eggs can still be acceptable from age 29 to 38 (the mid-reproductive years) but their quality diminishes greatly from age 39 to 44." (fertilityauthority.com)

Pity financial stability does not always make good parents.

I cannot imagine having a job where you're not flexible enough to take care of your child in emergencies, or see your child for a hour before they goto bed due your work/commute.

I also have the opinion that society dictates when people have children. We used to do a lot earlier. Why has it become later in life? More and more money is being poured into fertility issues because of people who have financial stability, and then try having children, which seems to be 30+

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Good...
[info]liq
2009-06-15 08:44 am UTC (link)
Your quote says the quality of oocytes "diminishes greatly" in the 40s - not the 30s. It is against your position.

Parents who rely on the other people (taxpayers) to bring up their kids for them are not necessarily examples I'd want to follow. A high proportion of kids born into welfare homes end up in poverty traps for life. If waiting a few more years brings the financial stability someone needs to bring up their kids themselves, independently, then I'm not going to force them into chastity belts for that.

(That's not to say *some* prospective parents shouldn't be in chastity belts).

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Good...
[info]noodles_morgyn
2009-06-17 10:35 am UTC (link)
Nor does egg quality always make good parents.

I don't see what age has to do with flexibility to take care of/see your child. I would say that when you're older you're probably more able to be flexible because you're more likely to have more leave, etc.

People used to have children a lot earlier because THEY HAD NO CHOICE: reliable birth control only began to exist in, what, the 70's?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Good...
[info]noodles_morgyn
2009-06-17 10:38 am UTC (link)
For that matter, I'd say financial stability = MORE flexibility to take care of your child.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…