Biological Clocks!

Latchy

Lurvely wrote: »

Ive got one child already & would love at least 2 more

Im only 22, nearly 23 & my daughters nearly 2. Im engaged to her father, we're in the middle of building a house so everything happened when im still young..i wouldnt change anything, im glad i had her when i did & all...i know most people would rather wait till they are older before having kids but i didnt wanna wait!

Lot to be said for having kids when younger , growing up with them means your still young and full of energy when they are in their teens and twentys .

Peared

What is a reason to have kids then ntlbell, in your esteemed opinion?

WindSock

My kids are going to be my little slave minions. I will have them learn several languages and translate for me when I go travelling. Am I selfish?

Peared

Not at all Windsock. Sure thats compulsory in certain parts of D4. Start teaching your womb now, it'll help when you eventually put something in it. Never too early to get ahead.

ntlbell

WindSock wrote: »

My kids are going to be my little slave minions. I will have them learn several languages and translate for me when I go travelling. Am I selfish?

No, You're very resourceful tho, kudos!

Mine just make me tea and dip my rich tea.

Latchy

My sons a great little cook .He can whip up a great meal with minimum stuff but great imagination

MementoMori

MementoMori wrote: »

main thing this thread did for me was remind me to ring my sisters now - haven't done the ticking clock thing to them in a couple of months - both recently married no kids by either (plus one's got a birthday coming up) - man I'm such a great brother

Is it seriously not cool to slag someone for not having a baby yet.
You don't know whats happening and it could be very hurtful.

Quality

Quality wrote: »

Hey Ladeez

Would you like kids?

If so how many?

What age do you think would be best to have them?

Would it matter if you were single?

no, no, never, no

Mrs_Doyle

bluewolf wrote: »

no, no, never, no

Never ever?

My mam always says, "Never say never".

It might not be in your plans, but if it should happen by accident, would you see it through?

Mrs_Doyle

Mrs_Doyle wrote: »

Never ever?

My mam always says, "Never say never".

It might not be in your plans, but if it should happen by accident, would you see it through?

Never was to the "what would be the best age for you" question =p
And I don't know. My inclination is not.

Peared

Peared wrote: »

Can anybody think of a reason that somebody wouldnt find "selfish" to have kids?

Ensuring the prosperous survival of a society.

It is skewed and unproductive thinking to look at childbearing and childrearing as a selfish act.

Peared

Ah moonbaby, I was expecting you.

Who has children for society? Most people have them cos they want them. Satisfying your own wants can be labelled selfish. Personally I disagree. Its all about the pedantics mister, which is what I was trying to address.

But the important thing here is that you found something else to disagree with me on. All is well with the world.

Loopy

IMO, Ladies wait till your in your thirties... I have 2 girls and absolutely adore them, they are full of love and happiness and mischief and wouldn't change them for the world.. I think it might matter if your single, depends on the type of person u are really. But its hard work so doing it on your own is bloody admirable.

Just a few pointers for those with no kids on how life changes:


1. You will never lie on again!!

2. A spontaneous ride is a thing of the past

3. A shopping spree is comparable to climbing everest (mammy, mammy,
mammy, 60,000 times. Its impossible.

4. Heading to the pub for a quickie after work, and u fall out, off your
trolly at 12. Not possible..

5. A night out costs about €200 euros, babysitters etc



All very negative, I could list 100 positives but my point being, prepare yourselves....:D

Peared

Peared wrote: »

Ah moonbaby, I was expecting you.

But the important thing here is that you found something else to disagree with me on. All is well with the world.

I've been poised here, in full web warrior riot gear for weeks now. Everyready.
Not daring to look away from the monitor, lest the chosen one have an opinion.
But now in my hour of glory, after all my toil, I am staring failure in the face and with it my psychological ruination...the excitement of the showdown has scuppered my hopes of holding it is a moment longer.
So I'm have no choice, I have to appeal to your Peared sense of common good.
Will you wait for me, for just 5 minutes....I promise it will be worth it....

embee

Peared wrote: »

Can anybody think of a reason that somebody wouldnt find "selfish" to have kids?

There isn't a non-selfish reason, IMO. Even when it comes to cases where babies are conceived for their stem cells to be given to an older sibling (see link). Designer babies are all well and good but I'd be very much against the idea of conceiving a child just to use its stem cells to cure an older siblings ailment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=311812

latchyco wrote: »

Lot to be said for having kids when younger , growing up with them means your still young and full of energy when they are in their teens and twentys .

In an ideal world, women would be having children in their 20's, but that just isn't the way of the world these days. My Dad and Mam are both 48 now and their children are 29, 27 and 25. Most of my friends have parents who are considerably older than 48 and this trend of hitting your 50th birthday whilst your children are still in secondary school is only going to increase. Extremes of maternal age are what display the biggest risk factors when it comes to morbidity and mortality rates, so in an ideal world, women under 16 and over 35 wouldn't be having babies at all.

Then again, it isn't an ideal world.

Peared

Moonbaby wrote: »

I've been poised here, in full web warrior riot gear for weeks now. Everyready.
Not daring to look away from the monitor, lest the chosen one have an opinion.
But now in my hour of glory, after all my toil, I am staring failure in the face and with it my psychological ruination...the excitement of the showdown has scuppered my hopes of holding it is a moment longer.
So I'm have no choice, I have to appeal to your Peared sense of common good.
Will you wait for me, for just 5 minutes....I promise it will be worth it....

See now this makes me hold out hope for you.

AngryHippie

Just out of curiosity, How would you ladies feel if the government were to announce a radical new programme to curb Anti-social behavior, sprialling health and welfare costs and population growth, by only paying child benefits for children number 1 and 2, for children born from next calender year on ???
would there be total outrage from Mban na hEireann, or would the possible benefits allow it to be an unpopular but possible step by a govt ?

Its not unprecedented, It was used in Iran in the 90's and the result now is that their standard of education and healthcare are ahead of our own, despite recovering from a pretty severe war, economic sanctions, several earthquake related national disasters, and several radical politcal upheavals in that period .

Gyalist

AngryHippie wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, How would you ladies feel if the government were to announce a radical new programme to curb Anti-social behavior, sprialling health and welfare costs and population growth, by only paying child benefits for children number 1 and 2, for children born from next calender year on ???
would there be total outrage from Mban na hEireann, or would the possible benefits allow it to be an unpopular but possible step by a govt ?

Its not unprecedented, It was used in Iran in the 90's and the result now is that their standard of education and healthcare are ahead of our own, despite recovering from a pretty severe war, economic sanctions, several earthquake related national disasters, and several radical politcal upheavals in that period .

Who will make up the shortfall of workers in the future? With average life expectancy going up there will be a shortage of taxpayers to fund the welfare state. Unless you expect everyone to work until their mid-70s then euthanize them to keep the social security costs down.

Blush_01

*cough* Mná *cough*

I'd imagine that those having babies to get housing would still do so - they'd get their benefits for babies 1 and 2 after all. It might curb the number of new scumbags and pramfaces spawned though. Other than that, most people who have children don't do so with the intention of doing so for the welfare and social benefits they receive as a result - it wouldn't make good business sense.

Then again, we're not independently reaching the replacement rate of 2.1 at the moment, although mass immigration has masked that somewhat at the moment. If Ireland's economic climate takes a turn for the worst, we could find ourselves left with an aging and less diverse society, in which case perhaps child number three could be made eligible for child benefit too.

As long as it doesn't increase the numbers of children living in poverty, it might work. Although this is Ireland, so it'll be poorly implemented.

AngryHippie

Who is gonna provide the longfall of jobs that you are hoping for ?

If your even gonna suggestion the corporate business world, they'll hire temps, have no pension or benefit problems, and will get away with it, Its happening already, There aren't going to be that many eras of massive job creation, All I'm suggesting is that it be considered as a method of cutting costs now, to help ensure that a system still survives for this generation when they wanna enjoy their 60's and 70's, Yes their will be an age imbalance, but the pressure it would relieve from the health, education and social welfare system within 10 years should leave enough of a surplus to tide over the 1980's- present day baby boomers in their retirement.
Yes there are arguements both ways on it, but is it outside the sphere of consideration is all I'm trying to establish, Maybe I should start a poll.

AngryHippie

Blush_01 wrote: »

*cough* Mná *cough*

I stand corrected, My Irish is gone to pot, But it was the nicest way to phrase "yee irish wimmens"

Dudess

Quality wrote: »

Hey Ladeez

Would you like kids?

If so how many?

What age do you think would be best to have them?

Would it matter if you were single?

I'm nearly 30 and definitely do NOT want kids right now. Whether I'll ever want them, I don't know. I think three is a nice number, but if I have kids I'll probably leave it too late for that, so two. I feel 34/35 is a good age to start having kids. Yeah I know fertility is decreased, as well as the health risks for the child, but in my own head it seems like the right time.
Raising kids seems so damn hard that I would definitely have to be in a relationship. If I got pregnant through a one-night stand or meaningless fling, I'd head across the Irish Sea - don't care that I'm far from a little teenager. Thought I was in that situation once and it was absolutely terrifying.

rain on wrote: »

I've never wanted kids but I'm afraid that I'll get all broody in about ten years (I'm 23 now). If I was going to have them I'd like to do it by my mid-thirties seeing as conception and pregnancy are supposed to get pretty difficult after 35. My ma had me when she was 36 and my da was 33 -- he said he'd rather have had kids younger so he'd have more energy to deal with them!

A friend of mine had a kid when she was 16, which usually wouldn't seem like the best plan, but seven years later herself and the father are still together, due to a supportive family she didn't lose out on any education (nearly finished her masters now) and by the time the kid is 20 and theoretically self-sufficient she'll only be 36, sounds like the way to do it to me!

Man, that is one hell of a leap between your first paragraph and your second paragraph!
36 with a 20-year-old? :eek: That's just surreal! That'd be like me having a 13-year-old - holy crap!!

Jackz wrote: »

Ladies do you think that it will have an impact on your ability to communicate with these children when they are teenagers and you are hiting 50?

See that may have been the case in the past but 50 is a LOT younger now than it was 20 years ago. Today's 50-year-olds were only 20 for punk. They're bound to be far more with it than older generations. E.g. Bono is nearly 50.

gidget wrote: »

I would love to have children - just have to find a boyfriend/hubby first . Getting worried now because i'll be 28 this year

Why are you worried? Surely you don't fear spinsterdom looming at the age of 28?! Don't worry. Do yourself a favour and don't buy into that sh1te inflicted on women (usually by women) about being "left on the shelf" in your 30s etc. It's sexist, ageist bollocks. Sure, it might be harder to meet people in your 30s than it was when you were in your 20s (although I don't think that would apply until you're well into your 30s) but that doesn't mean you have no chance of finding love, nor does it mean you're less deserving of it.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

My clock is making precisely no noise whatsoever, and I'm 31.

As for whether or not you can communicate with your teenagers in your 50s, the prospect doesn't phase me. My mother had me when she was 44 (I was the nice surprise baby ).

Ditto my mate's mom - 44 when the youngest came along. And we never thought of her as being an "old" mum when we were growing up either. She was just a mum.

MementoMori wrote: »

Just some stats from wikipedia for those waiting to turn thirty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Female_fertility_after_30

How come I know of SO many people who've had kids in their 30s and the children have turned out to be fine?

As for having less energy - anyone, no matter what age, is gonna be wrecked from a baby. Certainly leaving it til your 40s would be a tough one, but 30s? Not even near middle age. Although today's 40-somethings are also healthier than their counterparts 20 years ago. Life was harder back in the day. Still though, there are certain aspects to health/ageing that are realities whether we're healthier and living longer today or not. My uncle became a first time dad at 49 seven years ago - two more kids since. His wife is ten years younger so she wasn't exactly a spring chicken either. Now they must be absolutely SHATTERED!! Thankfully all three kids are perfectly healthy. But she had them between 40 and 45 - dodgy, even if the risk paid off. Second half of my 30s would be the absolute latest for me...

rain on

Dudess wrote: »

Man, that is one hell of a leap between your first paragraph and your second paragraph!
36 with a 20-year-old? :eek: That's just surreal! That'd be like me having a 13-year-old - holy crap!!

Not that much of a leap, just taking my da's feelings on younger parenthood being easier to their logical (or not so logical) conclusion.

It is a bit surreal though -- imagine if my mate's kid had a kid in his early twenties, she'd be a grandmother by 40!

tallaght01

I hate the little parasites.

Crumble Froo

Dudess wrote: »

I
Man, that is one hell of a leap between your first paragraph and your second paragraph!
36 with a 20-year-old? :eek: That's just surreal! That'd be like me having a 13-year-old - holy crap!!

:rolleyes: oh give over! age is just a number! once you get past 18, it's all relative!

Peared

Blush_01 wrote: »

*cough* Mná *cough*

I'd imagine that those having babies to get housing would still do so - they'd get their benefits for babies 1 and 2 after all. It might curb the number of new scumbags and pramfaces spawned though. Other than that, most people who have children don't do so with the intention of doing so for the welfare and social benefits they receive as a result - it wouldn't make good business sense.

Then again, we're not independently reaching the replacement rate of 2.1 at the moment, although mass immigration has masked that somewhat at the moment. If Ireland's economic climate takes a turn for the worst, we could find ourselves left with an aging and less diverse society, in which case perhaps child number three could be made eligible for child benefit too.

As long as it doesn't increase the numbers of children living in poverty, it might work. Although this is Ireland, so it'll be poorly implemented.

First off, everybody with children gets child benefit.

Secondly if people i here are going to keep talking about girls having babies to get houses then maybe do a bit of research first. It can take 6 or 7 years to be allocated a local authority house. Or even 8 i the case of a friend of mine.

Thirdly somebody who has a baby without being married is not automatically a scumbag. I assume this tag is not meant for well off women who chose to parent alone, its meant for girls who have made mistakes and in a lot of cases need welfare until they get back on their feet. Like you would if you were laid off and coudnt find work. Or had an accident and coundnt work.

There are always going to people abusing the system but they are male, female, old and young.

Any single mums I know work their asses off and are not happy about being on welfare. Most come off it as soon as possible. This, people, is why it exists. To help out when needed.

There is far too much single mum bashing in this forum. Rarely a mention of the fact that for every single mum theres a dad.

Blush_01

Peared, care to read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote? I believe I might have said

I'd imagine that those having babies to get housing would still do so - they'd get their benefits for babies 1 and 2 after all. It might curb the number of new scumbags and pramfaces spawned though. Other than that, most people who have children don't do so with the intention of doing so for the welfare and social benefits they receive as a result - it wouldn't make good business sense.

Where did I mention that anyone was excluded from child benefit, apart from taking the number of children into consideration based on AngryHippie's suggestion of a cap on the number of children for which benefit can be claimed? As for it taking years to get houses, yes, that's true. But it can also take a matter of weeks, or happen before the birth - do you suggest that doesn't happen? If so, your naivety is sweet, but naivety nonetheless.

Now, the unmarried mother comment. Are you kidding me? Where did I specifically call an unmarried mother a scumbag? Do you think scumbags can't marry and spawn? Does giving them a marriage license make them less scummy? Or are you extending your naivety to the notion that scumbags exist at all? Just because someone is on welfare is no indication that they are a scumbag. However, being on welfare is a career choice is. I sincerely doubt that many unmarried mothers out there would welcome your intimations that they, resorting to welfare because they find themselves in the position of being single and having dependents, are scumbags. How dare YOU put those words in MY mouth?

Your own comments were the only ones that bashed single mothers, in your defense of them. You immediately assumed that the terms pramface or scumbag applied not to those who earn such disparaging titles, but to all single mothers. How dare you attack other posters on the back of your own prejudices? There is no shame in being a single parent who aspires to improve a difficult situation. There is shame in having a child to guarantee a life where you can excuse yourself of contributing to society, regardless of the child's welfare or situation. Until you can distinguish between the two perhaps you need to look at your own opinions before immediately declaring others abhorrent.

Cateym

I'm 27 and a half and just got married No plans on having kids for a couple more years anyway. I told hubbie we can talk babies in Aug 2010 when I turn 30!

I'd like 2-3. My mother dreamt I had twins twice and as twins run in both sides of my family the odds are decent. Though having two babies screaming at the same time is very unappealing!

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

I hate the little parasites.

Good thing you didn't specialise in Gynecology.

John Mason

tallaght01 wrote: »

I hate the little parasites.

LOL and what is you work at again