Having a child under 30 - wasting your life.

Eve_Dublin

Sooopie wrote: »

getting right and write mixed up is not a typo

It's a common mistake and one I've made myself in the past when I haven't been thinking.

To be honest, I'd rather read a passage riddled with spelling mistakes than the snobby bile spewed out by the OP for no reason other than the fact that she wants to get on some people's tits for no justifiable reason.

mackg

dis tred hos gun rly budly

Sooopie

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

It's a common mistake and one I've made myself in the past when I haven't been thinking.

To be honest, I'd rather read a passage riddled with spelling mistakes than the snobby bile spewed out by the OP for no reason other than the fact that she wants to get on some people's tits for no justifiable reason.

its getting the 2 words mixed up, not a typo

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

It's a common mistake and one I've made myself in the past when I haven't been thinking.

To be honest, I'd rather read a passage riddled with spelling mistakes than the snobby bile spewed out by the OP for no reason other than the fact that she wants to get on some people's tits for no justifiable reason.

That's just the problem Eve. The fact you don't agree with the original post doesn't change the presence of irony in a subsequent post. You're making an emotional response clouding your judgement.

Eve_Dublin

Sooopie wrote: »

its getting the 2 words mixed up, not a typo

Okay! That's not the point. Getting two words mixed up highlights nothing about maturity levels or one's ability to write.

The OP's post is full of grammatical errors, by the way.

Stupid thread. I've too much time on my hands today, evidently.

Eve_Dublin

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

That's just the problem Eve. The fact you don't agree with the original post doesn't change the presence of irony in a subsequent post. You're making an emotional response clouding your judgement.

Am I?

Who actually gives a ****e.

Kaneda_

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

It's a common mistake and one I've made myself in the past when I haven't been thinking.

To be honest, I'd rather read a passage riddled with spelling mistakes than the snobby bile spewed out by the OP for no reason other than the fact that she wants to get on some people's tits for no justifiable reason.

Just the truth bro,and sometimes the truth hurts.

Sooopie

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Okay! That's not the point. Getting two words mixed up highlights nothing about maturity levels or one's ability to write.

The OP's post is full of grammatical errors, by the way.

Stupid thread. I've too much time on my hands today, evidently.

it was funny all the same, bad time to mix right and write up

stovelid

Personally I think It's better to wait until you're over 30 but It's up to everybody to make their own decisions. There are benefits to having kids in your 20s if you don't mind the social and career drawbacks.

As for welfare babies, being stuck with loads of kids on the dole - with no father around - in a council house in a deprived area is cleanly something so enjoyable people are queuing up to experience it.

Eve_Dublin

Kaneda_ wrote: »

Just the truth bro,and sometimes the truth hurts.

Hurts who? Me? A childless woman in her early 30s? Eh...right.

Mike 1972

IIRC Ireland has one of the highest averages in the world for first time childbearing so going by the premise of this thread we should be the most successful economy/society in the world ?

biko wrote: »

Letting a scumbag put his dick in you without protection is probably the stupidest decision a girl can possibly make.

:eek: as opposed to letting a scumbag put his dick in you with protection ?

goalscoringhero

pragmatic1 wrote: »

It isnt actually. Many people put zero thought into having a child because they're safe in the knowledge that the state will pick up the bill. Major problems down the road.

How many? Quantify.

Not having kids, and in my mid 30's myself, and reflecting that my dad was 41 when I was made, a piece of advice I'd give to my (possible) future children is 'Consider having kids young!' as a lifestyle choice.

Not everybody wants to travel around the world or has ambitions to hang out 1 year in South America, Australia or Asia.

Herb Powell

pragmatic1 wrote: »

It isnt actually. Many people put zero thought into having a child because they're safe in the knowledge that the state will pick up the bill. Major problems down the road.

Well that's very different to "having a child to get money"

suitseir

The King of Moo wrote: »

Aren't all children under 30?

IMO and experience.............NO!

pragmatic1

goalscoringhero wrote: »

How many? Quantify.

Not having kids, and in my mid 30's myself, and reflecting that my dad was 41 when I was made, a piece of advice I'd give to my (possible) future children is 'Consider having kids young!' as a lifestyle choice.

Not everybody wants to travel around the world or has ambitions to hang out 1 year in South America, Australia or Asia.

Thats cool. Have em as young as you want providing you take proper care of them and dont go looking for handouts from the state.

saywhatyousee

biko wrote: »

Letting a scumbag put his dick in you without protection is probably the stupidest decision a girl can possibly make.

Jeez being a bit dramatic.....Most people have had a unprotected one night stand at some stage.And it is much more fun,condoms ruin sex:mad:

ZombieBride

I had two sons by the time I was 20, I have never been on welfare, I have travelled the world extensively, I have a post graduate level education, and I detest pyjamas. Both my sons are teenagers now, neither of them wear tracksuits outside of sporting activities, and they are in chess clubs, acting classes, debating teams, etc..
Sometimes I wonder where I went wrong.

Mike 1972

The King of Moo wrote: »

Aren't all children under 30?

There's some talk of a 29 year old one on another thread at the moment............

goalscoringhero

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Thats cool. Have em as young as you want providing you take proper care of them and dont go looking for handouts from the state.

I believe this is none of your, or anyone's business.

pragmatic1

goalscoringhero wrote: »

I believe this is none of your, or anyone's business.

Well then you'd be wrong. Because if my tax money is going to support your family, then it very much is my business.

westendgirlie

ZombieBride wrote: »

I had two sons by the time I was 20, I have never been on welfare, I have travelled the world extensively, I have a post graduate level education, and I detest pyjamas. Both my sons are teenagers now, neither of them wear tracksuits outside of sporting activities, and they are in chess clubs, acting classes, debating teams, etc..
Sometimes I wonder where I went wrong.

Shame on you ZombieBride. You have singlehandly damaged the reputation of us single mums! The snobbies will not be impressed

MrTsSnickers

Kaneda_ wrote: »

I just tell it like it is,you cant deny the facts,however unpleasant they are.

Do you have statistics to back up these "facts"? I'd like to see that study published in the Irish Journal of Sociology (or The Star, whatever, I'm not fussy).

Headline: WEARING PJS MEANS SOCIAL WELFARE FRAUD!

New study reveals that girls from estates (nothing to do with population density of course) and those who wear PJs to the shops are more likely to commit social welfare fraud, by getting pregnant by accident/on purpose so as to get a free house and cash moneys for the rest of her days....ugh

stovelid

ZombieBride wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder where I went wrong.

Possibly on the snugness emissions front.

CK2010

Kaneda_ wrote: »

You have your school years,then third level education or you enter the job market and try to get yourself in a position to earn a living and forge a decent career for yourself,something that is very important.Having a child at such a young age puts these things on hold.

I had my child at 17. I studied for and sat my leaving cert while i was pregnant, had my child two months later, and then started my (first CAO choice) degree when she was five weeks old. not once did my education get put on hold. I am currently studying several books in preparation for my masters which i will begin once I have the money; so even while i'm not in formal education, my education is still not on hold. I also work as many hours as work will actually give me, while i look for a better job.

Kaneda_ wrote: »

Growing up, its easy to tell which girls will have a child as soon as they get a chance,its usually the girls from the estates,the ones who wear PJs to the shop,the ones who come from single parent familys themselves,the ones who get a name as being easy,if you get what i mean.

I dont wear PJs to the shop.
My parents are happily married.
And i dont have a name for myself AFAIK.

Kaneda_ wrote: »

Travel becomes near impossible or very hard at least,kids suck the life from you.

I've been abroad twice with my child and have travelled within Ireland too with her.

Kaneda_ wrote: »

If you want to move out of home and dont want to pay 150-200 a week on rent,have a child and the the social will give you a house,then proceed to allow the father/bf to live there with you,the entire county is doing this.

I live with her father in a rented house that we pay for ourselves.

ZombieBride

stovelid wrote: »

Possibly on the snugness emissions front.

I would rather be seen as a smug teenage mother than a scumbag one.

stovelid

ZombieBride wrote: »

I would rather be seen as a smug teenage mother

Mission accomplished.

goalscoringhero

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Well then you'd be wrong. Because if my tax money is going to support your family, then it very much is my business.

I don't think you're basing your argument on a solid foundation here by taking the 'it is my tax therefore I'll dictate'(TM) stance.

There are legal entitlements for people, regardless whether you, the taxpayer or anyone else does agree. Looking further ahead, should you not be happy about the future tax intake by newly created prospective future taxpayers when you have retired and come looking for your state pension?

WonderWoman!

Kaneda_ wrote: »

Ok ok ,maybe 28 would be the minimum,30-33 being a perfect age.

All these single mothers at 18-19 ,the majority of them didnt mean to get pregnant.

You have your school years,then third level education or you enter the job market and try to get yourself in a position to earn a living and forge a decent career for yourself,something that is very important.Having a child at such a young age puts these things on hold.

Growing up, its easy to tell which girls will have a child as soon as they get a chance,its usually the girls from the estates,the ones who wear PJs to the shop,the ones who come from single parent familys themselves,the ones who get a name as being easy,if you get what i mean.

Travel becomes near impossible or very hard at least,kids suck the life from you.

Every baby looks the same the first few weeks.

I love kids,but i also value my life and i wouldnt have a child until i am some way financially stable and have some direction in life.

If you want to move out of home and dont want to pay 150-200 a week on rent,have a child and the the social will give you a house,then proceed to allow the father/bf to live there with you,the entire county is doing this.

My problem with you is that you are so stereotypical .

We all know the scroungers you are on about - but you forget that there are plenty of decent living people living in council estates . Not everyone gets pregnant for lone parents allowance . some young girls just cant help it however that being said there are girls that are just easy .

You may think the reason I am sticking up for these people is because I am one - far from it , no intention on having kids till I'm in my late 20's.

Don't put people in boxes

Morag

Having your kids in your mid 20s means they are all grown up by the time your in your mid 40s and you have the rest of your life, 30 years or so to do what you want and to travel.

Having kids doesn't stop you, lack of drive, ambition or being stuck in a poverty trap will.

Pherekydes

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

That's just the problem Eve. The fact you don't agree with the original post doesn't change the presence of irony in a subsequent post. You're making an emotional response clouding your judgement.

There was no irony in it, though. Just ironing.

Kaneda_

WonderWoman! wrote: »

My problem with you is that you are so stereotypical .

We all know the scroungers you are on about - but you forget that there are plenty of decent living people living in council estates . Not everyone gets pregnant for lone parents allowance . some young girls just cant help it however that being said there are girls that are just easy .

You may think the reason I am sticking up for these people is because I am one - far from it , no intention on having kids till I'm in my late 20's.

Don't put people in boxes

Very good post,i agree with you.

You say we all know the people i tryed to describe,and we do.Its just so much easier to get a point across by being very sterotypical.

The King of Moo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

There's some talk of a 29 year old one on another thread at the moment............

I hope he enjoys his last year of childhood!

stovelid

ZombieBride wrote: »

I would rather be seen as a smug teenage mother than a scumbag one.

I am being a bit harsh - sorry.

Fair play to you for your achievements under difficult circumstances. I just don't like when the merit of single parenting is reduced to social status or clothmg. Many people that don't have an education (or dress in a way that is the subject of societal scorn) are good parents despite the propaganda.

El_Dangeroso

The OP needs to look at this graph:

http://huntgatherlove.com/userfiles/fert2.jpg

And realise that it is a sad indictment on 1st world that people don't feel 'stable' enough whether financially or emotionally to have kids until their 30's, because that's pretty much physically, the worst time to conceive. Lowest fertility, highest rate of complications. Nevermind the energy needed to run around after small kids.

I don't plan on breeding myself, but I would say to women who do plan to have kids, do it in your early twenties if you can at all. Even from a vanity point of view your body recovers an awful lot quicker.

WonderWoman!

Kaneda_ wrote: »

Its just so much easier to get a point across by being very sterotypical.

It might be easier but its downright disrespectful - some of the young girls who do get pregnant young already have low enough self esteem as it is , they dont need someone like you looking down your nose at them

stovelid

Also love the way that the single mother is the one drawing the flak. What about the feckless idiot men that won't support their kids.

And the equally dumb argument that the woman shouldn't trust "scumbags" in the first place: as if every single man from a working class background won't take responsiblity for their kids and every man from a middle class background will.

ZombieBride

stovelid wrote: »

I am being a bit harsh - sorry.

Fair play to you for your achievements under difficult circumstances. I just don't like when the merit of single parenting is reduced to social status or clothmg. Many people that don't have an education (or dress in a way that is the subject of societal scorn) are good parents despite the propaganda.

Agreed, just as being a teenager mother does not dictate a persons abilities and it is frustrating when they are all put into the "welfare fraud" box.

Ann Dunham was only 18 in 1961 she gave birth to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Helgele

It's a common misconception that having kids early is good cos then you can relax in your 40s. Well, actually the "young mother" of the 20 year old ends up caring for the grandchildren and, if you're really unlucky, the grand-grand children as well...Care meaning babysitting plus financial support, so I don't understand when the enjoying ones life begins?

Decide yourself, who is younger: a 40 year old mother of a 5 year old child or a 40 year old granny with 3 grandchildren.

Twee.

Helgele wrote: »

It's a common misconception that having kids early is good cos then you can relax in your 40s. Well, actually the "young mother" of the 20 year old ends up caring for the grandchildren and, if you're really unlucky, the grand-grand children as well...Care meaning babysitting plus financial support, so I don't understand when the enjoying ones life begins?

Decide yourself, who is younger: a 40 year old mother of a 5 year old child or a 40 year old granny with 3 grandchildren.

Not everyone uses their parents for free childcare.

whubee

Im with you on this one OP.
A wife should bare (bear) (beer) children at an age well suited to the more mature gentleman.
Take a wife only in the later part of ones life, when one has traveled and seen the world. By then you should have a handsome estate in which the woman can raise your sons.
I myself have planned to take on a few native women around the world and to promise them children - being a cad I shant deliver.
Gin, rum, and exploitation for us OP
Cider, yokes and pajamas for the type you refer to.

deisedave

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Well then you'd be wrong. Because if my tax money is going to support your family, then it very much is my business.

Dude get a life, At what point did she mention she was taking state hand outs. By the way even if she is it still would not be any of your business.

Sunnyisland

Twee. wrote: »

But if you have them younger they'll be all grown up and you're free to live life, enjoying yourself with no kids!

My mam is 53, and I'm her youngest at 22. She's always running into old friends who are stressed with junior certs, teenage woes, even some tantrum throwing 8 years olds. And she's like lol my kids are grown up, heading off traveling for a month with the husband.

Have to agree, I am 49 have three children youngest being 20, typing this in the airport on my way out to malaga :)

Da Shins Kelly

Some of the posts on here make for really bizarre reading.

mackg

Helgele wrote: »

It's a common misconception that having kids early is good cos then you can relax in your 40s. Well, actually the "young mother" of the 20 year old ends up caring for the grandchildren and, if you're really unlucky, the grand-grand children as well...Care meaning babysitting plus financial support, so I don't understand when the enjoying ones life begins?

Decide yourself, who is younger: a 40 year old mother of a 5 year old child or a 40 year old granny with 3 grandchildren.

I've seen this before, they're the same age. Ha got it, and you thought you could trick us!

candy-gal1

have to agree with you there 100% op
i dont even know if i want kids tbh, but if i ever did id sincerely hope it would never be before im at least mid 30s, theres too much to enjoy in life imho.
lifes waaayyyy to short to be saddled with a child, if ever tbh, but definitly not before 30 anyway if you really want one.

theres always options out there, plus having children later means you can pass on your experiences of travels, life, education etc, not having to wait to experience life to the full because you wanted to be a cool mum :rolleyes: or yummy mummy :rolleyes:

WonderWoman!

you can be a cool mum at 28 you ageist

candy-gal1

touche, yes you can

Owen

Given that in the last 40 or so years we've managed to go from a world population of 4 billion to 7 billion I wonder how long it'll be before we limit how many kids people can have.

Personally, and no offence intended to anyone who's lifestyle I'm about to critique, but I find the whole lets get together, get married, get a mortgage, get kids, be kids slave for 18 years all rather unimaginative.

Giselle

mikemac wrote: »

All these posts about spelling are tiresome

I couldn't agree more.

And they're just an excuse from the usual suspects who despise kids and come up with some pretty snide and jugdemental posts in kid threads, to vent how much they despise the parents of kids, in this one.

No I've no kids, before you ask, and no intention of having any for years yet, but that doesn't mean you get to question the decisions of the majority of younger parents having already decided your view is superior.

hoodwinked

Its all relative, everybody wants different things,


hell to me would be putting a career before having a family. a job is just that, a job that gives you a standard of life,

a child, is something that until you have your own you will never in a million years understand. (i still cannot stand other peoples children)


i had a daughter at 23 (young enough to some of you) but to be fair, i love it, we support ourselves we both work (no government assistance other the child benefit which everyone gets anyway) my mums friend had her 4th son at 40 and the difference in parenting is very obvious,only one example would be that they are too exhausted and tired between work and running after an active 2 year old, where as we do have more energy on our side...

she admits herself she was too old to have children and found it easier herself the first time around when she was my age.

but then there are 40 year olds who can cope better with the energy needed.

there is also the health thing to consider. by 30 many women run into serious fertility issues, how do these women who put off having a baby until they have their 'career' sorted feel when it becomes too late to have a baby? devastating them?


there are positives and negatives to both arguments, for me by the time im in my 40's my 18 year old will be self sufficient (hopefully) and we'll be able to enjoy ourselves (hopefully) until we retire.

if i had put off having her would i have had time to travel? probably but i couldn't have afforded it, at least my savings i have now i will afford a better class of travelling in 16 more years! im not one of these people who needs to have everything now, i am prepared to wait


and i have my daughter, nothing in the world is more precious to me then that, soppy but true