next »

[rchill]

There is a good deal of evidence to support the "energy in/energy out" reproductive theory. Menarche begins when the body has reached a certain body mass - has the energy reserves to cycle monthly. The age of menarche has decreased in industrialized countries probably due to better nutrition (or just more food). Many body systems begin to function before they are completely formed/ready. The nervous system, the cardiac system to name a couple. And remember, boys ejaculate before their reproductive system has reached maturity as well.
Most studies indicate that post-30 women may cycle every month but may not be releasing an ooocyte - and this increases with age. Perimenopause can begin in the 20's - rather depends on the woman. And you cannot always use family as a guide. My mom had a baby at 45, one sister cycled until her mid 50's, another entered menopause in her mid-30's - for me there was no perimenopause - just stopped at 42.
The issue is....there are no guarantees in life. You may be able to kick out the babies until you are 50....or not. It becomes a matter of importance in your life. IF you waited until your 30's only to find you waited too long....could you live with that? If not, then perhaps having them younger and doing the juggling act/delaying the career/dad at home route would be better for you.
I am not so sure we can have it all/do it all at the same time....or if we do, we are often too tired to enjoy it!

[tigerbear]

I think the problem is that "best" really = "best given my individual circumstances."  There's a lot of good research that having babies in your 20s is "better" that in your 30s in terms of fertility and birth defects and other conditions.   Obviously it is not "better" to have a baby in your 20s, however, if your family, emotional, and financial circumstances aren't then suited for child-rearing.  It sounds like most of the posters here who had babies in their 20s were in good family, emotional, and financial states then.  Certainly they wouldn't wish those of who weren't ready in our 20s, for a variety of reasons, to have had babies then if we weren't ready or were unable.  So while technically, yes, my body would have been better suited for childbearing back then, a baby at that time would have been disastrous for me.  I was lucky to be able to have one in my thirties, and even then it still wasn't under ideal circumstances, but at least some of the pieces of the puzzle had fallen in place.  Really there was no "best" time for me to have a baby, but there were better times and worse times.  The fact that I had no partner and no money and definitely not enough emotional maturity throughout much of my twenties trumped the fact that I was in my twenties.  Also the fact that I was infertile for part of my twenties.  So I ended up with a so-so time in my thirties - not great, not horrible.  That's kind of how life works - sometimes the timing is great, sometimes it is awful, and you muddle through the best you can without worrying whether you made Good Life Choices.  When you start going down that road, you become my MIL, and you DON'T want to do that.  Obviously on the extremes of the age spectrum, there are some tough choices to be made and risks to be calculated.  I certainly do not congratulate myself for having had a baby before the age of 35, nor do I beat myself up that I wasn't able to start at 25 and have a second child before 30.  I am damn lucky that enough of the pieces of the puzzle fell into place that I could have a baby before 35, and sometimes I tell myself that I am damn crazy for doing it when my life was ridiculously complicated anyway.  It is what it is.

I'm with you.  I only met my significant other in my late 20s.  What was I supposed to do?  Just breed with whatever guy was around?  He wouldn't have been as nice.

I didn't 'wait' until I was in my 30s to have a baby, I just didn't have anyone to have a baby with before that.  You people are really scaring me - I'm on the brink of 31.  If my boyfriend was in the same country right now...  Was partnering up really not an issue for all you grad-school parents? 

[rchill]

Biology is biology, and sometimes it does not cooperate with the circumstances in our lives. And not all of us who had children in our 20s were in the good emotional, family and financial circumstances. But, you sometimes have to play the hand you are dealt, and do the best you can. I agree, if there is no person you want to make a baby and a life with in your 20s, options are limited. I do know women who decided the child part was more important than the partner part, and became single moms.
tigerbear - I don't think any of the postings were meant to scare anyone. Many just relate how they were able to do it, others discuss the biological reality of a "ticking clock" . Your clock may run slow and you will be fine. It may not. And yes, not finding a partner until pushing 30 is rough, but it is your life. So, it's always best to think through all possible scenarios and decide where the priorities, needs, passions and wants are. If you wait, and it is too late - would that be okay with you - could you still have a good life, love your SO, enjoy your career? How important is that biological connection to an offspring to you - would adoption, fostering fill your heart? There are many ways to become a parent...many ways to bring children into your life. But life, whether it is fair or not, is a series of decisions with consequences, and trade-offs.
I wish you well, and hope your ultimate decision is a good one for you!

[tigerbear]

Thanks rchill. 

That's heartening.  I'm Australian, and in Australia, the median age of first time mothers was 29 according to 2006 figures, but apparently the median age of first time mothers in the US was 25 in 2006.  (2006 is the latest I could find - it might have gone down a bit here since the govt started giving mothers cash hand-outs.) 

It's only a small difference I suppose, but it might change perceptions a little bit.  I wonder if there is a cultural difference on this issue?   I never considered having kids before 'in my twenties' as something I had to aim for - but rather kids in my early thirties. 

Recently my old classmates have started getting married or having children all at once, and my plans were for in the next couple of years. 

[newbie]

And yes, not finding a partner until pushing 30 is rough, but it is your life.

I didn't see tigerbear saying anything that referred to her having a rough time because she didn't find a partner until pushing 29. Why is this "rough"? Just for making babies in one's 20s?

Tigerbear, there are certainly big cultural differences on when people think is a good time to have babies. And there are individual differences on when people start to have difficulty becoming and staying pregnant. If you're concerned about it, you could always talk to a doctor and allow that to influence your choices. But many, many, many academics wait until their 30s to try for children and many are fine. Some are not, and it's those ones who are not that we hear about.

[rchill]

[I'm with you.  I only met my significant other in my late 20s.  What was I supposed to do?  Just breed with whatever guy was around?  He wouldn't have been as nice.

I didn't 'wait' until I was in my 30s to have a baby, I just didn't have anyone to have a baby with before that.  You people are really scaring me - I'm on the brink of 31.  If my boyfriend was in the same country right now...  Was partnering up really not an issue for all you grad-school parents?  /quote]

newbie, I don't think it (finding a partner) is either rough or not rough. I was responding to the tone of her posting (see above) - see said some of the postings were scaring her, and that waiting was not a choice - suggesting to me that she would have started younger if the option was there.
I never found it rough having kids young - challenge at times, sure. But other choices I made were challenging as well. I love being a mom, and it was the number one priority (still is - if I could only do one thing in life, it would be motherhood). Now I get to be a young grandmother - #7 grandbaby due in July, and I am in my early 50's. I did my life backwards. Kids young, then school (undergrad) and work when they got into school. Then graduate school once the youngest graduated high school. Now a professor and loving it, children grown and grandbabies to enjoy. There is no one way to live life - your choices just need to work for you.

[rchill]

So I totally messed up the quote thing...still trying to figure out how it works!

[temporaryname]

So I totally messed up the quote thing...still trying to figure out how it works!

Suggestion: Before posting, hit the "preview" button--it'll let you know if you need to fix things like the way you've quoted another post. Then if it looks right you can hit "post", and if not you can edit it.

[macaroon]

Was partnering up really not an issue for all you grad-school parents? 

I don't know what you mean by that, really.  I met my husband when I was 20 (he was 19).  To some extent, it was luck.  However, and I don't really know how to put this, I know that I was looking for different things in my partners than many of my peers were.  I was more introspective and mature in my tastes and desires.  The two boyfriends I had prior to my husband also ended up married in their early 20s, had kids in their 20s, and are still married more than 10 years later.  I'm also still friends with those two exes, and have a lot in common with their wives. 

[testingthewaters]

Oh for Pete's sake.

Yes, it's probably a good idea biologically to have kids in your 20's. I didn't. It would have been a really bad idea for me to have kids in my 20's. I was in no way, shape or form ready, despite having met Mr the Waters at 23. Neither was he. Financially, psychologically, and pretty much any other way, just not ready. We're both ready now, at 34, and we'll see how it goes. If it doesn't happen, we will be devastated, yes, but that doesn't mean it would have been a better idea for us to have had kids 10 years ago. It's not the plan, but we could deal with something that big ("something" meaning either stress of new baby or stress of no baby) and stay together now; we've been through thick and thin. He's got my back, and I've got his. This took time. 10 years ago, I'm not so sure. Another reason we weren't ready.

Maybe I'm just prickly because I'm in the thick of things at 34 and trying for a baby, but don't scare the poor tigerbear into having kids if she's not ready. And yes, tigerbear, lots of people meet their partners in their late 20's or early 30's (or in their teens, or 40's, or, like an aunt of mine, they get married in their early 60's). There is no pattern to cut life from.

[janewales]

Nicely put, Testing. I too found Mr Wales very early (I was 19, he was 21). We married when I was 22, but I was 29 with our first, and 32 with our second. Finding the other half isn't all there is-- we also had to be at a place in our lives where we were ready for kids. When that is, will vary for everyone. The right time is when it's right for you.

[polly_mer]

Yep.  We are another pair that married early (I was 19 and Mr. Mer was 22), but didn't have Blocky until our fifteenth anniversary.  Most of that time was because we weren't ready for kids for various reasons and very little of that time was the fact that we were in our mid-thirties when trying.

Having kids when young because you want kids when young is fine.  But it's not the only way or necessarily the best way under given circumstances.

[rchill]

Yet again, I don't think anyone is advocating that there is "one and only one" way to do this baby thing. There are trade-offs with any choice in life, and as long as you are aware of those trade-offs and comfortable with the possible ramifications, then you have obviously made the right decision for you.
Having children young (I had five by 25) certainly ruled out some career paths for me. I had to raise them first, so graduate school came once they were grown (yes, I could have done both, but that was not a good choice for me). So I am not at a R1, I'm at a SLAC, and really happy there. For me, and only me, this was the right path. If I could do only one thing in life, it would be have kids and be a mom. I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have been able to pursue the multiple passions in my life.
For other people, it is the job/career that is the early driving force. The head, heart and life style is not ready for the "kid thing" and that is just fine, because it is right for them. But - this might mean the kid thing doesn't happen in the way originally planned. It may not happen at all. That is the trade-off. My sister hit early menopause at 32. Totally unexpected, as my mother had her last child at 45. My sister married young and had kids young, so for her the issues were related to health and well being, not procreation.
I agree with you polly_mer, having kids when young is not the only way. There is no only way, only choices with consequences, good and maybe not so good.