Hard News: The conversation they want to have
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Thankfully, umbrage is something we don't often take in these forums, but if and when we do, I would think that People For Whom These Statistics Are Not Theoretical would be as well-respected hereabouts as Women Tired Of Being Reminded Ad Nauseam About Importance Of Procreating ASAP.
Fair enough. Sorry, Ben, my choice of words could have been better. Experience is the most important thing anyone can bring to the table here.
On one hand, it's rare and valuable that we can even have these arguments here. On the other, my heart did sink when I saw Morgan's first comment, because I could see where that was going to go.
-
On one hand, it's rare and valuable that we can even have these arguments here.
It's lead me to conclude that farmers markets ain't nothin' but trouble, and will stick to buying my breads and vegetables from the supermarket.
-
Like I said earlier, we had to deal with this issue first-hand (trisomy 21, plus multiple deformities, to be exact), and it frankly fucks me right off that I'm unable to have a grown-up conversation about it around certain groups of people without pussy-footing around the whole career/carer debate.
You can have that debate all you want, I'm pretty sure that the issue here is not that some posters begrudge the science or the implications, or want the world to keep mum. We can just all do without the bullshit that garnished it on this thread (along the basic lines of "women are selfish if they choose to procreate later").
-
As an aside: does anyone else think it's apposite that a thread titled "The conversation they want to have" has been derailed repeatedly?
-
However, the spontaneous mutation/deformity rate for mothers older than 40 is actually higher.
If we were actually rational be would ban both or neither. But of course we aren't.
From a pure biological perspective, I agree (that we should ban neither, that is) and first-cousin marriage isn't actually illegal. Intermittent first-cousin breeding (though sibling is much dodgier, especially if you have any nasty recessives lurking) is generally not a big deal. Lots of people have married their first cousins and reproduced successfully.
However, there's a problem in practice: inbreeding over repeated generations *hugely* increases your risk, c.f. some Pakistani families in Britain with massive rates of rare congenital diseases due to a tradition of first-cousin marriage. C.f. also the Hapsburgs. In general, promoting outbreeding is much better for all involved. Having kids over 40 repeatedly over the generations does not multiply the risk, so it's not really in the same basket.
-
Well it looks like everyone had a fun night! I apologise for saying "women" instead of "people" in my original post. I'm guilty myself having waited until now to have kids but unfortunately I've chosen previous partners that thought partying or working or travelling was more important than having kids. I've found that it is normally my partner driving the decision whether or not to have kids rather than me. I wonder if anyone else finds this too? I had a long-term partner who was very scared to have children because she had a small pelvic floor. She wanted kids but just put it off until it became too dangerous for her.By the time we separated I had almost given up on the idea of ever having children so I feel very lucky to have found someone I love who has born us such a wonderful baby boy. Almost all of the females that I have been involved with talked about "having children one day" in a way that really meant "sometime in a decade perhaps". I made my comments partly because I hear so much about people (rather than just women and I apologise again for the offence this caused) who put off child birth for their careers and I think that this is wrong. We put off child birth because we don't feel old enough and are still enjoying being young. we put off child birth for social reasons. Because we can't afford it. because we don't feel our lives are secure enough. Because we want to see the world first. It just seems it's not often reported or acknowledged as being because of anything other than our "careers". Maybe the reasons for the older age of people having kids has as much to do with the amount that we are being paid falling through the floor while being lumbered with huge amounts of debt by the greedy baby boomers along with womens' liberation instead of "career stuff". That was my point. Along with the fact that I can say I had my first baby in my thirties and the huge difference this makes in peoples' perceptions of you - even though I only made it by 2 days. Your responses have been unexpected to say the least...
-
A few years ago on Bfm's wire, Dr Barry Lowe was talking about childbirth and said that the optimum age for it was 22. I remember think "wow, how many 22 year-olds do I know who would be ready for parenthood".
Thankfully there's some serious technology to assist the process of childbirth if needed.
On older people and childbearing, I wonder how many generations we need to do this before we start evolving to accommodate it ?
Back on topic...
who were there to show off expensive prams
Heh, we were international early adopters on that one :) Back in '97, we were having our first child up in London and my sister was coming up, so we got her to bring up one of those new-fangled Mountain Buggies. Those things rock, even the first generation ones with fixed wheels.
But, they can't fit through the exits on the Paris Metro, and there's far too many steps in Venice for them to be useful. Very handy in the cobbled streets of Kathmandu, though.
Interestingly, when my brother-in-law took their one trekking in the Himalayas a few years back, it wasn't as apt as the name would suggest. Like Daleks, they are too easily defeated by steps...
Father's Day lounging kind of blew away any intentions of getting to the GLFM, will definitely be going in the future.
-
In general, promoting outbreeding is much better for all involved. Having kids over 40 repeatedly over the generations does not multiply the risk, so it's not really in the same basket.
Thank you Lucy. Absolutely correct. If you quantify risk, advanced paternal age carries much greater risk to the general population than advanced maternal age because of x-linked recessive diseases. An old mother won't result in generations of disease afflicting thousands of descendants - but an old father might.
To quote geneticist Steve Jones. describing the study which discovered exactly how and where DNA mutates:
"There is an ancient and universal tendency to blame women for the corruption associated with sex, but the prejudice against females was quite unfounded: most of the mutations in working genes as well as the fingerprints of DNA were overwhelmingly a male affair. Old men like Edward, Duke of Kent [Queen Victoria's father, age 51 at the time of her conception] are the most dangerous partners of all. From the Book of Genesis to the present day, the guilt for polluting the bloodlines was wrongly assigned."
The convention to only refer to females whether talking of either reproduction or prostitution is deeply offensive because it is inaccurate.
-
On older people and childbearing, I wonder how many generations we need to do this before we start evolving to accommodate it ?
I'm pretty sure that's not how evolution works.
-
Apropos the prams - we too were early adopters of the mountain buggy in 1995. And we did delight in showing it off. Which reminds me, what useful objects is it ok to be visibly pleased with?
-
what useful objects is it ok to be visibly pleased with?
Do not say dildos do not say dildos do not say dildos... ah, screw it.
-
If you quantify risk, advanced paternal age carries much greater risk to the general population than advanced maternal age because of x-linked recessive diseases.
Despite much of the thread getting silly, I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for the info.
Russell, I really don't like holding other people's babies at all, and I'm *pregnant*. (I might break the little homeslice!)
:) This might be old news, but congrats Danielle.
-
Apropos the prams: doncha hate it when they get flat tyres! dragging it downto the garage to pump it up etc. And did you know that Waitakere City gives all residents free car seats for their kids and give them a brand new one for each child born there? To my knowledge the North Shore and Manukau City Councils don't do this and it sounds like a great idea.
-
Apropos the prams: doncha hate it when they get flat tyres! dragging it downto the garage to pump it up etc.
Ahem.. .the Babyjogger City Mini, again, laughs at your flat tyres. They're not hard plastic, they are some lovely closed-cell foam thing. Just as smooth and quiet as pneumatic tyres, but without the risk of letting the pneums out.
-
What I'd like to know is about the ones who are having babies and how they're managing that and what the lab's doing to accomodate it.
Being ever-so-close to finishing the fid (if my supervisors would just be so good as to get their comments back to me...): I enrolled when my two children were 4 1/2 and 1 respectively. However, it can work other ways too. Of the many other women doing PhDs at round the same time as me, three others (like me) already had young children. One of these was a solo parent, and one had another (third) child during the PhD. Two other women had their first during (you just take a bit of time off in the middle), and one gave birth about a month after submission. The difficulties are the same as for any other working mother, i.e. the main issue is childcare; and in some ways it's easier, in that your working hours are a little more flexible than many work places, and you don't get limited sick leave.
As for Ian Grant's advice, well, yes, I suspect what he wants to say is "people should get married younger because then they're less likely to do sex with other people first, and Doing Sex before Marriage is Bad.". Personally, I'd love to see some numbers showing likelihood of a first marriage (or perhaps relationship with issue) ending in relation to age at marriage (I mean, I don't think marriage/civil union is the be all and end all, I'm just not sure how else you'd distinguish relationships where the partners were intending it to be permanent from those relationships you have that are only meant to be a bit of fun for a few months or so. Or those ones where you spend three years figuring out that you really don't want a long term relationship with that person.). 'Cos I'm all about the statistics. I wouldn't be at all surprised if younger marriages were more likely to end in divorce, which would rather stuff up Mr Grant's recommendations.
Oh, and hi back to Danielle (from a few weeks ago...)!
-
Waitakere City gives all residents free car seats for their kids
I thought the car seats were courtesy of the dreaded liquor licensing trust? Or does the council pony up as well?
:) This might be old news, but congrats Danielle.
Thank you. :) It's reasonably new news actually, and the genetics stuff in this thread has now encouraged my usual 'OMG I'm 34' worrying streak to broaden its scope to 'OMG my husband is 38'. So... thanks, everyone? Because I wasn't panicking enough already, or anything. Heh.
-
Waitakere City gives all residents free car seats for their kids
That's the kind of wasteful socialist rate-bloat that the new super-city will put a stop to.
-
I had something even cooler than a mountain buggy for the very small baby stage - an ancient pram. It was a Thing of Beauty. Baby could lie down flat, completely protected from the chill Taupo winds. I traded it in for a mountain buggy once he could sit up a bit.
-
Heh, we were international early adopters on that one :) Back in '97, we were having our first child up in London and my sister was coming up, so we got her to bring up one of those new-fangled Mountain Buggies. Those things rock, even the first generation ones with fixed wheels.
Funny thing is, I did in fact meet Mr Barnacle Barnes and family at the GLFM -- and I was amazed by the suspension on their mountain buggy. It went down the steps like it weren't no thing ...
We didn't have those when I was a new dad. Or rather, we didn't have them because we were poor and the early models were stupendously expensive.
OTOH, flimsy little pushchairs are very light when you need to carry them.
-
and the genetics stuff in this thread has now encouraged my usual 'OMG I'm 34' worrying streak to broaden its scope to 'OMG my husband is 38'. So... thanks, everyone? Because I wasn't panicking enough already, or anything. Heh.
It's cool, I don't yet know 400 people that have had babies at the same age as our failed attempt, so you can fit into our 399 if you want?
-
Like I said earlier, we had to deal with this issue first-hand (trisomy 21, plus multiple deformities, to be exact), and it frankly fucks me right off that I'm unable to have a grown-up conversation about it around certain groups of people without pussy-footing around the whole career/carer debate
This must have been really tough for you Ben, and one of those situations where no one can ever say, I know how you feel, because no one else can.
But, on the other hand disability itself is not tragedy. I met some amazing young people with Downs a couple of weeks ago that any parents would be proud of. And they also want a career and to be carers, not cared for.
-
OTOH, flimsy little pushchairs are very light when you need to carry them.
You have a point there. The Wilson la Dauphine (pram) didn't do steps or buses. However there weren't too many of either in Taupo.
-
Steve Parks - XY intersex people are frequently brought up as female (especially if the genitalia are tiny/ambiguous or some parts surgically removed in infanthood...approximately 1 in 1000 people are intersex individuals.
Thanks, Islander. Yes, I completely concede to the point Lucy and you made on that. I was just being flippant, because I couldn't be bothered responding seriously to the point by Andre, about Gen X & Y women who feel entitled to "everything". Next time I can't be bothered addressing a point properly, I'll go back to my standard reaction and have a shot of whiskey.
-
We had a mountain buggy (ish - big 3 wheeler pram, anyway) for our first child. It weighed about 15kg, making it a huge pain in the neck. Or, literally, in the stomach: my wife had a C-section, and lifting anything heavier than the bub for the first couple of months wasn't a go. So lifiting this gert big beast up into the boot of the car was a serious problem.
At about 6 months, we switched to a cheap umbrella stroller and never looked back. Less features, less sturdy: narrower, lighter, and easier to use. Steps aren't a problem: I just pick the whole damn thing up and lug it with 15kg infant (child #2) in situ.
Seriously, I'm a big fan of less is more when it comes to baby kit. The problem is that as a first time parent you're a bit nervous, and one way to allay that is to buy all the "proper" equipment. Cue $1600 Bug-A-Boo, etc.
One attitude I notice in a lot of people in their 20s and 30s is the idea that having kids is the end of everything. I think that's why people put having kids off; the notion that as soon as you have children, your life is essentially over. That's certainly not my experience; yes, we don't go out as much as we used to, and we're certainly a lot more skint, but you get used to it. Plus, eventually they leave home!
Danielle - congrats. And relax, 34 is nothing. ;)
-
Thank you. :) It's reasonably new news actually, and the genetics stuff in this thread has now encouraged my usual 'OMG I'm 34' worrying streak to broaden its scope to 'OMG my husband is 38'. So... thanks, everyone? Because I wasn't panicking enough already, or anything. Heh.
Danielle. Despite how old you may occasionally feel, 34 ain't that old to be a babyz momma. So you quit worrying and concentrate on those happy thoughts. Happy mummy=happy baby and all that shit.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.