It really depends on the mother's health and abilty to mother kids. I've heard Young mothers use Older surrogates because they fear their living situation will cause them to miss carry. Like wise I hear old mothers asking younger ones because they've entered menopause.
More things can go wrong when you're older and if you're too young you might not be mature enough among other things. But I think that when someone is married they should have as many kids as they want to have. At any age that they can have them
Why would you say up to 23 is too young? Literally 18-24 is a woman's peak fertility years, and the only problem with this is that we've designed education around a man's fertility, which isn't affected. Traditionally guys had to go make something of themselves, then in their late 20's/ 30's they'd be wed to a younger woman.
23 is still in the young range. And peak fertility is actually a little later like 24-30 for women. It's old data that says 18-24. Teen moms die more during birth so it isn't a good thing
No, it's data that's been around for a century, and it's only recent feminist nonsense that has pushed the age further back to fit with the paradigm of university life. Teen moms may die more, but only because they are typically from low class households.
You should really do more research then cuz I've had fertility doctors tell me its mid to late 20s is best time health wise for pregnancy. Teen moms die more cuz their bodies aren't developed enough to give birth. I had issues with my oldest cuz of the way my uterus was positioned since I was still a teen
Evolution at this point doesn't matter considering the way girls hit puberty and develop are much more different then ever before. It use to be the norm for girls to start puberty at 12-13 now it's more like 8-9 so it isn't giving their body time to grow without hormones. I'm over here stuck at 4'10 cuz puberty started to early for me and stunned my growth. Not just height but every part of me. This changes pregnancy for teens cuz our bodies aren't ready to deliver babies yet. Obviously back a long time ago this wasn't a issue since those 18 year old women had developed bodies
And nah all this stuff is true. I didn't believe it either until I had issues that purely came from being a young mom. Literally at 24-25 I almost killed myself and son from having pre eclampsia which they think was because of my young age
I'm not saying a girl who just started her period is ready to have a child- but what sense would it make to have a period for 15 years (use up a majority of healthy ova), only for your body to "not be developed enough." Your assertion makes no sense, maam.
Because a girls cycle is still regulating so we aren't even suppose to get pregnant during that time. Its a time for growing. And girls lose I think half their eggs by the time they even hit puberty. It's unnecessary to have that many eggs. We need 1 to have a baby not 1 mil
Long article so I'll copy the part about how teen moms tend not to be developed yet
Walker explained that during adolescent development, the beginning of menarche signals the start of a growth spurt that can take up to four years to complete. During that time, a girl's uterus and bony structures, including her pelvis, remain narrow, developing slowly as she ages.
It's a precarious moment to give birth. It's not uncommon for girls to face obstructed labor "because their pelvis is not developed enough to accommodate a vaginal delivery," said Dr. Sarah Prager, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
And by the way I'm not against teen births like I had two of them myself but I just don't think they're a safe thing for everyone to be doing cuz of all the risk
The range you are saying about too early, clinically, that is the perfect age for reproduction for both the genders. 21 to 25.
You are only thinking about caring and maintaining the child when the pregnancy is too late. But there are other congenital problems that can occur. The risk of a problematic baby goes on increasing the more you delay your pregnancy.
Better to get done with that phase of life early on.
I say definitely too late in life if you have a baby too early you have time to make things right but if you have a baby late in life you're so out of touch you'll never truly understand your child you'll never really relate to your child that's definitely not a good thing
I think weather it is bad or not really depends on how the person feels about there pregnancy, but I chose old at a stretch because you may just die during a time when your kids need you more.
I don’t think I had my daughters too late, I was 33 when I had them and their mom was 31, they are 23 in November and I still do hiking and walking with them but I doubt they could keep up with me with bike riding, lol
That’s not bad ages that they had you though, probably better financially too, I guess I didn’t age to bad, I’m still in good shape. My brother had a son at 45 but his wife was 32 at the time
From my point of view it's worst too late in life since the woman and the baby are in greater risk of something going horribly wrong during the pregnancy or labor
Well I have done a lot of research about it and I have seen far more cases of women dying or the baby when women are older than 35 obviously there is a risk if the woman is younger than 20 but between 20 and 30 is the time for both the baby and the mother
too late I’d say… the risks are higher when the mother is older. plus, I would want to be a young mom so that, I can be around for a loooong time and also continue “enjoying life” after my kids become adults.
Can see pro's and con's both ways but to pick one... too late would be less ideal especially when the kid is in the likely challenging early-to-mid teen years and the too old parent is wiped out by 5 PM :)
Yeah i think most couples aren't ever ready financially for kids until after they have them. Like I wasn't when I had my first but it didn't take long to get there cuz me and my husband were super focused on becoming stable for him
For sure I'm at the point with my 4th baby where I'm literally not buying him anything besides a going home outfit since I have too much baby stuff already
I would say too late.. because the older you get you can't keep up with your children. Also being too young like late teens might be too early. If you have the right support shouldn't be an issue
I'd think too late. At least when you're young you have all the energy and perhaps not yet burned with too much responsibility and can really involve your child with so many things while you both grow together.
I would say both. Too young and you are quite possibly not prepared financially, emotionally for one, and too late you may just not have the energy for one. They are a lot of work.
I'm no doctor but based on what I've read about pregnancy, biologically speaking too late in life is bad because there are higher risks for the baby to be born prematurely and could be physically damaged bc of the early delivery.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
68Opinion
It really depends on the mother's health and abilty to mother kids. I've heard Young mothers use Older surrogates because they fear their living situation will cause them to miss carry. Like wise I hear old mothers asking younger ones because they've entered menopause.
More things can go wrong when you're older and if you're too young you might not be mature enough among other things. But I think that when someone is married they should have as many kids as they want to have. At any age that they can have them
Why would you say up to 23 is too young? Literally 18-24 is a woman's peak fertility years, and the only problem with this is that we've designed education around a man's fertility, which isn't affected. Traditionally guys had to go make something of themselves, then in their late 20's/ 30's they'd be wed to a younger woman.
23 is still in the young range. And peak fertility is actually a little later like 24-30 for women. It's old data that says 18-24. Teen moms die more during birth so it isn't a good thing
No, it's data that's been around for a century, and it's only recent feminist nonsense that has pushed the age further back to fit with the paradigm of university life.
Teen moms may die more, but only because they are typically from low class households.
You should really do more research then cuz I've had fertility doctors tell me its mid to late 20s is best time health wise for pregnancy. Teen moms die more cuz their bodies aren't developed enough to give birth. I had issues with my oldest cuz of the way my uterus was positioned since I was still a teen
My research comes from evolutionary biology- yours seems to come from a single anecdote...
Evolution at this point doesn't matter considering the way girls hit puberty and develop are much more different then ever before. It use to be the norm for girls to start puberty at 12-13 now it's more like 8-9 so it isn't giving their body time to grow without hormones. I'm over here stuck at 4'10 cuz puberty started to early for me and stunned my growth. Not just height but every part of me. This changes pregnancy for teens cuz our bodies aren't ready to deliver babies yet. Obviously back a long time ago this wasn't a issue since those 18 year old women had developed bodies
I don't think anything you just said had any basis in reality... but I'm open to an article that describes this.
Look up anything about how being old enough to bleed does not mean old enough to breed or just dangers of having a baby in teens
And nah all this stuff is true. I didn't believe it either until I had issues that purely came from being a young mom. Literally at 24-25 I almost killed myself and son from having pre eclampsia which they think was because of my young age
I'm not saying a girl who just started her period is ready to have a child- but what sense would it make to have a period for 15 years (use up a majority of healthy ova), only for your body to "not be developed enough." Your assertion makes no sense, maam.
Because a girls cycle is still regulating so we aren't even suppose to get pregnant during that time. Its a time for growing. And girls lose I think half their eggs by the time they even hit puberty. It's unnecessary to have that many eggs. We need 1 to have a baby not 1 mil
www.npr.org/.../why-abortion-laws-increase-teen-childbirth-dangers
Long article so I'll copy the part about how teen moms tend not to be developed yet
Walker explained that during adolescent development, the beginning of menarche signals the start of a growth spurt that can take up to four years to complete. During that time, a girl's uterus and bony structures, including her pelvis, remain narrow, developing slowly as she ages.
It's a precarious moment to give birth. It's not uncommon for girls to face obstructed labor "because their pelvis is not developed enough to accommodate a vaginal delivery," said Dr. Sarah Prager, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
And by the way I'm not against teen births like I had two of them myself but I just don't think they're a safe thing for everyone to be doing cuz of all the risk
men's fertility actually has been decreasing over the past hundred years.
Too late for multiple factors.
#1: Have less energy to raise the kid.
#2: Difficultly pregnancy.
#3: Low quality sperm which can lead to handicap children.
We are supposed to reproduce once we hit puberty.
Not necessarily once we hit puberty since most girls are still developing for years after that
Biologically we are supposed to have sex and have children once we hit puberty. I didn't mean they should have sex and have children right at puberty.
The range you are saying about too early, clinically, that is the perfect age for reproduction for both the genders. 21 to 25.
You are only thinking about caring and maintaining the child when the pregnancy is too late. But there are other congenital problems that can occur. The risk of a problematic baby goes on increasing the more you delay your pregnancy.
Better to get done with that phase of life early on.
I say definitely too late in life if you have a baby too early you have time to make things right but if you have a baby late in life you're so out of touch you'll never truly understand your child you'll never really relate to your child that's definitely not a good thing
How old was you when you had your first child
I think weather it is bad or not really depends on how the person feels about there pregnancy, but I chose old at a stretch because you may just die during a time when your kids need you more.
Probably late because you’re getting closer to retirement years and it’s also more riskier for the woman
I don’t think I had my daughters too late, I was 33 when I had them and their mom was 31, they are 23 in November and I still do hiking and walking with them but I doubt they could keep up with me with bike riding, lol
31 is still young for a woman compared to her being like 40 and pregnant.
@Paulalove98 Yeah, we didn’t have anymore after, I think 35 is the limit for a healthy child
I'd say 30s is a little late but super late. My parents had me at 32, 35 and I do consider them old tho but that's only cuz I've watched them age
That’s not bad ages that they had you though, probably better financially too, I guess I didn’t age to bad, I’m still in good shape. My brother had a son at 45 but his wife was 32 at the time
Ehhh no youngest of 7 so my parents were broke by the time I got there😂
Good you are still in shape tho most people aren't at that age
Ngl I'm having kids young cuz of all the trauma i had from them being old
As long as you can manage financially it’s good. My dad had me when he was young and he’s 75 years old now and still in pretty good shape
Yeah no problems financially. I'm about to have my 4th baby in a few months
Lots of colleges to pay for later on , I guess you’re getting it all over with before you hit 30
I will not be paying for any of their colleges lol
And yes trying to be done before 3p but want 2 or 3 more of my own then planning on being a surrogate after that
30**
From my point of view it's worst too late in life since the woman and the baby are in greater risk of something going horribly wrong during the pregnancy or labor
There are risk for too young also
Well I have done a lot of research about it and I have seen far more cases of women dying or the baby when women are older than 35 obviously there is a risk if the woman is younger than 20 but between 20 and 30 is the time for both the baby and the mother
too late I’d say… the risks are higher when the mother is older. plus, I would want to be a young mom so that, I can be around for a loooong time and also continue “enjoying life” after my kids become adults.
Can see pro's and con's both ways but to pick one... too late would be less ideal especially when the kid is in the likely challenging early-to-mid teen years and the too old parent is wiped out by 5 PM :)
Depends on the environment. When it comes to biology it's better young, but not always you have money to raise it then.
I would say young. After 40 pregnancies are very risky.
The best to give birth is 21-31 years old.
They can be just as bad. Usually the problems when you’re too young are financial and the problems when you’re too old are physical
Don't know about that cuz I've met a lot of older people with way worse money problems then me
Ha! Good point. I was thinking that as I was writing it like we aren’t financially stable either and we had little ones in our 30s.
Yeah i think most couples aren't ever ready financially for kids until after they have them. Like
I wasn't when I had my first but it didn't take long to get there cuz me and my husband were super focused on becoming stable for him
That’s true. It’s like once you have your first then you find out what it costs and then the ones after that aren’t much of a change.
For sure I'm at the point with my 4th baby where I'm literally not buying him anything besides a going home outfit since I have too much baby stuff already
Oh nice. You’re having another boy?
Yesss 😊
That's up to each female it's her body but most girls are having kids after getting their career they wanted
That often ends up being a bad thing since most moms end up stay at home moms and their careers didn't really matter in the long run
Yah but every female chooses what works for them
I would say too late.. because the older you get you can't keep up with your children. Also being too young like late teens might be too early. If you have the right support shouldn't be an issue
I'd think too late. At least when you're young you have all the energy and perhaps not yet burned with too much responsibility and can really involve your child with so many things while you both grow together.
I was 23 when I became pregnant and 24 when I gave birth. I think that is a perfect age to have a baby.
I would say both.
Too young and you are quite possibly not prepared financially, emotionally for one, and too late you may just not have the energy for one.
They are a lot of work.
Too late is worse, due to birth complications, less energy to raise them, and your perspectives on life would be too different
I'm no doctor but based on what I've read about pregnancy, biologically speaking too late in life is bad because there are higher risks for the baby to be born prematurely and could be physically damaged bc of the early delivery.