Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comA new government study confirms that U.S. births fell in 2008, probably because of the recession. The one exception to the trend was the birth rate among women in their 40s.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
American men finally closing the longevity gender gapLate starters can live longer if they get movingMom with flesh-eating disease had seven operationsU.S. HIV aid has prevented 741,000 deaths: studyLung cancer scans suggested for older heavy smokersNew York judge with cancer makes case for marijuanaKicking up the spice may help your heartPot groups hope Ore. race sends feds a messageParents buying off kids for good behaviorGeorgia woman with flesh-eating disease in "critical" condition
Leave a Comment:
With men's wages being so low compared to the 1940's-70's, more Moms have to wait to have children until it's almost too late. This is very sad. When my parents adopted me in the 1960's, my Dad worked at a paint store and made enough money to support his family and buy a modest median-priced home. Today, that same retail store worker would have to earn $65,000/year! Today's males make nowhere near that kind of money. This needs to change!
my grandfather worked as a manager in a shoe store and somehow made enough money to have a modest little 3 bedroom home with a yard for his 3 daughters. I can't imagine this happening now.
Hard work no longer pays as much as it used to. Knowing someone that can get you into a position that still pays you well is the best you can do.
So it's entirely up to men to support a family? What about women's wages? They don't make as much as their male counterparts but I don't see the outrage over that.
Also, many young people are coming out of college with staggering student loan debt and cannot afford to have children until much later than normal, especially with the job market being so bad right now.
And I would like to add that many smart women are leaving motherhood to a later stage, wanting to first venture in the professional workplace. I truly commend these women who are not giving in to social pressures to get married and have children right away. Way to go, girls!!!
I am in my 30s and my husband is in his 40s and we don't have kids. You have to REALLY REALLY want kids to handle the emotional, financial, work/life sacrifice - especially nowadays when ecomonic times are more fragile and hostile than ever. We both worked harder than we've ever worked in life last year - and I got laid off (and was luckily re-employed elsewhere) and he took a pay cut and 401(k) match elimination. Why the heck would we have a kid when things are so unstable and we are working SO hard just to move BACKWARD?
To the above person's point, I had $20k+ student loans paid off by the time I reached 30. It took me 10 years of hard work to pay them off. Why would I have a child when I can't even start putting away money for his/her education when I am still in debt trying to pay off my own?
This is a very common scenario for SO many Generation X and Y people. We've taken the time and spent the money to educate ourselves, become independent and self-sufficient, and we want to make SMART decisions, enjoy the fruits of our labor, and not just have kids and "hope for the best" like so many have done in the past because they feel its the next logical step. Sure there is no "right" time, but now is way too volatile for many.
People in their 20s and 30s (and any age, really) don't feel financially secure. It costs a lot of money to raise a child and with the cost of living going up and cost-of-living increases completely GONE for most, many don't want to chance it and are holding off til later in life. I suspect this trend will continue for awhile.
So let me get this part straight, since money is tight, people are opting for more high risk births? Why again?
Totally agree!
Idiots!
from the article "The rate of Cesarean deliveries rose for the 12th straight year, to 32.3 percent of all births."
1/3 of American mothers are too posh for vaginal births.
I really wish these women doing late births in their 40's would knock it off! I hear this crap from my sister all the time about how smart women are getting to put off having kids until they're in their 40's. It's one of the worst ideas around for soooo many reasons, and it's nothing but an ill conceived trend in society today and I don't want my college age daughters to EVER think that is a wise move. My husband was born when his mother was in her 40's and his sister was grown, married and having a child of her own. By the time he was in his EARLY twenties, his mother had advanced alzheimers and his father died leaving his mother to be taken care of. I'll never forget the pain in my husbands eyes that day as he cried knowing his children would never know their grandparents and he would never have the help or support of his parents while raising his kids with so many questions. Here we are twenty years after his fathers death and we are still taking care of his mother and trying to put kids through college.
The diseducation of America. I'm sure you're sister is using Madonna as an example mother. "If Madonna can have a child in her 40's, so can I!" Deferring child birth is a sure way to increase a woman's risk of *never* having her own children. These older mothers are apparently happy with a single child, preferably a girl.
Kids born to older parents are generally more intelligent and more successful in life. I wouldn't call it a "mistake." The mistake is for anyone to have kids under the age of 25. You're putting your kid at a disadvantage if you do that.
You wouldn't have a husband if she hadn't given birth to him. I'm sure he was conceived out of love by his parents and not by a malicious act to make you or him miserable. Count your blessings and stop complaining. Life is messy sometimes, but at least he has some wonderful memories and so did they. That is what life is about. Not everyone gets that in their lives.
Megan-775995564
wrote "Kids born to older parents are generally more intelligent and more successful in life."
For the same reason that first-borns has a mild advantage over later children : wealthier parents have fewer children. A major factor in producing fewer children is maternal age. If they are more intelligent due to genetic reasons, such would be attributed only to the biological parents.
It would be more accurate to write "The single child born to mothers over 40 will be more successful in life."
Never a "perfect" time to have a baby. There are many good reasons for waiting. One of them is stability.
A woman in her 40's have healthy babies. Get over it. My wife did it and all is well. All pregnancies have risks regardless of age.
Is deferring childbirth to age 40 good advice to give a young woman?
It's really not. Having your first child over the age of 30 raises your risks to the point that some midwives won't accept you as a patient for a home birth for example. Any pregnancy in a woman over the age of 35 is considered "high risk" (to both baby and mother - not just downs syndrome) and have to have all kinds of additional tests that are not necessary for younger mothers.
Good. It's reassuring to read that women understand this. Many are delusional and believe that celebrity births are indicators of the average success.
Anyone who would bring a child in to this cesspool of a world should have their head examined...
Not everyone is a health train wreck at 35. It's hard to believe these days, I know. Some of us take great care of ourselves.
I'm 43 and currently pregnant with my third child. My other two were born at 35/37. They were completely uncomplicated pregnancies and births. Both of my children are very healthy. I'm very opposed to medical intervention during the birth process and both were unmedicated births.
Regarding the comments about c-section. C-section rates have been rising steadily across all age groups. This is primarily caused by constant intervention during pregnancy/birth. Overuse of pictocin, epidurals and fetal monitoring have a domino effect and result in increased c-section rates. Also, many women are overweight today (all age groups). That's something that is rarely discussed. It increases your chances of hypertension, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. All of which will also increase chances of a preterm birth and c-section. I also read an article last week that obesity increases rates of spina bifida and heart defects.
Regarding the previous comments about midwives not taking someone over the age of 30. I'm currently planning a homebirth with a midwife. She's been in practice over 25 years and said she specifically focuses in on the overall health of her patients, not their age.
Bottom line, no matter what your age, women and men need to take better care of their health. It needs to be a priority. More so than many other things in life...
but why are you over populating the planet, now when you and your husband die you have added one extra person to the population, plus now your kid has to graduate with a 61 year old mother
LOL.....yeah, I used to spew all the stuff about overpopulation when I was in my twenties. I remember it well. Unfortunately, most of the people I know today still pushing that argument are the most cynical and bitter people I know. No thanks, I'll pass.
I’m in better shape than most 40 year old women. I look better and I’m in excellent physical health (same goes for my husband). I’m not worried about what age I’ll be when my children are older. Regardless, I’m sure I’ll be in better shape than their peer’s parents. We already are.
Maybe you haven't looked around lately, but most Americans are headed down a very bad path. In 10 years the vast majority of Americans will have hypertension, diabetes and heart problems etc. Lack of exercise and a steady diet of crap itsn't going lead to healthy aging for anyone.
When I had my kids with midwives, this was one of the guidelines (FIRST child over 30 - not subsequent children - they also didn't accept mothers that were very young - under 17) and from what I understood it has nothing to do with how healthy you are. Even if you are running marathons still getting carded, and in perfect health, chronological age (over 35) was considered a significant factor when it came to pregnancy risks. I had my children 15 -25 yrs ago, so maybe there is new information? Am I misinformed?
I'm in California and I've never heard of that. I looked into a homebirth with my other two when I was 35/37. They never said a word about my age. I ended up going with a labor support doula who was training as a midwife only because I was not positive about doing a homebirth.
My midwives have very specific guidelines for their patents. They don't handle multiples, breech presentation, preexisting diabetes or hypertension or other health conditions they believe could lead to a difficult pregnancy. At any point if a patient begins to develop preeclampsia they refer to a OB, same with gestational diabetes.
They said they will work with their clients to get it under control but if diet and exercise doesn’t help they will refer to an OB. They don't want to risk a problem during delivery which makes perfect sense.