I need some advice. I'm involved in a debate regarding whether women should have babies before 35 years of age. I'm on the negative (opposing) team. I honestly don't have a clue on how I can argue against this. Women over 35 are more likely to be infertile, more likely to produce babies with genetic deformities, and are more likely to suffer from complications during pregnancy, and at the birth. It's a no brainer that women should have children before the age of 25. Anyone have any ideas on this issue?
Several arguments I've just thought of: - Women tend to be more mature after 35 years of age, making them more suitable for child rearing. - Older women tend to have financial security, and hence can provide for their child. - Older women tend to have a stable relationship with their spouse, whereas younger women may be 'chopping and changing' boyfriends. Now all I need to do is find some supporting evidence for the above ideas. *sigh*
I'm not promoting this, but the younger a woman has a baby, the less chance there is for having birth defects, and the less chance of having complications. This is backed by scientific studies that you can easily google and find. I definitely agree that the mother needs to be mature enough to provide the proper upbringing and guidance needed. Another argument to having children while the married couple is younger is that then you're more free to enjoy your lives as you get older, rather than being tied down care for and upbring the children. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Off the subject a bit, but if you shorten the title to just "women should have babies": Japanese Health Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa recently stated that women are "Baby Producing Devices" in order to try to persuade more women to have babies in Japan to counter the falling birthrates that are expected to lead to a huge social problem in the work force and problems with financing the social services for the elderly. He said the following in a speech on health and welfare: "The number of women aged between 15 and 50 is fixed. Because the number of birth-giving machines and devices is fixed, all we can ask for is for them to do their best per head, although it may not be so appropriate to call them machines."
That's a tough one. Before 35 is obviously the correct answer. But if I had to argue your side, I'd go with female empowerment, glass ceilings, equal rights, and all that crap. That's the only possible argument. Basically, you've got to make a women putting her career before the health of her children look like a good thing. Go on some feminist websites, you'll probably find some "good" arguments there. I'd think older feminist literature might be best. Back before women found out they really can't have it all.
As someone who just hit 35 and is due in just under 4 weeks, I have to say there is no way in hell I would take the risk and have a third after this one. My sister in law had her first at 35 and her second at 38.. And by the time the second came, she was tired all the time. She chose to wait. I had never planned to have any since I was supposedly not able to have children. Go figure. But I had my first at 33 (the doctor referred to him as a miracle babyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) and if I had to advise anyone, I would say try and get it all done before 35. The risk to the child and the mother are seriously not worth the wait. Some do however and don't have any problems. And others who are under 35 have babies and have major problems. It is virtually a lottery at times. You should also comment on medical advances that now allow women to choose to wait longer. The can prepare themselves before conceiving, such as increasing their intake of folate, and they can also have early tests done to ensure that the foetus has no severe problems. Say that while it is safe to wait until after 35 as so many women are choosing to do nowdays, it is still best to not wait until they are 40 years of age. One thing you should definately mention is that if women choose to wait, they now have the option to store their eggs from when they are much earlier so that if they decide to wait, they will still be able to resort to IVF and use the eggs they had stored when they were much younger. This gives women the choice and also the time to work on their careers before deciding to start a family. Financial security is one reason why many women choose to wait. Having enough put aside so they are able to raise their children and own their own home without debt and without having to rely on social services (such as parenting payments).. ensuring they are not a drain on government services.
I would ask them to give a specific mathematical threshhold. At what % do we create a moral rule. 1 incident per 100,000 births. I think this makes them sound stupid. I would also research other factors that lead to birth defects and ask them if these should also create moral rules. It assumes that a general statistical tendency should be used as a rule FOR ALL WOMEN. That it should be a factor that women consider, OK. But to say that women shouldn't have children when they are +35 would be an unfair ethical standard. I'll give an example. A mother with six children becomes chronically ill. One of the children, a woman, takes care of the mother for 15 years. The mother dies when the reaches 35. Now she finally feels she can start a family. She had met a man, but they decided to put off having children until the mother was dead or some other solution was reached. Shall we now tell this woman that she SHOULD NOT HAVE a child? There could be all sorts of individuals who for various reasons did nto have the option: lack of money, lack of a fertile partner, etc. Shall we say that a statistical tendency indicates it is immoral for them to have children? There are also groups of people who have genetic traits that give them a slightly higher (in some cases muc higher) chance of having certain kinds of helath problems come up in the children. If these people reproduce is it immoral. How do we take into account other health factors? Let's say many women in a specific woman's family have had children in later years. Does this give her a pass on the moral injunction? It is now OK for her. Do people who engage in activites that also show tendencies toward birth defects also come under the injunction? I am not talking about people who smoke during pregnancy for example. But if studies show that people who smoked for more than five years are more likely to have problems SHOULD these people not have children. And if you took really good care of your body, should that give you a better moral ground to have children later in life? Basically I am saying that having a moral rule here based on statistical tendencies is wrong because it lumps every woman into one box. Should people who use public transport have more right to have children than people who drive all the time and are more likely to end up having children who are wards fo the state. (because driving is so dangerous)
I think yes women should have babies in their 20s. I think 35 is a bit old, it's still acceptable but old. It's better to have kids sooner rather than later, but not so soon that you have not finished school.
Yeah thats why it will take longer and longer to get established in the world so that the average age of having children becomes older and older. As far as I know, it does not matter. Have kids when you can, or don't have them if you don't want them. I don't think it will matter. But if you don't want to have kids, go to a sperm bank instead, or donate eggs. It's better to contribute to research, or give someone else the ability to create life, than to simply waste sperm and eggs.
... although it may not be so appropriate to call them machines. Good thing he tacked that on at the end...
Correct. Now I have a theory based on personal statistics (people I observed), that kids born to older parents tend to be slower mentally. I know, I know. You guys gonna say: But look, little Leslie's parents are both 50+ and he is a prodigy!! I am talking about statistics (bigger the statistical sample, the better) and not 1-2 exceptions. Don't you guys find that when the parents are in their 40s the kid is a bit slow? Although it is possible that with mental stimulation this can be counterbalanced....
Quebec did the same thing sort of a while back. They gave families (or women) extra tax breaks if there were more than 3 children. Government complaining about the lack of new "french" children and the decline of their culture.
This sort of thinking leads down a slippery slope: Black people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system: So they can't be allowed to have kids! Old people in general have more health problems than young people: Euthanasia at age 40. White Europeans are prone to attempts at world domination: Get rid of all of them too! We can take this thing to ridiculous extremes.
Men are vastly more likely to sexually abuse their children. Fact. Men should not custody of children, they should simply be sperm donors. Conclusion? This whole topic sounds like a guilt trip for women who, for whatever reason, have children later in life. Old sperm probably causes problems too, but nothing, I repeat nothing is going to stop older men from impregnating younger women.
I read a study about flies where the scientists controled their breeding and waited until later in their life cycle than they normally breed to let them. I believe the offspring lived like 1.5x as long as their parents. The explanation was that The offspring had to live longer in order to reproduce, because the parents weren't able to reproduce until later on in life. I'm not sure if you'd get the same results with humans though.
The problem with a woman having a baby when she is 35 is that the child will become 13 when she is 48. You have menopause and adolescence in the same household at the same time. That is an explosive combination of too many hormones. I lived that and it was godawful. (My mother was 33 when I was born and American women entered menopause earlier in those days.)
On the other hand my mother had me at about the same age and I know she was much better at dealing with the stresses and challenges of being a parent than she would have been when she was younger. What if we find out left handed women tend to be better parents (as rated by spouses and children), should we then decide that right handed women shouldn't have children? What if women have almost no birth defected children if they have their babies when they are 13 years old? I mean this math shit and generalization....We are talking about a vastly complicated thing, having a child, parenting, etc. One statistic might be somethign to think about but please....
