Lemons

Yeah I know, I was saying that for the people who do go to collage. But if they dont and they are lucky to be wealthy enough to be stay at home moms or dads then yeah. lol

CrAZyBeAuTiFuL4

Again not everyone who doesn't go to college is weatlhy enough to be stay at home moms/dads. A lot of people don't go to college because they can't afford it. Hell, the majority of people who ARE in college are there because of financial help from the government and/or scholarships.

FantaOrSprite

You don't have to be rich to be a stay at home mom or dad :x I'm proof postive of that. We may be comfortable, but by no means are we wealthy.

You cant put an age on when you can start having children or not. I have a child now and I'm in my early twenties.I think I've been a pretty good mother. Much better than my own and she was in the socially acceptable age of 30 when she had me and my brother

I think it depends on the person, and it should be left at that. Some people will never be ready for kids. They will be selfish their whole lives.

Heather_ea

IMO, it really depends on the health of the mother. If she's old enough where it's obvious that the child will absolutely NOT have the attention and patience it needs from an active mother, then no, your way to old to have a child. My mother had my sister at 35. I know of about 3 women one is 38, one 43, and one 45, all have healthy kids. Granted, when they reach teenage years, their mothers will be almost 70. But nowadays, women are taking better care of themselves and are extremely healthy at 70. I do believe mentally and emotionally, having a baby past the age of 40 may be too much. But some people are physically and mentally capable of doing it.

ElectronicWorm

That was because the baby does not have her genes, its from a donor which is (of course) much younger the her.

I think if you wanna have a baby at that high age, the media will find out anyway and bring the story into the world. And didnt I see this woman on tv herself being interviewed about the whole thing? If she doesnt want people to discuss about it, she shouldnt have done it.

ForeverInLoveWithJus

^^ you are right, she made her decision to have this child so she knew that it would get known to the media. The story will go away but the discussion will not.

CrAZyBeAuTiFuL4

I guess I don't see the connection here between someone chosing to have a baby and knowing the media will be all over her for doing it. I think this story only came to be known because of the means she went through to have the baby...IVF. Now had she just gotten pregnant and had the child, I don't think anyone would have said anything and no one would have cared. It seems that the only reason people are making a fuss over this is because she wasn't able to have children naturally and so people look at her and think, "well, hello...your biological clock stopped ticking, dumbass! aka, you're not supposed to have children now." Ahhh, I don't know where I'm going with this, so nevermind.

One quick thought though. With all this talk about when is the "right" age to have a child and when is the "wrong" age to have a child...girls are starting their menstrual cycles earlier now than they were 10 years ago...and its been said by many to keep going like this. So, my quesiton is...if the girls are coming into puberty earlier doesn't that also mean that they will be reaching menopause earlier in their life and that will in turn lower the age at which they can have children? So what if, in 20 years or so, some women are hitting menopause around 35 or 40? They're still young and still healthy, should they not be allowed to have children anymore just because their menstrual cycles have stopped?

ForeverInLoveWithJus

I know lots of girls that I was in school with that hit puberty at 8 years old, but they have been told that they will still hit menopause in their 40's. Nature is the way you should go with things, If nature wants you to have a baby by a certain age and that is the way I feel you must go.

Riapanonias

I agree.. when nature says stop then its stop.

FantaOrSprite

Ok I don't agree with if nature says you can't have a baby then dont' have one. THere are women out there that would be lovely parents, and yes I know they can adopt,but the waiting lists to adopt are freaking loooooooong. And besides some women just want to experiance birth, being pregnant the whole nine yards. IVF is great for that, and I'm sorry if you don't agree with it, but why not tear apart the women who have children and dont' take care of them?

Obviously this woman wanted a child very badly . So what if it wasn't her genes? She STILL Carried her healthily and everyone is sitting there saying "Well this COULD have happened." It didn't. Stop dwelling on coulda shoulda woulda and be happy that out there there is a child that has a parent that loves it enough to go through that for it. She has to go through people saying she is a horrible person for doing this.

Yeah the woman COULD die before the child is full grown. GUess what I could die tomorrow and my child would be motherless. Guess noone should ever have kids because something COULD happen.