is 30 years old, OLD?

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:23 am

Backglass wrote:You age has nothing to do with your ability to raise/grow with your children. I would recommend that people NOT have kids until they are at least 30. I didn't and am glad I waited. Enjoy your twenties kid-free...you have plenty of time.

It's much healthier for women to have children in their 20s than in their 30s or *gulp* 40s. For both woman and child.

passions · Post by **passions** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:38 pm

Backglass wrote:
passions wrote:it's good because I have 4 kids and I'm able to grow with them as a parent and as a friend.So it's pretty good..30 is amazing!
You age has nothing to do with your ability to raise/grow with your children. I would recommend that people NOT have kids until they are at least 30. I didn't and am glad I waited. Enjoy your twenties kid-free...you have plenty of time.

I never said my age had to do with raising my kids I just Stated that it's better to raise your kids at a young age for many different reasons.I don't suggest that you have kids at a young age.Like I did,but i don't regret having them so young.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:04 pm

If you are just 30 then you still have three years and four months to go ...

Four months? Yes because of my famous theory of vinyl record speeds.

Yours? Yes mine! I came up with it. It's mine!

Tzor's fantastic theory of vinyl record speeds: The ages of man can be divided based on the RPM speeds of anchient vinyl records. Once the age is reached a person enters a new point in his or her life. These speeds are ...

17 ½
33 1/3
45
78

DAZMCFC · Post by **DAZMCFC** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:15 am

btownmeggy wrote:
DAZMCFC wrote:between 86 and 92 i was clubbing it and going to raves every weekend getting bladdered and ending up fighting quite a lot. madchester happened in about 89. oh those were the days. it was not a good night if you did not cop off with some student tart in the indie clubs or twat some odd-bods head in. then i met my wife settled down a had a couple of kids (9 years apart). now life is better, but don`t forget what growing up in sunny salford was like. now i have to look forward to going to norse`s house and screwing his missus.
This is a great post. My favorite part: "and ending up fighting quite a lot"

the truth every word. don`t get me wrong it is not big and it is not clever. if i was a teen now, there are too many cctv cameras to do any of the shit that we got away with. even if out numbered by a load of dickheads, we stuck together no matter what and attacked them 1st. that way quite a few of their shitbags ran of so it made it easier to twat them.

we did not go looking for any fights, they just seemed to happen. i have no criminal record of any sort, so all good.

oh and i would like to say no weapons were used, just mainly a drunken fist fights.

chessplaya · Post by **chessplaya** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:46 am

30 is young

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:32 am

I went to my 10 yr. high school reunion... Everybody basically still looked the same. Just went to my 20. yr......Everybody looks totally different..

20 years makes a big difference...

by 40 you just don't give a f*ck anymore what anybody thinks...

I did notice that most of us gals, had quit smoking, and took up exercise...

The gals that didn't go to the gym...There butts and hips are all big.

So gals, by the time your 30 its time to hit the gym!!

or get saggy butts.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:08 pm

btownmeggy wrote:It's much healthier for women to have children in their 20s than in their 30s or *gulp* 40s. For both woman and child.

Bullshit. Please post your sources showing that a woman & child giving birth at 25 is somehow healthier than 35.

passions wrote:I never said my age had to do with raising my kids I just Stated that it's better to raise your kids at a young age for many different reasons.

What reasons?

passions wrote:I don't suggest that you have kids at a young age.Like I did,but i don't regret having them so young.

Huh? It's better to raise kids under 30...but you don't suggest it? I dont follow.

You don't regret your children of course...you love them unconditionally. But you might regret the age at which you had them. Is that what you are saying?

The only reason I bring it up is I have seen many, many friends that had kids young in their 20's, get divorced (if they were even married at all) and then later attempt to sadly re-live their youth because they didn't have a chance to do it in their 20's.

That's why I suggest people wait. There is no hurry.

MountainLion · Post by **MountainLion** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:42 pm

I'm 31 and I've been told that 40 is when you start to go downhill.

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:27 pm

I had 1 kid when I was 18.
I had another at 22.
and twins at 34.

I can definably say, that I enjoy my little ones now that I am older, than when I was younger.

I say 30 and up is the best time to have kids!

30 is not old.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:29 pm

My mother had me at 25... I kinda fucked things up for a bit, but she was a single mother in University, so...

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:49 pm

Backglass wrote:
btownmeggy wrote:It's much healthier for women to have children in their 20s than in their 30s or *gulp* 40s. For both woman and child.
Bullshit. Please post your sources showing that a woman & child giving birth at 25 is somehow healthier than 35.

The very first link that google returns: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35

Oop, here's more:
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Pregnancy_a ... 64853.html

And more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_hol ... 60322.html

Even this pro-older-mothers website admits it:
http://www.womanspassions.com/articles/122.html

If you didn't already know this, I'm assuming you're not a woman and that you're not reproducing anytime soon.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:05 am

btownmeggy wrote:
Backglass wrote:
btownmeggy wrote:It's much healthier for women to have children in their 20s than in their 30s or *gulp* 40s. For both woman and child.
Bullshit. Please post your sources showing that a woman & child giving birth at 25 is somehow healthier than 35.
The very first link that google returns: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-after-35

Oop, here's more:
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Pregnancy_a ... 64853.html

And more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_hol ... 60322.html

Even this pro-older-mothers website admits it:
http://www.womanspassions.com/articles/122.html

If you didn't already know this, I'm assuming you're not a woman and that you're not reproducing anytime soon.

Well, as long as we are making wild assumptions, I will assume you are a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock before 23 and are attempting to justify your lost youth.

Your statement was that "it is much healthier" for a woman and child to be born in their 20's, and to that I say Bullshit. Potential complications such as the stats your links give (as well as the opinion stories) and "healthier" are two very different things. By your statement, you are implying that children born to women in there 30's are somehow unhealthy, and that is dead wrong. Now...If you are saying the potential for risk is increased as you age, then sure...that much is obvious and true for everything, not just childbirth. With this logic you could say that women over 30 shouldn't drive a car as an accident is much harder to recover from at those (gasp!) advanced ages.

In 1950 the medical profession advised women over 30 NOT to have children. Today they practically encourage it. Why? I'll let you make more assumptions.

I take the argument that it is better for the child to have older parents. More time, more money, more stability and more life experience. Again, I have seen friends with kids who had babies...and every Saturday night they drop the baby off at grandmas so they can go clubbing. Nice way to raise a kid.

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:52 am

Backglass wrote: In 1950 the medical profession advised women over 30 NOT to have children. Today they practically encourage it. Why? I'll let you make more assumptions.

Because in the '50s medicine was less-equipped for dealing with the mongoloids that were produced from such pregnancies?

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:42 pm

btownmeggy wrote:
Backglass wrote: In 1950 the medical profession advised women over 30 NOT to have children. Today they practically encourage it. Why? I'll let you make more assumptions.
Because in the '50s medicine was less-equipped for dealing with the mongoloids that were produced from such pregnancies?

Well...you know what they say you assume.

Your use of the word "Mongoloid" dates you (or the way you were raised) and speaks volumes. Sorry you were forced to have kids so early.

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:34 pm

Backglass wrote:Your use of the word "Mongoloid" dates you (or the way you were raised) and speaks volumes. Sorry you were forced to have kids so early.

You've found me out. My use of the word Mongoloid dated me all the way back to the 1890s, when I was forced into an arranged marriage with a deranged Swiss phrenologist. By the age of 18, I had five children: Paul, Jean, Bernadette, Nanette, and wee baby Georges.

For the past 100 years, I've been on a vicious campaign against over-age-30 pregnancies.

Serbia · Post by **Serbia** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:46 pm

And for being 120 years old Meggy, you look excellent. Not to mention the 5 kids either!

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:39 pm

Backglass wrote:
btownmeggy wrote:It's much healthier for women to have children in their 20s than in their 30s or *gulp* 40s. For both woman and child.
Bullshit. Please post your sources showing that a woman & child giving birth at 25 is somehow healthier than 35.

That's like saying a 25 year old is likely to run faster than a 35 year old or heal from a broken bone sooner.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:24 am

kwanton wrote:
hecter wrote:
Fircoal wrote:I'm 14 and I can't go to Collage Bars.

They kicked me out for drinking too much beer.
A sip from you're mothers glass doesn't count as "too much beer"

O, and for me "too much" is about five...
lol lightweight. 5 is a buzz for me. Then again I can't handle hard liquor worth shit. Half a gatorade bottle of smirnoff and I'm naked on my front lawn.

But I digress. "30's the new 20" so not old at all. And come august it will actually be appropriate for me to party in college bars. F'in pedos.

I take 8-10 shots when i'm out drinking of hard 92 proof stuff. I assume it's pretty hard since everclear is the only shit i've seen harder. Anyways, that typically makes me slightly tipsy and hitting on everyone. I've never really gotten more drunk than that, or puked.

passions · Post by **passions** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:28 pm

@backglass,I had my first child at 18,my second and 3rd child by the age of 21 and my 4th child at the age of 25.I don't suggest you do it this way, but I do suggest women have children before the age of 35.For one it is much healthier for the baby and the mother,here is a little preview of why,
Question:Is it okay to plan a baby after 35.
Answer:One of the main problems of planning a baby later in life is that of conception.Since women's fertility decreses with age,it becomes diffecult to get pregnant.However, once the women does get pregnant,the chance of the baby being born with Down Syndrom or somee other chrosomal defects increses.In addition the expectant mother could develop high blood pressure(especial if overweight)diabetes, and other complacations. The older you get, the greater the risk is.This risk increases with the mother's age:1 in 10,000 for 20 year old mother's and 3 in 1000 for 35 year olds,and 3 in 100 for 40 year old mother's.. Hope that helps a little.

Yes I had my kids young but I love it and that does,t change how I raise them.In my personal opion raising your kids at the age of 20 or even 30 is good because Your own youth days are still fresh in the mind and i do believe that the communcation level is different as then having older parents..As for just because you have children,it doesn,t mean you stop living all together.It is very healthy and normal for parent's to get out and live it up a bit..

Sorry for all the spelling errors..lol

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:04 pm

passions wrote:@backglass,I had my first child at 18,my second and 3rd child by the age of 21 and my 4th child at the age of 25.

Wow..I have to ask, why? Was this all by choice? Don't you feel you missed out on so much of your youth? You never had a chance to even grow up.

passions wrote:I don't suggest you do it this way, but I do suggest women have children before the age of 35.

I would agree...have kids between 30-34 and get the best of both worlds.

passions wrote:Yes I had my kids young but I love it and that does,t change how I raise them.In my personal opion raising your kids at the age of 20 or even 30 is good because Your own youth days are still fresh in the mind

lol...ok. I don't think your "youth days" ever fade from your mind. Mine certainly haven't.

passions wrote:i do believe that the communication level is different as then having older parents..As for just because you have children,it doesn,t mean you stop living all together.It is very healthy and normal for parent's to get out and live it up a bit..

Of course...I love our babysitter so the wife & I can have a nice dinner, etc. Thats different from pawning your kids off on your parents every weekend at the age of 21 so you can continue to party all night. (Not you of course, just people I have known). Those people shouldn't have had kids as they obviously don't have the maturity to raise a child...and their parents end up doing the majority of it for them.

Perhaps you were the rare mature 18 year old ahead of their time.

larry holland · Post by **larry holland** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:29 am

being 50 isnt bad, so 30 was great. well the 80s was the best but the 60s was better

Post by **TeeGee** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:35 am

larry holland wrote:being 50 isnt bad, so 30 was great. well the 80s was the best but the 60s was better

Larry, you old bastard

where u been hiding?

I turned 40 last year and still feel young. Funny thing is that I did have issues turning 30 but turning 40 was no drama. Its just a number.

Your only as old as the woman you feel (my wife is 28

)

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:30 am

TeeGee wrote:Your only as old as the woman you feel (my wife is 28 )

who are you, Donald Trump?

Post by **TeeGee** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:27 pm

static_ice wrote:
TeeGee wrote:Your only as old as the woman you feel (my wife is 28 )
who are you, Donald Trump?

I could answer that, but then I would have to fire (or kill) you