Having kids

[Marisawright]

Marisa, I take your point about maternal instinct only being demonstrated after birth not before.

Apologies if I offended you, I didn't mean to.

 

It makes me think some people who have never been clucky and so not had kids, may have missed out as their attitude may have totally changed after having a baby of their own.

 

You are absolutely right, of course. But the key is that my attitude MAY have totally changed. What if it didn't, where would I be then? Trapped in a restricted, impoverished new life, and grieving the life I was perfectly happy with before some idiot promised me my feelings would change. Several mothers have posted here to say that motherhood is very tough, but the overwhelming love you feel for your children makes up for it. If you don't feel that overwhelming love, then there's no upside, there's just duty.

 

For me, it was too big a risk to take on other people's say-so, considering it meant putting my whole life on the line. I don't have a good track record with that kind of thing! I once went abseiling because I was told it would be an amazing, life-changing experience which would give me new-found confidence and cure my fear of heights. I did the whole course, including the longest abseil (which some people didn't attempt) - hated every minute of it, didn't lose my fear of heights and would never do it again. Ditto when someone told me that once I'd tried a roller-coaster I'd love it - didn't.

 

My own sister was like me, got pregnant by accident and dreaded the birth because she was sure she would hate being a mother. She was amazed how strongly she felt for the baby and she went on to have two more, so you'd think that would reassure me, yes? BUT although she says she feels "like a lioness who would do anything to protect her cubs", I think her "maternal instinct" is more like a man's than a woman's. I wonder how she would feel if her oh hadn't given up work to be the house-husband. She's a high-flying career woman, took the absolute minimum of maternity leave, and now leaves home at 6am and isn't back until after the kids are in bed. She doesn't have to work (her oh has pots of money) and he would dearly love the whole family to retire to their holiday villa in France, but she won't.

 

Besides, as Bound4Tassie says, you can't miss what you've never experienced.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Marisawright

[Paul1Perth]

Although statistics show married men are healthier than single and the institution would appear to benefit men more than women. I would argue women certainly after a certain age cope far better with being along and single than do men.

Of course married men are healthier. They aren't out boozing when they feel like it, staying out late, on tinder or one of the other dating sites sorting out the next date, burning the candle at both ends.:wink:

[Paul1Perth]

As I said in my earlier post, I was never that keen on children and put off having them until I'd been married for 8 years. Only then, did I feel I really wanted to have them. I was terribly sick throughout each pregnancy - only stopped throwing up after they were born but once I held them there was such a great surge of love I knew I could cope no matter what.

 

I know of two women who didn't want children but the husband did so went ahead and had the babies. When they were past the baby stage they walked out on the husband and kids, more or less stating "You're the one who wanted them. You can look after them" :embarrassed:

 

The number of times I've thought of saying something like that but in typical guy fashion I've got on with it and taken my turn in whatever it was needed doing. Getting up in the middle of the night, changing nappies, staying in when the wife wanted to go out, cutting back on playing sports, cutting back on going to the pub, cutting back on catching up with friends.

 

I think the two women you knew were a bit selfish and could have told the husband what the real score was before the kids came along.

[Paul1Perth]

Oh don't get me started on the yummy mummy cafes :laugh: To be avoided at all times unless you have a baby/toddler of course.

 

It's stretched out to pubs now jock. Me and the wife went to the breakwater (a nice pub at Hillary's with a big deck out the back, looking over the marina and Ocean) for lunch a few weeks ago. We couldn't get on the deck for Mum's with prams, young kids running around and tremendous noise from the kids not being tended to 'cos the Mum was too interested in the conversation and the glass of wine. What is it with young Mum's? Do their ears tune out the sound of screaming automatically?:laugh:

[Paul1Perth]

I wonder what causes a woman not to have any maternal instinct.

In most species and most humans it is there naturally and an extreme emotion.

 

I guess the human condition of having choices and a bit more brain than most species parley.

[Guest littlesarah]

I don't have a 'maternal instinct' when it comes to kids I don't know, tbh. And I will admit something that I haven't heard from many other mothers: I took a few weeks to really 'bond' with my little one. I didn't fall instantly in love with him when I first saw or held him - it was more like a love affair in which we had to get to know one another before we realised one day that we do in fact love, and most of the time like, each other! I'm in that category of 'older mum' (38 when Baby Little was born), and until we lost a baby I wasn't 100% sure that I really did want a family. Life is harder in many ways when you have children, especially if you have a career and you are trying to keep that going, but would I change things? No. I think the decision about if and when to have a family is personal, and there isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' time to do so; though I do think that waiting for 'right' time may mean never getting started!

[Que Sera Sera]

It's stretched out to pubs now jock. Me and the wife went to the breakwater (a nice pub at Hillary's with a big deck out the back, looking over the marina and Ocean) for lunch a few weeks ago. We couldn't get on the deck for Mum's with prams, young kids running around and tremendous noise from the kids not being tended to 'cos the Mum was too interested in the conversation and the glass of wine. What is it with young Mum's? Do their ears tune out the sound of screaming automatically?:laugh:

The village pub was like that where I came from in the UK. From opening at lunch time to school pick up time. The pub was about 5 houses down from the primary school. If we popped in for lunch on a Friday when OH had finished nights and I had finished work, the place was full of trodden in crisps empty coke cans and fruit shoot bottles. No work for any of them just one big social for 3 hours then stagger down to the school gate, or the very unlucky little ones might get driven home by their Mother.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Que Sera, Sera

[Bound4Tassie]

The village pub was like that where I came from in the UK. From opening at lunch time to school pick up time. The pub was about 5 houses down from the primary school. If we popped in for lunch on a Friday when OH had finished nights and I had finished work, the place was full of trodden in crisps empty coke cans and fruit shoot bottles. No work for any of them just one big social for 3 hours then stagger down to the school gate, or the very unlucky little ones might get driven home by their Mother.

 

Well there's an idea to pass the time! Lol!

[maidensarah]

I take that as a sign of inteligence at that age. You can't just tell them what to do, you have to have a reason for the request :laugh:

He is very bright. They've said at his preschool that he is the first one in his group of 22 to show that he is ready for school. Most start signs around Easter time that they're starting to get ready to move on. It will be a long 6 weeks summer hol before September when he starts. Will have to just try and keep him as busy as possible.:laugh:

[Guest51810]

http://news.sky.com/story/1424026/genetically-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins

[maidensarah]

I think yes fetility is perhaps better in the 20s (I was lucky to fall in month 1 and 3 with mine when trying, but that's not for all people), however, just like this story shows, there is so much they can do now to help people out in the fertility department, should they need it, so if you don't want or don't happen to have children 'til your 30s or even 40s don't worry about it. It's no one's business but yours

[Guest51810]

After speaking about kids talking etc my cousins little boy apparently started talking tonight about a lady who was standing in his house. He said his papa was coming to visit him tomorrow and when Kirsty said who are you talking to he said "the lady over there". :laugh: I think I'd be creeped out lol

[HappyHeart]

I think yes fetility is perhaps better in the 20s (I was lucky to fall in month 1 and 3 with mine when trying, but that's not for all people), however, just like this story shows, there is so much they can do now to help people out in the fertility department, should they need it, so if you don't want or don't happen to have children 'til your 30s or even 40s don't worry about it. It's no one's business but yours

 

 

Women are fertile for a long period of time, say from 13-50? Thats a big window of opportunity, obviously the older you get the more chance of a mutation in your eggs but the trade off is a more prepared mother. I think 30 is a good age to start but in reality it doesn't really matter, they come when they're meant to.

[Parley]

50?. Your joking. That is one in a million to conceive naturally that that age.

[HappyHeart]

50?. Your joking. That is one in a million to conceive naturally that that age.

 

 

Women ovulate and menstruate into 50s and beyond at times....they may be 'less fertile' but definitely fertile! Hence the need for contraception up to the menopause and taking extra precautions even when you think you've been through it....you don't know much about womens health do you Parley??

[HappyHeart]

50?. Your joking. That is one in a million to conceive naturally that that age.

 

[h=4]45 and over[/h]At 45, a woman's likelihood of getting pregnant is no more than 3 or 4 percent. I think you'll find that's 3-4 out of a hundred actually

[Parley]

You said 50.

Find me the percentage of women who conceive naturally at 50.

Would be extremely rare.

 

And even 3 or 4 percent is very low for mid 40s.

Vast majority of women at that age would need IVF treatment to conceive.

 

I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge on women's fertility by so many women.

Edited February 10, 2015 by parleycross

[Keith and Linda]

After speaking about kids talking etc my cousins little boy apparently started talking tonight about a lady who was standing in his house. He said his papa was coming to visit him tomorrow and when Kirsty said who are you talking to he said "the lady over there". :laugh: I think I'd be creeped out lol

 

My daughters invisible friend was called David, no idea where it came from, but she used to have quite some conversations with him. Sadly David left her when she was about 4yrs old.

[robfromdublin]

50?. Your joking. That is one in a million to conceive naturally that that age.

 

Parley, you were the one who questioned that women would be fertile at 50. Then you contradicted yourself by saying that they have a low chance of becoming pregnant. A 0.01% chance of becoming pregnant is still fertile!

 

If you're going to rudely question other people's knowledge of a subject, then you should sort out your own knowledge of logic and the English language. (It's spelt 'you're')

[Parley]

Okay I accept that are have been extremely rare cases of giving birth naturally after 50.

0.01% is a freak occurrence and cannot be used as a pointer to say women generally are fertile at this age.

 

I'm sure we have all read of some freak occurrence that is so rare it gets written up in the Daily Mail.

 

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has also warned that those over the age of 40 are up to three times more likely to lose their baby than younger mothers.

Their babies also face a greater risk of ill-health or abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.

It is dangerous to promote the thinking that women can safely wait until their 40's to have a baby.

It is very risky.

[HappyHeart]

Okay I accept that are have been extremely rare cases of giving birth naturally after 50.

0.01% is a freak occurrence and cannot be used as a pointer to say women generally are fertile at this age.

 

I'm sure we have all read of some freak occurrence that is so rare it gets written up in the Daily Mail.

 

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has also warned that those over the age of 40 are up to three times more likely to lose their baby than younger mothers.

Their babies also face a greater risk of ill-health or abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.

It is dangerous to promote the thinking that women can safely wait until their 40's to have a baby.

It is very risky.

 

 

Who is promoting that on this thread?

 

My argument would be that women need to be aware of their ongoing fertility to avoid accidental pregnancy at a later age and with the added risks of increased disability. No-one would argue that it's a great idea to have your babies at 40 plus but very little evidence to say that waiting till your 30s is harmful. As with everything it's an individual decision and many factors determine 'best time...not just the physiological.

[Que Sera Sera]

I suspect it could be a littles less rare if contraception, and termination weren't a factor. Lots of women years ago had children " on the change"

[JockinTas]

I suspect it could be a littles less rare if contraception, and termination weren't a factor. Lots of women years ago had children " on the change"

 

They sure did. My grandmother was 51 when she had my Dad. She thought she'd finished having her babies (5 in all) at the age of 38. He grew up to be a fine, strapping man. Grandma lived to the ripe old age of 97 :cute:

[Marisawright]

Women are fertile for a long period of time, say from 13-50? Thats a big window of opportunity, obviously the older you get the more chance of a mutation in your eggs but the trade off is a more prepared mother. I think 30 is a good age to start but in reality it doesn't really matter, they come when they're meant to.

 

It's extremely rare for women to fall pregnant naturally after the age of 45 and even then, the risk of mutations is a lot higher once you're in your forties. My mother and my sister both had late babies in their early forties. My sister would've loved to have more but once she got past 45 she was told the chances were vanishingly small - and so it proved.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Marisawright

[Guest51810]

The old fashioned people got to me and I started thinking that maybe leaving it till my 30's isn't right but I've just thought of 5 women who have had kids in their mid 30's and they don't seem too old at all. They already had kids before though