Parents - How old were you when your first child was born?

[D.P.]

I was 34 and the missus was 33.

Will you idiots please stop saying you stay in the North, proper North would be the Orkneys.

There is a very easy way to resolve this situation:

here is the center of Britian
https://www.google.com/maps/place/54°00'13.2"N+2°32'52.3"W/@53.4729545,1.3831905



people in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds are all actually south of the center but culd call themselves mid-lands if they wanted to.

Birmingham is south, London is the far south

 

[D.P.]

Just read this thread very interesting, my parents were 21m/18f, I'm now in my mid 40s, my OH is late 30s, we got no kids, I guess we are too late now. Scared to be 65+ and kid just starting University. Should I just say sod it and get some dogs/cats?

When you are 65 and your kids go to university then that is perfect timing if you ask me, you can enjoy your retirement without kids in the picture.

 

[D.P.]

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, surely the situation you highlighted is the exact reason many people are uncomfortable with abortion: that being that bartledvd has successfully brought up a child as a young parent in what seems a happy and stable household, despite the "sensible" option, and probably a certain amount of social pressure, to abort. The idea that Bartle and his partner may, under different circumstances, have been pressured into taking the termination option is, in hindsight, a potential tragedy.

The exact reason abortion is legalised is more to protect vulnerable women (generally), for whom an unwanted pregnancy may lead to harm of some sort - mental or physical health - or due to fetal malformity. The law doesn't, as far as I'm aware, actually make provision for abortion for reasons of convenience - though it has, though social convention, moved to leave that choice to the woman in question.

(I'm pro-choice, by the way. Just playing devil's advocate, and suggesting the potential pitfalls of making the "choice" bit too normalised/expected)

it would only be tragedy at the point where you consider the fetus to be a living organism. Int eh very early days it just random cells, later on it is little different to say a tumour or cancer. Only later on is there a central nervous system and brain that responds to any kind of stimuli, it is at that point where abortion is made illegal.

If you go backwards then you can use the same logic to say you should never have sex, or at least never have protected sex. Having sex could potentially cause a health human being, so you shouldn't take that risk?

 

[Datamonkey]

Both 35. Right time for us. Both in well paid jobs with good security and home of our own.

There is no real tight/wrong time though as others have said within reason though lol.

Son is now 2.5 and the apple of our eyes lol

 

[cheesyboy]

it would only be tragedy at the point where you consider the fetus to be a living organism. Int eh very early days it just random cells, later on it is little different to say a tumour or cancer. Only later on is there a central nervous system and brain that responds to any kind of stimuli, it is at that point where abortion is made illegal.

If you go backwards then you can use the same logic to say you should never have sex, or at least never have protected sex. Having sex could potentially cause a health human being, so you shouldn't take that risk?

You misunderstand.

The tragedy isn't the destruction of early life. The tragedy is that pregnant teenagers, vulnerable by nature, may be pressured (directly by family/friends, or indirectly by social norms or culture) to opt for termination when the alternative is not necessarily the disaster it is often feared to be.

Richdog suggested Bartledvd's situation was exactly why abortion was available: the reality is that bartle's outcome seems to suggest the opposite.

Being "pro-choice" cuts both ways: there's a balance to be struck between those two choices, and suggesting someone's good parenting outcome is an advert for abortion is not sounding like a balanced position.

E: and I did say "in hindsight" it would be a tragedy

 

[Phemo]

For our first, I was 32 and wife was 35. For our second, I was 33 and wife was 36. They're pretty much exactly a year apart - both birthdays are in mid-late May.

She already had 2 kids before when she was 25 and 27 though so at least it wasn't all new to her. Still, there'll definitely be no more now

 

[Burned_Alive]

There is a very easy way to resolve this situation:

here is the center of Britian
https://www.google.com/maps/place/54°00'13.2"N+2°32'52.3"W/@53.4729545,1.3831905

people in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds are all actually south of the center but culd call themselves mid-lands if they wanted to.

Birmingham is south, London is the far south

However, if we're talking England, which most people are....Lindley Hall Farm near Nuneaton is considered the centre, which puts Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds firmly in the north. Birmingham exactly the midlands and London in the south.

 

[{SAS}TB]

I also cant see any self respecting scouse, manc or yorky saying their from the Midlands

 

[nst68]

I was 24.
At the time I didn't think I much about it, but now my kids are coming up to that age I can see why my parents thought it was too young.

 

[Richdog]

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, surely the situation you highlighted is the exact reason many people are uncomfortable with abortion: that being that bartledvd has successfully brought up a child as a young parent in what seems a happy and stable household, despite the "sensible" option, and probably a certain amount of social pressure, to abort. The idea that Bartle and his partner may, under different circumstances, have been pressured into taking the termination option is, in hindsight, a potential tragedy.

The exact reason abortion is legalised is more to protect vulnerable women (generally), for whom an unwanted pregnancy may lead to harm of some sort - mental or physical health - or due to fetal malformity. The law doesn't, as far as I'm aware, actually make provision for abortion for reasons of convenience - though it has, though social convention, moved to leave that choice to the woman in question.

(I'm pro-choice, by the way. Just playing devil's advocate, and suggesting the potential pitfalls of making the "choice" bit too normalised/expected)

First of all, whether you are "playing" at devils advocate or not, what you said simply is not true. A woman may have an abortion perfectly legally because they are too young and not ready to have a baby yet... that is not reasons of "convenience", that is simply reality.

While I am sure that bartledvd and hsi partner have coped and managed to get by as best they could and raised a happy and healthy child, objectively speaking I think having a baby at 17 is a tragic waste of your youth and your education, and I would not wish it on any of my future kids.

 

[cheesyboy]

First of all, whether you are "playing" at devils advocate or not, what you said simply is not true. A woman may have an abortion perfectly legally because they are too young and not ready to have a baby yet... that is not reasons of "convenience", that is simply reality.

While I am sure that bartledvd and hsi partner have coped and managed to get by as best they could and raised a happy and healthy child, objectively speaking I think having a baby at 17 is a tragic waste of your youth and your education, and I would not wish it on any of my future kids.

You said abortion was legalised for cases like bartle's. That's factually untrue - just look at the legislation. I said that social convention has moved the choice to the woman, which is entirely as it should be, but that's simply not what the law was enacted for - which is what you had said.

Many of us wouldn't choose to have children at 17, I certainly wouldn't, but the attitude you display is not helpful to those who do, by choice or circumstance, wind up in that position.

An assumption that termination should be the choice, even in the face of evidence that things had turned out well, is not a particularly positive, and is a potentially hurtful - even harmful, sentiment.

 

[ExRayTed]

I was 22 for our first (she was 21) and 24 for our second. Third came along at a rather sensible 35

The net result of not keeping my junk to myself is over 20 years of being permanently skint, but having sons I can play games and drink with now

 

[bartledvd]

I know you love your kid and wouldn't change them for the world, but this is the exact kind of situation for which abortion was legalized.

First of all, whether you are "playing" at devils advocate or not, what you said simply is not true. A woman may have an abortion perfectly legally because they are too young and not ready to have a baby yet... that is not reasons of "convenience", that is simply reality.

While I am sure that bartledvd and his partner have coped and managed to get by as best they could and raised a happy and healthy child, objectively speaking I think having a baby at 17 is a tragic waste of your youth and your education, and I would not wish it on any of my future kids.

If it had been her wish i would have backed her up but thankfully we made the right choice and it all worked out for us and our kids are one of the few whose parents are still together which is sadly the messed up world we live in also i would like to add that i carried on my education while also holding down full time job which is the reason i have a good life now as for my youth neither me or my misses has any interest the things most 16-25 year old's want to do we take huge amount of pleasure out of just being with each other and to be honest when all our kids have left home we will still be young enough and have the financial backup to do things we want this is from nothing more than just hard work .

Now i would like to be clear kids at any age with out a good solid financial plan is stupid but life is not straight forward but everything from having my first daughter at 17 and burying my second at 20 to dealing with my autistic sons has made me the person i am today and i would not change anything.

 

[ganesh]

My dad is 56 and apart from his grown up children, he has a 6 year old and a 2 year old. I told him he was an idiot when his wife was pregnant with the first one.

Being over 70 when your kid is 18 and wants to go off to uni etc, being 80+ when they're 30 and getting married off and having grandchildren? Bugger that, absolutely stupid idea and not fair on the kid.

 

[Richdog]

If it had been her wish i would have backed her up but thankfully we made the right choice and it all worked out for us and our kids are one of the few whose parents are still together which is sadly the messed up world we live in also i would like to add that i carried on my education while also holding down full time job which is the reason i have a good life now as for my youth neither me or my misses has any interest the things most 16-25 year old's want to do we take huge amount of pleasure out of just being with each other and to be honest when all our kids have left home we will still be young enough and have the financial backup to do things we want this is from nothing more than just hard work .

Now i would like to be clear kids at any age with out a good solid financial plan is stupid but life is not straight forward but everything from having my first daughter at 17 and burying my second at 20 to dealing with my autistic sons has made me the person i am today and i would not change anything.

Fair enough and from your story I have a hell of a lot of respect for your grit and mental fortitude in stepping up to your responsibilities in a way that I cannot even imagine having the strength to do (until faced with the situation I guess), but speaking objectively and emotionally detached I still stand by everything I wrote.

PS: Good luck for the future, I really mean that.

 

[bartledvd]

Fair enough and from your story I have a hell of a lot of respect for your grit and mental fortitude in stepping up to your responsibilities in a way that I cannot even imagine having the strength to do (until faced with the situation I guess), but speaking objectively and emotionally detached I still stand by everything I wrote.

PS: Good luck for the future, I really mean that.

I respect your point of view and it is 99% accurate for most teenage parents thankfully I'm in the 1%

 

[Sankari]

Parents - How old were you when your first child was born?

36. Wife was 35.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

However, if we're talking England, which most people are....Lindley Hall Farm near Nuneaton is considered the centre, which puts Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds firmly in the north. Birmingham exactly the midlands and London in the south.

I thought you all lived in the UK, better together? Very poor to think that this is an English only forum.

 

[Flukester]

I was 40 wife was 30...

 

[jas72]

Not just the fitness, but for example (Age you have children at, given the average parent age is increasing);

20 - You'll be 40 when they're 20. 50 when they're 30 and having kids?
30 - You'll be 50 when they're 20. 60 when they're 30 and having kids?
40 - You'll be 60 when they're 20. 70 when they're 30 and having kids?
50 - You'll be 70 when they're 20. 80 when they're 30 and having kids?

How much of their life do you want to be around for? And what about your grandchildren? And maybe even great-grandchildren if you do it early enough?

I'd rather be around for more of their life than less.

lol firstly you need to find the right person.

This doesn't always happen at 20.

I was 32 and the wife was 2 years older.

We would have had one earlier but it wasn't possible for various reasons (health related)

I'll be 50 when he's 18 still feel young and healthy and fit so no real worries about my age.