| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Motherhood | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 16 2007, 01:08 PM (543 Views) | |
| somerled | Jul 16 2007, 01:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Interesting to see what people think. I'm in favour 25-30. But mostly because this is how it has worked out for most the ladies / mothers I am acquainted with. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Jul 16 2007, 06:59 PM Post #2 |
|
UNGH!
|
Motherhood. I guess young enough to avoid most complications in pregnancy but mature enough emtionally and mentally to raise a child. I don't know... what is that nowadays? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jul 16 2007, 07:42 PM Post #3 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I wish he would have given 10 year spreads instead of 5. My children are 7 years apart in age so I cannot check off "in thier 30"s" which is what worked out great for me (32 and 39 when I had my kids) Intrepid - I think that those ages qualify for what you describe - young enough to avoid complications (they seem to increase most over 40) and mature enough emotionally and mentally - far more then early 20's. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jul 16 2007, 11:53 PM Post #4 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I asked , best age to start . 500 years ago , that might have been the early teens (but then 500 years ago the life expectancy was short (probably dead by the 50) and child mortality was high. 100 years ago , probably in the late teens. Based on what you said , that puts you in the 30-35 group ,but I do not know if that would have been your preference and that is really something only you know. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jul 17 2007, 01:11 AM Post #5 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
As soon as you hit your 18th Birthday |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jul 17 2007, 03:39 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
When I was your age , I think I thought something similar (18-21 years old being ideal - and so did some of more serious girlfriends , DANGER !!) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Jul 17 2007, 09:29 AM Post #7 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Somerled: Who made you the judge of other people's opinions BTW? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Jul 17 2007, 10:20 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
Depends on the woman and what she wants in life. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jul 17 2007, 12:14 PM Post #9 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Why danger? I mean after all, when it comes down to it, thats the meaning of life, thats the only real reason we are here, to make the next generation. I dont think my attitude will change as I get older, I said that cos my mum was 18 when she had me. As a kid it was cool having younger mum. Didnt matter so much when I was a teen. Then there is nowadays, she's one of those petite woman that look younger than they are, so people dont believe she's my mum (5"1' vs 6"3' doesnt help either ;)) Of course I'm not the pregnant 18 yr old, still, I'm sure we all knew at least one girl in high school that couldnt wait to be a mum (usually the ones that had their head on straightest) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| LoriCiani | Jul 24 2007, 06:32 PM Post #10 |
|
"Effective against all things... except wood!"
|
I voted for 25-30 because by then you've had a bit of life under your belt. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Aug 5 2007, 10:38 PM Post #11 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
back in high school we had a few of those. nothing like being 17 and getting knocked up. I personally don't want kids until 30's. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Mel | Aug 5 2007, 11:18 PM Post #12 |
|
Coffee Lover
|
Nope, nothing like it........ |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Aug 5 2007, 11:38 PM Post #13 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
It's rough especially when the father dosn't have the balls to stay with the child and mother. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | Aug 6 2007, 12:10 AM Post #14 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
I agree whole heartedly. Women (and men) before 25 have no concept of reality. Thats too young to have a kid. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Mel | Aug 6 2007, 08:52 AM Post #15 |
|
Coffee Lover
|
He stayed around for about 3 years, and we even lived together. But we're better off without him. I won't go into detail, but I'd rather leave him off the hook for child support payments(which he never pays anyway) than have him see my daughter once a year and get her hopes up for a relationship with her father. But I can't and won't stop her from seeing him. If I were to do it all over...as much as I love my daughter, I wouldn't have any kids. If I did, I'd adopt. Probably in my 30's. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Sister, Sister · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





8:00 PM Jul 10