When to have children?

[kahlan_amnell]

The way the study was represented in the media was criticised by a med school on my local news for giving a false impression of the numbers. Yes, 90% of a woman's eggs are lost by age 30, but a woman typically starts out with 300,000+ eggs. After 90% are lost, that still leaves you with at least 30,000 eggs.

I thought the numbers were something like that. I'd still like to see the study though, to understand at what rate it was thought eggs were lost before and how that compares to what this study says.

(Also I seem to be very good at leaving out words in things I post today. I blame it on being tired from lots of reading, and lots of time spent revising an abstract for submission. Sorry about the missing word.)

Edited February 1, 2010 by kahlan_amnell

[luar de ouro]

I personally would like to have children after I get my Ph.D.

All my life, I've just never been much of a multi-tasker, and having that degree and having children are two things I don't want to line up next to each other to prioritize each day, I'd like to get one more or less out of the way before the other one happens. Why not have children and then have my degree? Well, it takes a lot longer to raise a child than to finish a Ph.D, and I don't want to have to readjust my brain to research-and-learning mode after years of mommy-mode. Kudos to the ladies who can do everything at once, but I won't risk failing at both by taking on them together.

Just my $0.02

Edited February 1, 2010 by luar de ouro

[pea-jay]

A dad's perspective here. I became a father and went to Grad School in my mid twenties and at the same time tried to balance a lousy job (which I was later downsized out of), an infant and an overwhelmed wife that had no family or peer support to fall back on. Guess what? It didnt work. At all. Lost my job, our home and almost our marriage. Fortunately we got on our feet again. But the experience so spooked me I didnt even contemplate trying again until this past year when our youngest entered Kindergarten and we stopped hemorrhaging money. By the time I go back, the kids will be in first and fourth grades and not nearly so dependent.

Kids are expensive and consume lots of time, especially when they are young. The same can be said for grad school. Trying to mix both together is not for the feint at heart. Personally, I'm happy I delayed my masters for kids and not the other way around. I had a lot of fun raising them either as a stay-at-home dad, working low-responsibility jobs or entry level positions in my field that allowed a ton of flex time. Once I start my masters, that free time goes away and it wont improve after as I'm pursing managerial work.

My unsolicited advice for both genders: have your kids and wait until they are in public school before going back for your masters or get the masters out of the way before starting a family.

[Paul S.]

Dialogue from Lost in Translation:

Bob: It gets a whole lot more complicated when you have kids.

Charlotte: It's scary.

Bob: The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born.

Charlotte: Nobody ever tells you that.

Bob: Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life.

Charlotte: That's nice.

[MollyMcButter]

I say wait until one potential grandparent retires. Life becomes so much easier if you have a mobile and helpful grandparent. I have a kid but had it after I had my candidacy but no PhD. I need to get back to work right now. I say have the kid when you are ready, but being ready includes the money, mindset, and support system.

[flgirl]

While the "right time" to have kids is certainly not the same for everyone, I hate that these discussions (and studies about fertility) rarely factor in the health of the children we are producing. Entering a pregnancy after 35 years of age is very risky in so many ways. This, combined with my observation that older parents tend to be busier parents, which leads to lower breastfeeding rates (since breastfeeding requires the mother's presence or dedicated pumping) and thus makes kids more susceptible to all kinds of colds and illnesses, solidifies my goal of being done with the baby phase by the time I'm 30. Yes, you may still have eggs then, but they are not the healthiest ones.

I am 23 and have a 2-year-old son (had him in my last year of UG) and want 3 or 4 more. I've applied to PhD programs for this fall, and my number one priority is not to make my life as a parent easiest, but to make sure my kids are healthy. It is a modern conundrum for women to worry about what age is best for having children. In the end, it's a luxurious choice, given the accessibility of birth control in the Western world. Still, we have to consider what we are doing to ourselves and future generations by staying on synthetic hormones for decades and then giving birth to vulnerable children at an age when we are already exhausted.

[flgirl]

Edit: I am sortof pissed about the comment that older mothers are risking the health of their children. Younger mothers are risking the psychological well-being of their children is a parallel argument, for the record.

Why? Because young parents don't have the money/cars/house to create a "stable life?" It could be argued that older parents are so out of touch with their children's realities and so concerned with competing in the perfect-parent realm that they are actually the psychologically unstable ones. Not to mention their resentment for having to put their lives on hold after years of career-related success.

Also, it's simply a fact that older parents more often produce children with chronic health issues (everything from asthma to Down's Syndrome) than younger parents. Your comment about psychological well-being is just an opinion, and varies depending on a variety of factors.

But to reiterate my comment, I do not believe that anyone can impose a certain time that is right for everyone to have children. I agree with you that it is a woman's choice. I just think it's sad that we're not considering the ramifications re: long-term quality of life of the next generation. This is partly because women are now expected to be and do everything, and it's no longer acceptable to just choose the career or the family. No choice a woman makes is easy, because she is disproportionately affected by its outcome. It is very easy for a man to make a choice regarding family and run away from its consequences. Biology or social conditions? You tell me.

Edited February 4, 2010 by poltheorist

[flgirl]

Re: having children: social conditions: etc.

I got pregnant in undergrad. Didn't want a child then.

Again, I was pregnant before grad. school. Didn't want the father in my life.

Do I want kids? YES.

Under those circumstances? NO. Bad for me; bad for them.

But at 30, I am not too old for a family, one way or another. I froze some of my eggs at 28--a choice that is available for any woman. I highly recommend it.

Obviously, we are speaking from vastly different experiences, both of which are valid. I believe in a woman's right to have control over her body, and make the choices she feels are best. I decided to have my son while I was still in college because I was in a committed relationship and always knew I wanted kids. I may face different dilemmas than older moms, but they are certainly not worse ones, overall. There are both old and young parents who are irresponsible and immature; actual age has little to do with readiness.

What concerns me is not any one woman's decision, but the overall trend toward delayed parenting. That being said, I wish you the best when/if you decide to conceive (you are still relatively young and I think it was smart to freeze your eggs).

Here are some links regarding other problems that older mothers and their babies may have, beyond Down's Syndrome:

A summary of outcomes of advanced maternal age in Canada:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174987/

A new study that suggests a greater risk of autism in children of older parents:

http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/DORExternal/news/press_releases/press_release.aspx?id=3264

A March of Dimes summary of all the possible complications for each age group of mothers:

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp

Results out of Australia concerning the effect of advanced paternal age on a child's neurological performance:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000040

[mlle]

My fiercely pro-natal mother loves to make the Down's Syndrome argument re: waiting to have kids. And I love to counter her with the "prevention paradox" argument--even though women over 40 are at highest risk for giving birth to babies with Down's Syndrome, most babies born with Down's Syndrome are born to women under 30, because those women are the ones having the most babies. I was tempted to link to the all the peer-reviewed scientific blah blah articles on the Down's Syndrome prevention paradox, but I thought that might be taking it too far (if you're truly interested you can just google "prevention paradox Down's Syndrome" and find the relevant info; most of the articles in the hits do not require remote access to read ) I'm not trying to dismember anyone here, I'm just saying that there are biological threats to your potential baby's health no matter what age you are when you conceive. Environmental and situational factors may be more within the realm of someone's control, and for many that may mean waiting to have kids until they are good and ready (emotionally, financially, etc.).

I'm just remembering the way I took care of myself (or DIDN'T take care of myself) during UG...and I'd think that a baby born to a 30+-year-old woman who is actually mindful of her physical health and lifestyle would be better off, physically and developmentally, than a baby born to a 20-year-old malnourished, pill-popping mess. Most people aren't a complete mess when they're 20, but I just think that context is key.

[JerryLandis]

I want to have kids when I'm relatively young because I want them to be around for more of my life, and vice versa. Maybe it's a morbid thought, but I sometimes get a bit jealous of my friends whose parents are younger than mine, and may well live a lot longer. Sure, having older parents has meant having a much more secure upbringing, both in economic terms and also in terms of my parents' stress about their careers. Obviously everyone who wants children is going to have a different "ideal" time for that to happen, but for me, I hope I manage to have kids in my 20s. Some of my friends already have kids, and I have to say I'm quite jealous of them. But, we'll see. I'm hoping that as the years go by, eventually I'll have an epiphany one day and suddenly decide it's the right time. Either that or mess up taking my birth control. I have to say I'm rather jealous of the lesbian ladies who've posted - it would be awesome if my [currently non-existent] husband and I could take turns getting pregnant, instead of me having to do it over and over again.

Anyways, professors somehow manage to, well, manage their lives. Most of them seem to have spouses and kids, even hobbies. So, if they can do it, surely the next generation can too.

[hogmommy]

As I've mentioned before, I am the mother of two, eighteen months apart. First was born when I was 23, second at 25. With the first I had both gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia and had to be induced at 37 weeks. Thankfully, she only spent a scant 5 hours in the NICU after, what I later learned, scoring frighteningly low on both the 1 and 5 minute APGARs. Second pregnancy, mild gestational diabetes and no other issues. There are risks no matter the age of the mother. My husband and I chose to have children when we felt we were ready (he was 30--I guess we had a mix of both young mother and maturity ). After #2, my husband was "fixed." It was also the right time for us to do that!

[pea-jay]

I want to have kids when I'm relatively young because I want them to be around for more of my life, and vice versa.

That was one of the factors in our decision to have kids. I'd like to have grandkids too.

Plus kids are the "neediest" in their first 5-10 years. As they grow up they get that independence thing going (my nine year old is already trying to assert some of that right now). That'll allow more time for grad school and an uninterrupted few decades in the workforce. Things sucked financially when our kids were younger but we had fun and spent a great deal of time with them

After #2, my husband was "fixed." It was also the right time for us to do that!

Got "fixed" after my second. My wife is prone to "baby fever" and with a number of folks our age now starting families, well lets just say I don't want an accidental #3

[Jennszoo]

The child I had at 28 has special needs (autism) and the child I had at 35 does not. There are no guarantees in life, other than the fact that children *are* hard work, *do* require a crapload of your time and tend to be worth it nonetheless.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Jennszoo

[hogmommy]

I can't speak to the policies in academia but, overall, the US falls far behind Europe in providing for maternity/paternity leave. My husband is in the business world and got 1 week off for both of our girls. I've heard of a few companies that provide two weeks of paternity leave. The mother, ONLY if covered by a short-term disability policy, is generally given 6 weeks of paid (60% of salary) leave. (I know mothers who have gone back as soon as two weeks post-partum, relying on family to provide care until the day care will accept the baby at 6 weeks.)

I had the good fortune to be able to stay at home with my girls indefinitely but, overall, the US is not great for providing support for new parents.

Edited February 8, 2010 by hogmommy

[moralresearcher]

When to have children is a woman's choice. Period. Opinions don't matter--it is about the woman and her body, and it is her choice. The best time is the best time for the individual woman. And that's all I have to say--about the war in VietNAM.

Edit: I am sortof pissed about the comment that older mothers are risking the health of their children. Younger mothers are risking the psychological well-being of their children is a parallel argument, for the record.

But I stand by my statement.

.....it takes two people to make (and, hopefully, raise) a baby. It's never easy, especially if you're factoring in the incredibly busy/stressful life of one or more academic parents, but it is valid to say that having children at an older age (especially after the age of 35) puts them at higher risk for Down's, CF, etc. and having them younger doesn't necessarily put them at a psychological disadvantage. My parents were 21 & 22 when I was born and I'm not screwed up (or any more so than anyone whose parents were older).

[socnerd]

I want to start having kids as soon as possible, after I'm married and settled of course. Certainly before I turn 30 and hopefully by 26/27. My mom had breast cancer and I know the earlier I have kids, the lower my chances will be of getting it also. That's another reason why I'm so worried that if I don't get in anywhere this year and start the process of getting educated for my future job, putting it off another year will mean putting off my entire life another year which I am not willing to do as I will be turning 22 in a few weeks.

[Pamphilia]

Not sure if you all have seen this. Interesting Chronicle article about "The Academic Motherhood Handicap."

[socnerd]

Not sure if you all have seen this. Interesting Chronicle article about "The Academic Motherhood Handicap."

We talked a lot about this in my sociology of family class. Women are at a distinct disadvantage because of their capacity to be mothers (moreso if they already are) because they are seen as less-than-ideal workers because they have to deal with children. Leaving work if they are sick, not being able to stay long hours etc. makes them less appealing to employers. That is just something we face as women and mothers, but it makes sense that academia would be better about this, seeing as the point is to teach children (adults). I would never get into academia for several reasons, so I accept that my status as a mother one day may lead to negative consequences in my job.

[eikko]

Thanks for the link. Interesting, and kinda depressing. One thing that would help with the 'CV gap' during pregnancy and early care-giving years would be better parental leave policies, of course. According to wikipedia, the US has worse parental leave laws than for example Sweden, Canada, Italy, Slovenia... not surprised? ... and worse than Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Nigeria, well, anyway, you get the point.

If both fathers and mothers could take paid leave, and especially with restrictions on the amount of leave to be taken by each parent, we would see a more even gender distribution of the gap! So you might see CV-based discrimination against parents in general, and not just mothers.

[Babbling Dweeb]

I just want to say thank you to all of you that shared your experiences and personal details about your life...it's really helpful to hear from all of you.

My fiancée and I have talked about this a few times and we said that within 6 months of graduation (if I get accepted) we would see how things were looking and if we felt it was time or if based on work prospects, etc if we should wait a little longer. BUT that's just part of the "plan"...that's why I appreciate a lot of your comments.

I'm not 100% on the kids bandwagon, she is. I'm not apposed to having kids, but I just want to make sure we're in some place that's stable enough (emotional, career, financial) I won't worry that I would fail as a parent. Thanks for giving me some hope that it's possible to do AND go to school (granted I want to wait until I'm finished, but mother nature works in funny ways).

[wahineilikea]

I just got an awesome PhD assistantship and I'll be around 40 when I'm done with the dissertation, and I have been reflecting on this very thing.

Basically I have just made the choice not to have kids in the next 5 years - because for ME, I don't want to have a kid while I'm working on the PhD. If I have a kid I want more of my energy and focus to be available for her...and right now, I am really loving my research and where I am in my life in general.

But in my experience, kids are kind of a thing that just happens. I have friends who got pregnant while in the middle of it all and it just works because it kind of has to! Not that it was necessarily easy, but they are managing and their kids are doing fine.

It is hard to have a kid in the US regardless. The government doesn't help, the uni won't help, your job generally doesn't help (and by this I mean extensive paid parental leave and/or free or affordable child care and guaranteed health coverage).

Fortunately for me I have always wanted to adopt anyway, and with a PhD and great job opportunities I think I'd be able to offer my kids a lot of security.

This could be one of the reasons behind the statistic that the more educated a woman is, the fewer children she will have! My PhD is my "baby" right now.

[red_crayons]

It is hard to have a kid in the US regardless. The government doesn't help, the uni won't help, your job generally doesn't help (and by this I mean extensive paid parental leave and/or free or affordable child care and guaranteed health coverage).

Yeah, that. Meh.

I'm lucky to be going into a family-friendly department at a family-friendly school in a medium-sized, family-friendly town. With pregnancy-friendly insurance - it would cost $300 to have a kid as a grad student, period (I already looked it up). Having a kid during my PhD would still be tough, but at least this school situation leaves that as a possibility. I feel like I have the option, which seems like more than most folks around here.

[Think_Positive]

I just want to say thank you to all of you that shared your experiences and personal details about your life...it's really helpful to hear from all of you.

My fiancée and I have talked about this a few times and we said that within 6 months of graduation (if I get accepted) we would see how things were looking and if we felt it was time or if based on work prospects, etc if we should wait a little longer. BUT that's just part of the "plan"...that's why I appreciate a lot of your comments.

I'm not 100% on the kids bandwagon, she is. I'm not apposed to having kids, but I just want to make sure we're in some place that's stable enough (emotional, career, financial) I won't worry that I would fail as a parent. Thanks for giving me some hope that it's possible to do AND go to school (granted I want to wait until I'm finished, but mother nature works in funny ways).

I am 27, getting married next April, and looking to start a PhD in the fall of 2011. My fiance and I are looking forward to starting a family sooner than later, and while I'm its quite a challenge no matter when you decide to start a family, we're thinking things might go a bit smoother while I'm in school .

However, when I spoke to my older sister about this, she gave me some advice I thought I'd pass along. She suggested that the best course of action is to only look 6 months ahead. Don't try to plan out the details of your entire life, or entire academic career, or anything of the sort. Things may change in your relationship, in yours or your significant other's schedules, in your family's health or prosperity.... Or, you might just realize that you're still not quite ready. Just decide "Are we ready to have a child in the next six months?" and if not... keep moving ahead and focusing on (and enjoying) all the life events that are going around now, instead of just looking towards whats coming next.

By the way.... for some of the biological debate. I'm not an expert in the field by any means, but I thought I'd throw out a few things. You are borne with a set number of eggs.. It's not just the fact that you have less eggs as you get older, it's the fact that your eggs are getting older and starting to degenerate. That's why women are encouraged to start a family when they are younger. Once you have had your first child, the huge influx of hormones refreshes your eggs to some extent, making it safer to have children later in your 30s and I suppose even early 40s, but there is still an increased risk as time goes by. But these are not magic numbers. It's not that when the clock strikes 12 on your 30th birthday, your chances of a healthy baby suddenly plummet and your entire body chemistry has changed... They're just rough thresholds based on statistical studies. Every woman is different, and every couple is different - I agree with several posters that the most important thing is making sure you AND YOUR PARTNER have the time, commitment, and energy to take care of a new life you bring into the world - be it the healthiest baby or not.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Think_Positive

[Genomic Repairman]

I'm a 2nd year grad student who will get married this fall and we are thinking about waiting until 32 to start having kids. Its four years away and I'll be done with school (but in a postdoc) by then.

[janitor]

I'll share my experience with children and grad school--hopefully it will help or at least illuminate.

I didn't decide to go to grad school until I had worked for several years, and then it took my husband and me a couple more years to tie up loose ends, sell our house, quit our jobs, etc. before I applied and got accepted with funding to a MA program in English. At that time I was 27 years old and had been married five years. We planned on children, but not until I finished my coursework (I intended to go on for my PhD after my MA).

Six weeks into my first semester, I found out I was pregnant. Oops.

It took some adjustment, but we made it work. There are a few things in particular that worked to our advantage: first, in selling our house (right before the bubble burst on the housing market, thank god!) we made a profit, so we had some money put away. Second, my husband decided to stay at home to care for our daughter, who was born in June, just weeks after my first year ended. Finally, my program was really family-friendly and flexible, so I always felt supported and understood.

Cut to two years later. I've finished my MA. My daughter is now 1 1/2. I spend that fall teaching full time as an adjunct faculty member and applying to loads of PhD programs. Our plan is to wait until I'm done with PhD coursework to have kid 2 (always our plan to have two kids). I was fortunate enough to be offered funded places at four schools. I visit a few of them, and make a decision (influenced by a last-minute first-year non-teaching fellowship offer). I accept the offer from this school on April 15. Less than a month later, on Mother's Day no less, I find out, once again, that I'm pregnant.

This one was a little trickier. My son was born two days after Christmas. That second semester, when I was just two weeks postpartum, was really really difficult. At least I wasn't teaching. But I spent many late nights reading critical articles and 19th century novels while breastfeeding and rocking the new baby, and tried to research and write after both kids were in bed.

Now I'm almost finished with coursework and I have a three- (almost four-) year-old and a fifteen-month-old. My husband still stays home (bless him). I am gone on average about 5 hours each day on campus (teaching, reading, office hours, etc.) and my kids seem to handle it okay. I also spend almost every night reading, grading, and lesson-planning. We get by financially with the help of assistance programs like WIC and food stamps.

It's hard--I can't deny that. However, I know that in two-three years when I'm on the job market, my daughter will be in school and my son will be in preschool. I won't be worrying about maternity leave while I'm trying to get tenure. I won't be trying to mask pregnancy-induced nausea during my first year of teaching at a new school. All in all, even though my pregnancies were unexpected, I am glad it has worked out this way.

Edited April 21, 2010 by janitor