Babies.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Johannes de Silentio
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby Johannes de Silentio » Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:59 pm

dominkay wrote:
Rock Chalk wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Rock Chalk wrote:
Wow. Glad my gf is going into another field.

wait, why?

She doesn't have to make such a difficult decision or worry about sacrificing her goals, and we don't have to wait until our 30's to have children.

http://www.musckids.com/health_library/ ... over30.htm


This thread is depressing. I know I said "give it to me straight," but I actually wanted you to blow sunshine up my ass.



Sunshine comin' right up!

http://www.abanet.org/media/youraba/200 ... cle07.html

pehaigllleises
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:57 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby pehaigllleises » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:08 am

Don't let the fact that you only have 10% left at 30 and 3% left at 40 scare you too much. Even 3% is still 9,000 eggs. 9,000 decaying eggs left in 98 degree heat for 40 years.

I took a few years off before law school and my soon to be husband won't be finished with his education until we are both 32ish. We just don't want kids before we're in our very late thirties, nor do I want to be K&L Gates'd or mommy tracked, and he's similarly unwilling to start out on a daddy track. A further complication is that some of my immediate relatives have had fertility issues in their twenties at about the same age I am now, so I probably can't count on an even dice roll. Neither of us has any qualms about freezing embryos or doing genetic screening for the serious developmental diseases, so to be honest, that's what we're going to do as soon as I graduate and start working. It's sad that it has to come to that, but it sounds like it might be an option for some others of you too.

TaiRuiJin
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:34 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby TaiRuiJin » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:10 am

IMHO, Motherhood>Partner at a law firm.

Seriously. I was glad my mom was smart, but more importantly, I was glad she was home. I'm also glad I was not an only child.

slider
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:35 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby slider » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:19 am

TaiRuiJin wrote:IMHO, Motherhood>Partner at a law firm.

Seriously. I was glad my mom was smart, but more importantly, I was glad she was home. I'm also glad I was not an only child.


I kind of wish I was an only child sometimes.

xyzzzzzzzz
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby xyzzzzzzzz » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:49 am

TaiRuiJin wrote:IMHO, Motherhood>Partner at a law firm.

Seriously. I was glad my mom was smart, but more importantly, I was glad she was home. I'm also glad I was not an only child.



+1
Last edited by xyzzzzzzzz on Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby Fark-o-vision » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:29 am

I have the opposite problem. My wife is 4.0 from, high school who got a 3.98 at community college and scored a 1390 SAT (old metric). Still, all she wants to do is have babies and be a mom. I can't convince her to get into a more profitable profession because she understands leaving would be too hard once the money is there.

xyzzzzzzzz
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby xyzzzzzzzz » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:28 am

Fark-o-vision wrote:I have the opposite problem. My wife is 4.0 from, high school who got a 3.98 at community college and scored a 1390 SAT (old metric). Still, all she wants to do is have babies and be a mom. I can't convince her to get into a more profitable profession because she understands leaving would be too hard once the money is there.


I wouldn't consider this a problem. For some people with high powered jobs having kids isn't the best idea. People who want to have kids and aren't interested in prestige and money ( to eat their time) are around more for their kids. The end up being dedicated parents.

sophie316
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby sophie316 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:30 am

Meh, my parents got married at 40 and had me at 41. The only downside of it all was that they couldn't have any more after me. My cousin is 39 and is pregnant with her second, she didn't get married til her late 30s. I don't plan to wait that long but the idea of it doesn't freak me out too much. You can't always pick when you meet the right person.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby Fark-o-vision » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:33 am

xyzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:I have the opposite problem. My wife is 4.0 from, high school who got a 3.98 at community college and scored a 1390 SAT (old metric). Still, all she wants to do is have babies and be a mom. I can't convince her to get into a more profitable profession because she understands leaving would be too hard once the money is there.


I wouldn't consider this a problem. For some people with high powered jobs having kids isn't the best idea. People who want to have kids and aren't interested in prestige and money ( to eat their time) are around more for their kids. The end up being dedicated parents.


I guess I was referring to it as a problem in the most general sense. Also, I love the idea of people parenting, but I firmly believe in the principle that we owe our species, not just our children, the best. I'm limited to being a bullshit attorney. This chick is smart. I don't know what she could do, but I bet it could be special.

sarahd
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby sarahd » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:46 am

As a mom, with teenagers, there is no good time for babies, ever. There will always be a reason to put off having them. And you can NOT have it all. It just isn't possible. Yes, some people are able to successfully maintain a career and have kids, but somewhere something gives at least little. Missing school events or sporting events occurs even with my job now where I 100% set my own schedule with zero supervision. Sometimes things just come up that can't be avoided. If you want children then you need to understand that your life will be much different than without. Your personal life will be different, your career will be different. Not bad, just different. Mommy track is not bad, just different. I chose to have my career later after my children were teenagers and nearly out of the house. That required that I have my first at 21. My husband was on board, but I have given up huge in terms of length of career and possible (likely) age discrimination once out of school. Like I said, somewhere something gives at least a little.

As far as having babies when you are older. It is possible and common. There are several prenatal tests that women over 35 have that help determine birth defects which can either allow them to prepare themselves for a disabled child or end the pregnancy. Not pleasant to think about, but true. If you are going to wait for children, wonderful! Just don't expect it to be easy and you will be fine.

User avatar
vexion
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:29 am

Re: Babies.

Postby vexion » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:53 am

This thread is depressing. As a guy who wants a family and a few years in BigLaw, I'm starting to wish I'd gotten married in college, like seemingly everyone I know.

User avatar
yinz
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby yinz » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:58 am

There is a strong undercurrent of baby-mongering going on here (is this what the women's bathroom sounds like?) and that scares me more than all of the numbers and percentages. This is like the time someone brought a baby into work last week and within seconds seven twenty-somethings were going gaga over the googoo.


Here's my advice: Do not have children until you can afford to have someone take care of them.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:02 am

yinz wrote:There is a strong undercurrent of baby-mongering going on here (is this what the women's bathroom sounds like?) and that scares me more than all of the numbers and percentages. This is like the time someone brought a baby into work last week and within seconds seven twenty-somethings were going gaga over the googoo.


Here's my advice: Do not have children until you can afford to have someone take care of them.


eh... babies don't excite me. I feel like most of them look the same. they can't do anything besides cry and poop themselves. :? .

angioletto
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby angioletto » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:26 am

amyLAchemist wrote:So something I gather from these articles is that the initial childbirth and having to take 3-4 weeks off to physically recover is not nearly as detrimental as the caregiving responsibilities afterwards. So in theory, if you are not the primary caregiver as a mom, then it wouldn't really hurt your career that badly? Does that seem valid?

*I am also going to be 29 when I graduate, and putting off having kids as long as my partner will tolerate/until I succumb to the pressure.


This is a problem with today's society - even if the mom works outside the home and the baby is in childcare the mom is STILL the primary caregiver. It's not like you have a baby and hand it off to someone else to raise. When your child is in someone else's care you are still sitting at your desk wondering if they are OK, on call if they get sick and feeling guilty for being away from your baby more than you are with him. You are still a mom when you are at work.

And 3-4 weeks to recover? Not quite. And it's worse if you have a c-section. And even after your body has healed it is not that easy to just jump back into your old ways again.

User avatar
lsat_fear
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby lsat_fear » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:30 am

My dad, who was a colonel in the Army, used to tell his men "If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a happy family, he would have ISSUED you one." I have a feeling law firms feel the same way.

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:32 am

yinz wrote:There is a strong undercurrent of baby-mongering going on here (is this what the women's bathroom sounds like?) and that scares me more than all of the numbers and percentages. This is like the time someone brought a baby into work last week and within seconds seven twenty-somethings were going gaga over the googoo.


Here's my advice: Do not have children until you can afford to have someone take care of them.


You already gave that advice.

Why is liking children "scary?"

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:35 am

booyakasha wrote:
yinz wrote:There is a strong undercurrent of baby-mongering going on here (is this what the women's bathroom sounds like?) and that scares me more than all of the numbers and percentages. This is like the time someone brought a baby into work last week and within seconds seven twenty-somethings were going gaga over the googoo.


Here's my advice: Do not have children until you can afford to have someone take care of them.


eh... babies don't excite me. I feel like most of them look the same. they can't do anything besides cry and poop themselves. :? .


Maybe if you're using baby as a synonym for infant. But I think they're "babies" until about a year, and they learn to do other stuff pretty fast; watching that happen is pretty incredible.

User avatar
yinz
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby yinz » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:46 am

dominkay wrote:
Why is liking children "scary?"


Depending on how much you shower your little prince or princess, each child is a quarter- to half-million dollar expense. And that's only for the first 18 years.

User avatar
lsat_fear
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby lsat_fear » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:50 am

yinz wrote:
dominkay wrote:
Why is liking children "scary?"


Depending on how much you shower your little prince or princess, each child is a quarter- to half-million dollar expense. And that's only for the first 18 years.


and if you're lucky enough to have a brilliant and beautiful female child, expect them to want you to pay for 4 years of elite college (4 x $60k = $240k), 3 years of ivy league law school (3 x $70k = $210k) and a fancy ass wedding ($200k) = $650k.

not saying it's not worth it--i want kids--just saying it's a big financial burden to meet your expectations as a parent.
Last edited by lsat_fear on Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:51 am

dominkay wrote:Maybe if you're using baby as a synonym for infant. But I think they're "babies" until about a year, and they learn to do other stuff pretty fast; watching that happen is pretty incredible.


still not excited.

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:01 am

yinz wrote:
dominkay wrote:
Why is liking children "scary?"


Depending on how much you shower your little prince or princess, each child is a quarter- to half-million dollar expense. And that's only for the first 18 years.


So, children are scary because they're expensive? Do nice cars or homes or vacations also frighten you?

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:03 am

dominkay wrote:When are lady lawyers supposed to have babies? The advice I've gotten from the legal eagles I know is: not before law school (too early), not during law school (too hard), and not for the first few years after law school (would preclude making partner). That accounts for most of my childbearing years.

So, give it to me straight, TLS: are successful legal careers and motherhood mutually exclusive?


Somehow you speaking about babies with a tar that looks like you just ate one makes me giggle

User avatar
vexion
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:29 am

Re: Babies.

Postby vexion » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:04 am

lsat_fear wrote:and if you're lucky enough to have a brilliant and beautiful female child, expect them to want you to pay for 4 years of elite college (4 x $60k = $240k), 3 years of ivy league law school (3 x $70k = $210k) and a fancy ass wedding ($200k) = $650k.

This is ridiculous FUD. If my kid was really brilliant, I wouldn't have to pay for their college. And who the hell has a $200,000 wedding? The average American wedding supposedly costs on the order of $28,000.

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:05 am

James Bond wrote:
dominkay wrote:When are lady lawyers supposed to have babies? The advice I've gotten from the legal eagles I know is: not before law school (too early), not during law school (too hard), and not for the first few years after law school (would preclude making partner). That accounts for most of my childbearing years.

So, give it to me straight, TLS: are successful legal careers and motherhood mutually exclusive?


Somehow you speaking about babies with a tar that looks like you just ate one makes me giggle


Life would be much simpler if I only wanted to eat them.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:08 am

dominkay wrote:Life would be much simpler if I only wanted to eat them.


now that excites me.

NOM.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kensey, wittywitless and 4 guests