Should I hold my future for my BF?? Forum

[fats provolone]

thanks for the info, poopypants

[PoopyPants]

Ain't no thang.

[AReasonableMan]

Ain't no thang.

I think the more interesting thing about this is it suggests that a lot of male choices are more related to subconscious risk assessment than cultural norms.

[haus]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

So, if you take a look at these numbers as if they represented a basketball player taking a free throw with the game on the line, you would feel pretty good If the shooter had a 99.9% chance right? But if they only had a 99.0% chance, you would start getting nervous? And if your shooter was "only" 96.6% you are going to start betting for the other side?

[ihenry]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

So, if you take a look at these numbers as if they represented a basketball player taking a free throw with the game on the line, you would feel pretty good If the shooter had a 99.9% chance right? But if they only had a 99.0% chance, you would start getting nervous? And if your shooter was "only" 96.6% you are going to start betting for the other side?

I just wanted to make sure you are not serious.

[haus]

Yes I am serious.

[AReasonableMan]

Yes I am serious.

You would obviously bet that the free throw shooter makes the shot every time, but a 3% chance of a debilitating illness is enough to make average people worry. I mean why buy life insurance or home owner's insurance? Why look before you cross the street? Surely the odds of being hit are way below 3%. In addition, I'm sure these abnormalities don't occur in a vacuum. If it's a 3% risk of D.S. at 45, it's probably also an elevated risk for other adverse genetic mutations.

[PoopyPants]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

So, if you take a look at these numbers as if they represented a basketball player taking a free throw with the game on the line, you would feel pretty good If the shooter had a 99.9% chance right? But if they only had a 99.0% chance, you would start getting nervous? And if your shooter was "only" 96.6% you are going to start betting for the other side?

Basketball and Down syndrome are not remotely the same. They aren't even in the same country. My wife is 35. We had our first child when she was 34, and she will be 35 when our second child is born. A 0.3% chance of Down syndrome wasn't enough for us to conduct extensive genetic testing, but a 3% chance most certainly would be.

Just for comparison, if a surgeon had a 2% failure rate, that would be a good reason to retire or find another line of work. Those 3 percentage points are people, not free throws.

[haus]

Many surgeries have well over three percent failure rates. And people go through with them all of the time. The odds of failure in and of themselves mean nothing without a consideration of what you are attempting to achieve.

Many potential parents would love to have odds as good 96% chance of a reasonably healthy child, and countless people around the world move forward with considerable worse odds. Just because it does not fit into your level of comfort or acceptance means little to nothing.

[AReasonableMan]

Many surgeries have well over three percent failure rates. And people go through with them all of the time. The odds of failure in and of themselves mean nothing without a consideration of what you are attempting to achieve.

Many potential parents would love to have odds as good 96% chance of a reasonably healthy child, and countless people around the world move forward with considerable worse odds. Just because it does not fit into your level of comfort or acceptance means little to nothing.

I can't believe you're still arguing this. A 4% chance of having a child with a catastrophic ailment or of dying during surgery is a significant risk. It may not in and of itself make most people choose a different path, but to say it's no big deal is beyond stupid. Why not just tell your client to not worry about the SEC because there's only a 3% chance thy'll find out they're not complying? Why wear a seat belt or wash your hands?

Gambling is also a ridiculously inapplicable parallel, because if you bet a $1,000 you risk losing $1,000. You don't risk dying or you child having an incurable life altering genetic mutation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I feel like people are getting a little overhysterical about older women having kids. If it's too much risk for you, don't do it, but you can't tell other people that's how they should feel about it.

[AReasonableMan]

I feel like people are getting a little overhysterical about older women having kids. If it's too much risk for you, don't do it, but you can't tell other people that's how they should feel about it.

I interpreted it being whether a 3% chance of down syndrome should be a factor in deciding whether to have a child at 25 or 45, and not a wholesale judgment on whether a 45-year old woman should have a child. The analysis provided by our optometry expert, Poopy Pants, M.D. assumed that OP could have children today, and what risks she'd incur by waiting 20-years.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The conversation came across as fairly judgy to me (to be clear, I think the OP's boyfriend's arguments are specious, but the sidetrack into the risks for older mothers was kinda weird).

[haus]

I feel like people are getting a little overhysterical about older women having kids. If it's too much risk for you, don't do it, but you can't tell other people that's how they should feel about it.

I interpreted it being whether a 3% chance of down syndrome should be a factor in deciding whether to have a child at 25 or 45, and not a wholesale judgment on whether a 45-year old woman should have a child. The analysis provided by our optometry expert, Poopy Pants, M.D. assumed that OP could have children today, and what risks she'd incur by waiting 20-years.

If everything else were equal than this could be a useful conversation, but in matters such as this things are never equal.

I would argue many 25 year olds should not be parents. Finicial instability is far more common at this age than in ones late 30s to early 40s, few at this age have significant experience in adult relationships, and cannot honestly assess the impact that work, money, life in general will have on their significant other. And any other number of matters of life that are just not sorted out for many at 25.

Just because the stats on one indicator are top notch at a given age is no reason to stop everything in your life and start popping out children. People need to determine what makes sense in their lives, and accept the idea that things do not need to be ideal to be good.

[AReasonableMan]

I feel like people are getting a little overhysterical about older women having kids. If it's too much risk for you, don't do it, but you can't tell other people that's how they should feel about it.

I interpreted it being whether a 3% chance of down syndrome should be a factor in deciding whether to have a child at 25 or 45, and not a wholesale judgment on whether a 45-year old woman should have a child. The analysis provided by our optometry expert, Poopy Pants, M.D. assumed that OP could have children today, and what risks she'd incur by waiting 20-years.

If everything else were equal than this could be a useful conversation, but in matters such as this things are never equal.

I would argue many 25 year olds should not be parents. Finicial instability is far more common at this age than in ones late 30s to early 40s, few at this age have significant experience in adult relationships, and cannot honestly assess the impact that work, money, life in general will have on their significant other. And any other number of matters of life that are just not sorted out for many at 25.

Just because the stats on one indicator are top notch at a given age is no reason to stop everything in your life and start popping out children. People need to determine what makes sense in their lives, and accept the idea that things do not need to be ideal to be good.

That sounds reasonable. I'd be willing to sign onto that if Poopy Pants gives the brown light.

[ihenry]

Many surgeries have well over three percent failure rates. And people go through with them all of the time. The odds of failure in and of themselves mean nothing without a consideration of what you are attempting to achieve.

Many potential parents would love to have odds as good 96% chance of a reasonably healthy child, and countless people around the world move forward with considerable worse odds. Just because it does not fit into your level of comfort or acceptance means little to nothing.

Is Down Syndrome the only anomaly infants with older mothers are more vulnerable to?

And if my dental surgery have 3% death rate, I sure the hell won't do it. But if an operation has 30% risk but without which I will 100% die, I will see it a huge blessing to do it. Your reasoning is specious if not crazy.

[haus]

Is Down Syndrome the only anomaly infants with older mothers are more vulnerable to?

No.

But every age has its own share of trade offs, pretending otherwise merely demonstrates your ignorance.

[fats provolone]

i'm not sure being poor growing up is the same thing as having downs syndrome

[haus]

i'm not sure being poor growing up is the same thing as having downs syndrome

No, but having a 90% chance of having a fucked family may well be worse than a 3% chance of having Down's syndrome.

[emkay625]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

[ihenry]

The conversation came across as fairly judgy to me (to be clear, I think the OP's boyfriend's arguments are specious, but the sidetrack into the risks for older mothers was kinda weird).

Apparently, OP has got replies she's satisfied with. We are just here debating on boring things to spend our boring life.

[AReasonableMan]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should. Is there a solid lump of data to support this or is it just a load of crap, PoopyPants?

[A. Nony Mouse]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should. Is there a solid lump of data to support this or is it just a load of crap, PoopyPants?

No one should wring their hands about other people's private choices.

[AReasonableMan]

i'm not sure being poor growing up is the same thing as having downs syndrome

I agree. Only one of these two will be able to get a playstation.

[ihenry]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

If it is scientifically established that older fathers present comparable increase in medical risks to their kids with older mothers (like if every mother gives birth at 45, we will have 33x more kids with Down Syndrome than if they do at 30), probably they should be warned so too.