should women have kids later in life instead of earlier?

[roid]

an interesting idea put forward here, basicly saying that as a society, by encouraging women to have children later in life - we are pandering to the materialistic commercial system of the times, to the expense of women's health.
and perhaps we need to re-evaluate out current priority of putting women's secular ecconomic health above their reproductive health - and reverse it. (or of course, have the best of both worlds)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0814-26.htm

In Praise of Female Sexuality
By Paul Sheehan

It's time someone praised and defended reckless teenage girls and young women who behave badly, dress provocatively, engage in risky sex, and get pregnant. They are the normal ones. The rest of us are the deviants. They are behaving in the most natural way. The rest of us are mutants.

There is nothing wrong with pelvic display, push-up bras, Gosford miniskirts, spray-on jeans, low-cut tops, bare legs, bare arms, bare ankles, G-strings or even buttock cleavage, providing the displayer is young enough to get away with it. A woman's body is at its fertility peak between the ages of 17 and 23. So when young women advertise or flaunt their sexuality they are being driven by a force far stronger than the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are driven by the power of peak fertility and a million years of evolutionary biology. Nature has programmed them for pregnancy, genetic diversity and keeping the species going. A big job.

Sexually active teenage girls, and sexually promiscuous women of any age, carry the greatest social burden of judgements, punishments, restrictions and risks because we haven't got the child-care equation right. These women are just doing their job. They are real, while the rest of the equation is artificial. Society is the collective weight of traditions, conventions, laws, habits, fears, tribes, taboos and technologies, permeated by a Judeo-Christian ethic dominated by men and designed to curb female sexual power. Our norms are also dominated by the ideology of materialism that is moving women further and further towards unnatural behaviour, pressuring them to have babies later rather than sooner.

This is society's real problem. Teenage pregnancy is trivial by comparison to suppressed pregnancy.

A healthier society would allow women to have children earlier than they do now. At 32, no matter what people want to believe, the reproductive system is far less robust than it was 10 years earlier. Our aim should be to have children born into a culture where there is plenty of support for child care in addition to the mother, thus liberating mothers to more fully exploit the possibilities that advanced society can offer them.
...
(*snip* talk of recent changes to Australia's workplace Parental Leave systems, and then comparing it to Britain */snip*)
...
The tension between fertility and materialism is one of the great unresolved dilemmas of our time, not just for women, but for society.

[Kiran]

For keeping the species going: Women shouldn't have kids later in life.
For keeping babies strong: Generally, teenagers shouldn't be pregnant, since it can cause some problems for babies. Also because at this century, teenagers can't afford to get pregnant. Plus they are too darn young to be getting pregnant. Have a life first!
A stable marriage and a stable job is recommended when getting pregnant, thus waiting until women are in their mid to late twenties.
Waiting until women are in their thirties: I think in the thirties is really not a good time because it won't be long before you have to start running tests for cancer, decrease in calcium in bones, etc. When getting pregnant, babies take a lot out of a woman's body, including calcium, iron, etc. Waiting until later in life might contribute to pre-whatever you call it for loss of calcium in bones.
This is my input as a woman and a somewhat educated guess.

[Flabby Chick]

Later in life is considered to be in the 'thirties' now. Oh dear!

[woodchip]

A counter argument is the level of nutrition and health care today has increased the life span of people in general where a woman even a hundred year ago (let alone a million) was getting old at 30 and dieing at 40. I'm not sure today getting pregnant at 17 or 18 is preferable to that of getting pregnant at 30, even in terms of straight biology.

[dissent]

So, someone want to explain to me how any of these welfare mom's with kids by a bunch of different fathers are expressing their "female sexual power"???

[Foil]

I tend to agree with Kirian; there seems to be an issue of balance.

One one hand:
Having children too early (i.e. pre-teens, or even teenagers) can sometimes cause health issues for mother and/or child. It can also be a very tough burden for unprepared mothers, especially because it often goes hand-in-hand with lower income levels.

On the other hand:
Having children too late can cause health issues for mother and/or child. There can also be issues related to greater age differences between the mother and child, or other siblings.

On the other/other hand, there are always exceptions:
My cousin had a child as a very young teenager, and everything turned out fine. Her daughter is very healthy and intelligent, and my cousin somehow managed to still get her Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering.
My mother had my youngest sister when she was nearly 43 years old, and my mom and sister are fine. I'm not as close to my sister, since she's 19 years younger than me, but she's happy and healthy.

[Flabby Chick]

Roidibabes! The article's interesting, but not that surprising when you spend a moment to think about it. "Modern society"; whatever the woodchuck that means, is making us stressed, depressed, obsessed, repressed and completely everything else. Whilst at the same time enabling us all to live longer to enjoy all these perquisites.

So what's the answer Roidi....go live on a commune? Ha. /srcsm