Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
Ladies, 42 is not the time to be looking for a good man to be the father of your children.

Regardless of feminist doctrine, the time to find a good man who will marry you, is in your early 20's. Be open to dating men five or more years older than you. Don't look for Prince Charming unless you yourself are royalty. Get married by 25, and have your kids before 30. (Dealing with teenagers in your 50's is hard, and I do not recommend it). If your career suffers, that's life. Set your priorities.

I realize that many women will wildly disagree with what I've said. Tough.

60 posted on 08/19/2013 4:28:20 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625

As someone who brought the first child home at 36 and the last one home at 45, have babies early and often. I can assure you that a 15 year old at age 60 is a different kind of torture!


61 posted on 08/19/2013 4:54:39 AM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: PapaBear3625
Ladies, 42 is not the time to be looking for a good man to be the father of your children. Regardless of feminist doctrine, the time to find a good man who will marry you, is in your early 20's.

You are SO right!

Even from a purely physical point of view, pregnancies and their resulting children begin to be much more problematic, starting when the woman is in her early-to-mid thirties.

My last child was born when I was almost 35 -- but even at that relatively young age, the pregnancy was more difficult for me to carry that the previous pregnancies in my 20s. I was already getting too "old," from an obstetrical point of view.

Obstetrical old-ness has little to do with a woman's looks -- she can be outwardly youthful-looking and even very "fit." But if she has her first baby when she is over 34 years old, she will be considered an "elderly primigravida" by medical professionals, for good reason.

Children borne of such "late" pregnancies also tend to have more physical problems than children borne of mothers in their 20s (which is NOT to say that their lives are worth less; it is merely an observation of fact).

As more news gets out about the higher risk of physical and mental problems faced by children borne of IVF treatments (e.g. autism) and other extreme measures that are taken by desperate women in their 40s ... I think we will begin to see more women take a jaundiced view of feminist dogma that insists that career must come first, and children last.

63 posted on 08/19/2013 9:28:00 AM PDT by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: PapaBear3625; Chickensoup

There’s a poster on FR who has signed-up to deal with a 15-year-old when he’s 80 (if he’s still alive).


68 posted on 08/20/2013 9:40:22 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson