Pregnant woman

What are the implications of so many first time moms after 35?

Pregnant woman

Data just released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) shows that birth rates continue to rise for those women becoming first-time mothers when over 35. The number for 2012 was much higher than it was for the 1970s.

From key findings of the data brief:

The average age of women at first birth has risen over the past 4 decades (1–3). This increase is in part a reflection of the shift in first births to women 35 years and older. Delayed childbearing affects the size, composition, and future growth of the population in the United States (2). Increased health risks to older mothers, especially those 40 years and older, and their infants are well documented (4–7), first time older mothers are generally better educated and more likely to have more resources including higher incomes than those at the youngest reproductive ages (8).

While future consequences are mentioned, as are “[i]ncreased health risks to older mothers… and their infants…,” such issues are generally underscored.

The Washington Times pointed out that “[i]t is also socially acceptable to be an older mother, the 2010 Pew report found.”

Many outlets reporting on such findings do point out the possible risks and health consequences, but focus on these older moms discussing their excitement, readiness, and reasons for waiting. These reasons and their benefits are given much attention.

A benefit discussed is that of personal economic situations, as women have been waiting for a point when they feel they are more advanced with their career and set with their personal finances.

The delay of having the first born child, which in turn means having less children, has an impact not just on individual women, however, but on the economy overall. The Wall Street Journal acknowledges such possible consequences from the first paragraph of Neil Shah’s piece:

More American women are putting off becoming moms until after their best child-bearing years, a shift that reflects both the expanded role of women in the workforce and the nation’s shrinking fertility rate.

And as is mentioned further down in the piece:

The findings, along with new data from the CDC released Friday, show the trend of delayed childbearing among women in their late thirties and early forties continuing to pick up, with big implications for American society and the economy.

If women have their first kid in their late thirties or early forties, they’re also more likely to have smaller families, pushing down the nation’s fertility, which hit a new low in 2012. Lower fertility, in turn, can reduce the economy’s long-term growth potential by cutting the size of the productive workforce and leaving fewer people to support the elderly.

A piece from AP discusses the effect of reduced birth rates around the world, particularly how the 2008 crisis concerned couples enough financially to not have children. Years later, the rates have not increased. It is mentioned that “[f]or those who fear an overcrowded planet, this is good news. For the economy, not so good.”

The “fear of an overcrowded planet” is based on a myth though, which organizations such as the Population Research Institute have sought to debunk and educate society about.

The economic concerns, however, are real ones. AP discusses consequences for the workforce and care and replacing of the elderly in the United States as well as on a global level, and the effect of shrinking birth rates. The United States is one nation where women will have an average of 1.7 children in their lifetime. This is bad news when fertility rates need to be at 2.1 to replace those dying as well as maintain a constant population.

AP says that “[t]he effects on economies, personal wealth and living standards are far reaching[,]” and goes on to describe such effects being “[a] return to “normal” growth is unlikely,” “[r]educed pay and lifestyles,” and “[a] drag on household wealth.”

Economics is not the only concern. How do these older women get pregnant? Another aspect which is given attention but certainly not enough is that the older women get, the less likely they are to become pregnant naturally. As The Washington Times mentions:

Since 1978 and the birth of Louise Brown, the first “test-tube baby,” women in their 30s, 40s and even 50s have been able to give birth with artificial reproductive technology. Today, many, if not most, pregnancies after age 40 involve such technology because of a diminishing amount of healthy eggs and “poor embryo quality,” fertility researchers say.

High cost is certainly one concerned associated with artificial reproductive technology (ART) and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Putting a price tag on conception not only becomes a matter of paying thousands of dollars to become pregnant, but also treats the resulting child as a commodity to be bought and paid for, rather than created by a mother and father.

LifeSiteNews.com discussed in-depth a report from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology that about 1.7 percent of all babies born in the United States were conceived in laboratories:

A record-breaking total of 61,470 test-tube babies were successfully born in 2012, out of 165,172 who were conceived and placed inside a womb.  Those numbers do not include embryos who were created and frozen for future use, died during the thawing process, or were destroyed for eugenic reasons…

Of those test-tube babies whom doctors attempted to implant, only 37 percent survived.  Babies implanted into young mothers had higher rates of survival than those implanted into older women, but even they died more than half the time.

Women under the age of 35 gave birth to a live baby only 40.7 percent of the time after undergoing IVF or another procedure.  For women between 35 and 37, that number dropped to 31.3 percent.  For women between 38 and 40, the success rate was 22.2 percent, and for women between 41 and 42, it was 11.8 percent. Only 3.9 percent of embryos implanted in women 43 or older survived and were born.

The women discussed in reporting on older mothers were the few and fortunate ones then if they were able to become pregnant as a result of ART. These methods are not only costly with high failure rates, which means a high destruction of life, but also have such rates for those women who seem to depend on them as a last resort. Thus, it is not only morally problematic, but ineffective as well.

There is a reason why there is a length of time when women are intended to become pregnant and have children. It is natural for women to be mothers, and through the equally natural act with a man, rather than a form of medical technology. Opponents of ART and IVF still stress that the child created as a result is deserving of respect and dignity. What respect and dignity does such a child have when regarded as such a commodity though, when his or her parents feel entitled to purchase offspring?

As Dr. Catherine Herway, assistant director of maternal-fetal medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, in New York City, said for Health.com’s News & Views:

We have so many things I can test for and medications I can give you, but when it comes down to having children, Mother Nature allows us to have babies at a certain age for a reason. I don’t think we’re smarter than Mother Nature[.]

 

  • MamaBear

    There are still more health risks when delaying motherhood. Pregnancies and breastfeeding reduce risks for both breast and ovarian cancers. Age at those pregnancies is also a factor. IVF drugs are suspected to increase risks in both those cancers. (Don’t think they are sure of that yet.)
    The link between maternal age and gestational diabetes has been known a long time. When I was pregnant with my youngest, and still in my 30s, they told me pregnant mothers my age were automatically tested for it, even when blood sugar was normal.
    I realize some people marry late, or have other valid reasons to delay pregnancy. I even knew one woman who had long ago given up on having children who got a surprise in her 40s after 20+ years of marriage.
    But for most women, long delay is about material reasons. It may start out with a perfectly valid, let’s finish school, or save for a down payment, but then they always have yet another reason to delay and delay.
    Trust me, a newborn is as happy with a secondhand crib in the corner of the living room of a postage stamp sized apartment as with a beautifully decorated nursery. They just want full tummies, dry bottoms, and lots of love.
    Plus, even if you feel up to chasing toddlers at 40, you may not be up to teenagers in your 50s/60s.

    • Basset_Hound

      I WAS a “late blooming” mom. I was lucky to be able to get pregnant (twice). For me personally, I had a lot of attitude and psychological issues that kept me from getting married (and thus having children) earlier.

      However, I see so many women get caught up in the “shack-up and hook-up” merry go round that they just throw in the towel and decide to just go along with overage adolescent “bro choice” no-commitment guys until their mid-30s when they decide to have a child on their own. The justification is “I want to focus on my career right now”.

      • Marauder

        Yeah, I think that if women want to have kids, it’s important to focus fairly early on finding someone to have kids with. It doesn’t mean you have to settle for someone who’s less than you hoped for in a partner, but lots of women who want to have kids waste too much time staying with guys when it’s clear they’re not going to have a future with them. Fertility-wise, you might not always have an extra year or two years to stay in a relationship that you know, deep down, is going nowhere.

        • Jonathan

          If the trend of delayed motherhood continues and escalates, these women will be outnumbered by Evangelics in the south and Mormons in the Frontier.

    • Lilian Stoltzfus

      “But for most women, long delay is about material reasons. It may start out with a perfectly valid, let’s finish school, or save for a down payment, but then they always have yet another reason to delay and delay.Trust me, a newborn is as happy with a secondhand crib in the corner of the living room of a postage stamp sized apartment as with a beautifully decorated nursery. They just want full tummies, dry bottoms, and lots of love.”

      You voice my concerns well, MamaBear. We should be free to make
      these choices for whatever reason, and financial security is important when raising a child. But many reasons of “financial stability”, reasons given by so many young people already in a good financial situation, aren’t really very good financial reasons. Kids are expensive, but they don’t need the best that money can buy, either.

    • Marauder

      Is testing for gestational diabetes different or the same as a glucose test? I think I’m supposed to have a glucose test at my next OB/GYN appointment.

      • MamaBear

        My youngest is 23, so no promises things have not changed, but I think it was also called a glucose test.
        Hope things are still going well.

      • Basset_Hound

        I had the glucose test both times I was pregnant. I had to fast for 18 hours, and get blood drawn every hour for four. The first thing I did when they were done was to burn rubber to the nearest buffet.

    • Ingrid Heimark

      I think an infant would be happy with living arangements like that, but a 8 year-old, not so much, and CPS are extremely active in my town

      • MamaBear

        Most young couples would not expect to be in the same financial position 8 years later.
        If they really don’t see realistic hope of doing better, maybe there are some other things they need to fix, like finishing education, job training, relocating to where better jobs are.
        My point is people delay starting families, thinking they have to be in that nice house and able to afford matching baby furniture, all that stuff babies really don’t care about. Many young couples, just starting their careers, can’t afford all that stuff now, simply because they are just starting out.

        • Ingrid Heimark

          Yes… I ahve the money I need to get pregnant the way I want, but I don’t have what it takes to raise the child acceptably in two years from now, I only have a 1-room apartment. And I think that should I get pregnant just like that, I would cope, but to do it on purpose, somehow that doesn’t seem right. I need a bigger place to live. Someone have 50 000 dollars? :P

          • MamaBear

            Ingrid, I do not know how housing and the economy is where you are. Is there a possibility you could work a second job part time for a year to save, or share a house/apartment with another young mom or trying to be mom?
            None of us mean to be judgmental. Many people delay and delay children because they are waiting for the perfect situation or time, who truly have no real reason to. That does not mean it is true in every case.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I ahve considered selling my apartment and rent, that would give mea good financial situation, but then I have a second heart cause, fostering cats, and in rented home that is not so easy either. I am kinda reluctant to give up everything for trying to get pregnant with a 1 in 3 shot at success for paying like 2000 dollars a try, so….

          • MamaBear

            Ingrid, my heart goes out to you. There is no magic answer, as I have told my kids when they ask about decisions. I am sure you would be a wonderful mother, but I also understand not wanting to sacrifice what you have now on a risk, a maybe. You will be in my prayers, for guidance, for the right doors to open in your life.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Thank you :)

  • belgianchic

    It’s not always about delaying motherhood- reproductive technologies can allow gay and lesbian couples to become parents, as well as single women/men or people in the ‘appropriate’ window of time to reproduce who are otherwise infertile. This kind of technology has been a blessing and has given the world so many people who would otherwise not have been born.

    • MamaBear

      I am not against use of modern medicine and technologies to help people have children, And like many other things, their use is not black and white. But this article was specifically about delaying motherhood. Something I think many couples often slip into without weighing the true risks. Then they hit late 30s or 40 and realize time is running out.
      A young couple (early 30s) I know recently had a second baby. The first eight years of their marriage they tried, were told by doctors if they ever wanted children, they would probably need to use IVF. But, they had no money for IVF, figured they would just adopt someday. Being in their 20s when told that, they had time. Both babies were very welcome surprises. A couple in their late 30s does not have eight or ten years to wait and see.
      I’m sure you realize that in regards to health of both mother and baby, 20s and early 30s is better than 40s, and conception through natural means is best when possible.

      • belgianchic

        Oh of course absolutely maternal and fetal health are paramount.

      • Rebecca Rose Downs

        I do think that ART and IVF are certainly hot topics, and even up for debate amongst the pro-life crowd. But it’s good that you realize that their use is not black and white. So thanks for that. And you mention that your friends didn’t have the money for IVF. That’s another issue. Not only does its cost treat children like commodities, but it says that those who have the money to pay to be pregnant are more entitled. That’s how I see it.

        • MamaBear

          But, I do think that if more people did not wait so long, fewer would be resorting to ART or IVF to begin with. In the case of my young friends, they feel God simply chose to work it out at the right time.
          I do realize not everyone can start their families in their 20s or early 30s. Late marriages, long professional training, and I am sure many other legitimate reasons can interfere. Before people wait too long for the “perfect time,” they need to realize the biological clock is real, and the various fertility treatments are no guarantee and come with health risks of their own.

    • Jonathan

      Gay and lesbian couples should be denied any access to those technologies and adoption. That would discourage people from being gay.

      • AmyE

        Dude…wow. I don’t think that would encourage people from making “gay” choices. I think you’d have quite a bit of resistance from that program.

        • Jonathan

          Being gay is no difference from self-sterilization. For the sake of the next generation’s mental health, gays shouldn’t become parents. They can’t provide both mother’s role and father’s anyway.

          • belgianchic

            Well, actually, scientifically there are significant differences. Being gay doesn’t make you sterile- you can still produce children (if you’re fertile). Gay men don’t magically not have sperm and lesbians don’t magically not have eggs. Also, gay and lesbian couples are extremely unlikely to get pregnant accidentally, QED they don’t need abortions. Hmmmmmm.

          • Jonathan

            They’re mentally sterilized, as long as babies are developed from fertilized eggs that require both sperms and eggs.

          • Marauder

            “Mentally sterilized”? You realize there are gay people who have kids with members of the opposite sex before realizing and/or accepting that they’re gay, right? Whether or not someone is physically able to reproduce has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

          • Jonathan

            Ability to reproduce is one thing, willingness is another. Maybe some people enjoy hanging out with partners in the same sex, but there’s no fruition of that when they get serious and decide to settle down. They can’t have kids of their own anyway.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            You are adding to the stereotypes of pro-lifers

          • belgianchic

            mental sterilization isnt’ a real thing, sorry.

          • Jonathan

            But mental disorder is. Gays will never find a child at the end of the road they’re on.

          • belgianchic

            if there’s a child at the end of a road, someone should probably call child protective services.

          • Jonathan

            Now I can tell that figurative speaking also is.

          • Marauder

            I’m bisexual. Does that make me half-qualified for motherhood?

          • Jonathan

            I ain’t gonna judge nobody. Ask yourself if you wanna marry a man or a woman.

          • Marauder

            Um, I’m already married. And 23 weeks pregnant.

          • Jonathan

            That’s just a word made up by some liberals to explain their confusion. One is either into men or women with feelings. You can’t have both.

          • cp2895

            Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

          • Jonathan

            Just because you have lust doesn’t mean it’s right to lust and make excuses for it.

          • cp2895

            Fine. That is your opinion. However, your response had nothing to do with your original comment and my response. Please don’t tell someone that her personal experiences and feelings are invalid because you don’t like them and it’s more convenient to say that they’re lies made up by a political party.

          • Jonathan

            Political correctness is not equal to absolute correctness.

          • cp2895

            …Gay rights are rights for gay people. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy to do I don’t even know what.

          • Jonathan

            There’s nothing right about being gay. It’s completely unnatural, and evidence shows that gays target at children, promoting their gay agenda to them. It also causes pedophile.

          • Marauder

            It also “causes pedophile”? Okay, I’m adding grammar to the long, long list of things you don’t know anything about.

          • Jonathan

            What makes you think you’re smarter than everybody else? Is that a perk of being “bisexual” as you call yourself? You don’t even know what your body tells you. You can’t even control it with your brain.

          • Marauder

            I’m not smarter than everyone else. I just don’t make definitive statements about things I clearly don’t know anything about.

          • Jonathan

            Whatever you feel is none of my business or anybody’s, but when people who side with God and stand for their principles are under attack by your kind and your supporters, you deserve all the criticisms.

          • Marauder

            If what I feel is none of your business, then quit talking about it.

            People should be criticized for what they themselves do, not what people who agree with them on something do. That’s like saying that because you, I and Scott Roeder all agree that abortion is wrong, you and I deserve criticism for Scott Roeder’s murder of George Tiller.

          • Jonathan

            Homosexuality is WRONG, morally, religiously and biologically. It’s just the LGBT, with the government’s endorsement, attempts to make it legally right.

          • Marauder

            Yes, I’m aware that you believe that. How are you responding to my specific comment?

          • Jonathan

            Why are you so sensitive to criticism on gay right activists and their friends in the high offices other than you?

          • MamaBear

            Jonathan, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but you have spewed out a lot of things not true and offensive.
            This is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for reasonable people to work out answers that respect both sides.
            I also oppose most divorce. I see the damage broken families do to children. But, it will not get fixed either through hostility.
            We Christians are to be light in the darkness, not lightning bolts that strike.

          • cp2895

            Clearly it’s not JUST the LGBT community, as you should have learned from this comments section.

            Also, the government cannot legislate for or against biblical morality. This is why you can’t get thrown in jail for cheating on your spouse. If same-sex marriage is made legal, you will never be forced to believe that it is right. It just means that a gay couple gets some legal rights, and all of you leave each other alone.

          • cp2895

            …..Neither can you……

          • Jonathan

            Everyone has a demon inside, while I do my best to not give in to it. That’s called self-control.

          • cp2895

            Fortunately, you don’t have to- you are attracted to women, and that is deemed acceptable by society. What if you wanted to enter into a consensual relationship with your wife but were not allowed to be society, government, etc?

          • Jonathan

            That sounds like Romeo and Juliet, doesn’t it? It’s fictional, and we don’t live in that time any more. If the local society and government have a low level of tolerance, just move to somewhere beyond their reach.

          • cp2895

            You do realize that the moral of that play was that the warring families who tried to keep the two lovers apart were actually foolish and wrong for doing so?

            What is your point?

          • Jonathan

            What’s your point about a disapproved consensual relationship? You can’t have everyone’s blessing anyway.

          • cp2895

            No, you can’t. However, most people who get married without everyone’s blessing are still entitled to the legal, non-religious benefits that getting married in this country affords them. They also don’t have people accusing them of being evil child-molesters who are out to destroy the world based on the sex of their adult partners.

          • cp2895

            Oh my. What evidence is this, pray tell? I’m genuinely curious to know where you got this information from.

          • cp2895

            Oh my. What evidence is this, pray tell? I’m genuinely curious to know where you got this information from.

          • Marauder

            This has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with telling someone – a stranger on the Internet. no less – that you understand their feelings better than they do themselves.

          • Jonathan

            Let me remind you, you LGBT community got god-fearing, law-abiding and church-going model citizens demonized as “bigots”. You got Firefox’s innocent CEO fired. You got the Christian twin brothers’ show cancelled for their criticism to your people. You got the Duck Dynasty guy suspended for doing nothing wrong but expressing his humble opinion with a quote from the 1st Corinthian. You degraded traditional marriage into an “old-fashioned alternative lifestyle”. You disrespect people’s religious freedom. And you attempted to bend everybody’s feelings toward your sinful, twisted feelings all over the nation. Denial of these things your people have done doesn’t make them go away.

          • Basset_Hound

            Jonathan, were you aware that there were gays who actually DEFENDED Phil Robertson’s right to speak his mind?

            Were you aware that there were gays that were appalled at the Firefox firing?

            Were you aware that there are gays that speak out against the heavy handedness of the militants? Camille Paglia, a journalist and a lesbian actually appeared on Dennis Prager radio show to speak out against the hatred and closed mindedness she felt from the militants.

            So let’s not be too quick to paint with such a broad brush, especially since you have no clue as to whether or not Marauder was on board for any of these actions.

          • Marauder

            Seriously. It’s like a pro-choicer saying, “Your pro-life community calls women murderous whores and killed George Tiller,” as if having a viewpoint automatically equals condoning an action. (Camille Paglia is actually bisexual, BTW.)

          • Basset_Hound

            Good post Marauder. I didn’t know that Camille was bi. The conversation she had with Prager was the most fascinating hour of radio I’ve heard in a long…LONG time.

          • Jonathan

            Marauder was not, but the group represented by her was. They are behind all these actions. And I didn’t even mention the lawsuit against a baker in Colorado who refused to offer his service to a gay couple. That is outrageous. Homosexuality is far beyond a personal issue. It has hurt businesses.

          • Basset_Hound

            Let’s go back to school again, Skippy. This time we’re going to tackle TWO topics. The first one is Art. I’ve already mentioned to you that it’s a logical fallacy to Paint with a Broad Brush. Likewise, I have pointed out that there were people in the Gay Community who DEFENDED both Phil Robertson and Brendon Eich. There were also people in the Gay community who thought the lawsuits against Sweet Cakes by Melissa and the florist in Colorado were counterporductive, and that they RESPECTED the rights of these businesses to refuse customers without being dragged into lawsuits. I know. One of the posters on this very web site who happens to be bi came out and said it.

            Now….let’s move on to sixth grade English. Take out your spiral notebook and your pencil. Complete the following sentence: I know Marauder is a part of some kind of sinister group because _________________________. Hell! I’ll even make this a multiple choice.

            a) I am a Telepath. I know what other people’s thoughts are because I watched X-Files and Fringe when both shows were on the air.

            b) I am a Time Lord. I travelled back through the Space-Time Continuum and saw Marauder when she signed up and paid her Membership Dues. Matt Smith is my favorite Dr. Who.

            c) This is another stupid smokescreen non-sequiter I managed to pull out of my butt!!

          • Marauder

            “Please don’t tell someone that her personal experiences and feelings are invalid because you don’t like them and it’s more convenient to say that they’re lies made up by a political party.”

            It’s not any more fair than pro-choicers who say that post-abortion psychological problems are a myth that pro-lifers made up to push an agenda.

          • Marauder

            This, from the guy who watches colostrum porn with the excuse that it’s so he can learn about colostrum.

          • Jonathan

            Calm down, ma’am. Holding such a holier-than-thou attitude is not nice to anybody. We don’t have to go personal.

          • Marauder

            You were the one who accused me of lusting, as if attraction is automatically lust. And if you want to talk about what;s “not nice to anybody,” well, I don’t think you want to open that door unless you have some serious apologizing to do for other things you’ve said on this site.

          • Basset_Hound

            I’ve already flagged four of his comments and I’m still counting….
            You and Mamabear wanna join me???

          • john lind

            BH, I’m not interested in flagging anybody but I’ve noticed sometimes when I up arrow somebody a little flag comes up to the right. Hopefully, my up arrows aren’t flagging people?????

          • Jonathan

            “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error with was was due.” – Roman 1: 27. That’s the impression that I’m under. It’s a scriptural truth tells me that homosexuality is about nothing but lust.

          • cp2895

            “22
            While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men
            of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to
            the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your
            house so we can have sex with him.”

            23
            The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing.

            24
            Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine.
            I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them
            whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

            25
            But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.” Judges 19:22-25

            This is a scriptural truth that tells me it’s okay to have concubines (women you have sex with outside of the confines of holy matrimony) and rape virgins!

            But I don’t actually personally believe that, because I choose to interpret the scripture. If you form an opinion about something based on the fact that it’s in the Bible (and nothing else), this is sometimes what you can get.

          • john lind

            WTF is colostrum porn? And I know I could just Google it but I’m honestly scared of what I might see! :)

          • MamaBear

            Something Jonathan mentioned a while back. My guess is we do not want to know.

          • john lind

            Thanks! Every time I hear about yet one more categegory of porn, I get more and more convinced that I’m alot closer to “plain vanilla” than I thought. :)

          • Marauder

            Thanks for proving my point. You don’t know what “bisexual” even means.

          • Jonathan

            I’m not against the idea of kissing many frogs in hope to turn one of them into a prince, but to all due respect, humans are monogamous. You may go threesome for fun, but you can live with more than one sexual partner forever. You don’t wanna end up in a “trouple” like those three crazy bxtches in Massachusetts married together as a bizarre union, do you?

          • Marauder

            I don’t “go threesome for fun.” Seeing as it seems to have escaped your notice, “bisexual” means “attracted to both men and women.” Have you ever been attracted to someone without having sex with them? I’m pretty sure you have.

          • Jonathan

            Do you really know what “attraction” means? Everybody’s attracted to celebrities – both male and female, does it mean everybody’s bisexual?

          • Marauder

            Everybody is romantically attracted to both male and female celebrities? News to me.

          • Jonathan

            Well, I’m sorry for the confusion. “Everybody” is celebrities’ fanbase that makes them celebrities, but that’s not my point. Allow me to rephrase – Celebrities, both male and female, are attractive to everybody. Does it mean everybody’s bisexual?

          • Marauder

            Are you saying that everyone is romantically interested in both male and female celebrities?

          • Jonathan

            Everyone is free to fantasize and talk about it. It’s within our constitutional rights.

          • cp2895

            You still don’t know what “bisexual” means.

          • Jonathan

            It means desperation. Completely succumbed to your lust. In such a state you don’t even mind what your partner’s gender is. How pathetic.

          • Marauder

            No, “pathetic” is you imagining things about total strangers’ sex lives based off of who they’re attracted to.

          • Jonathan

            Well, maybe “pathetic” is a strong word that’s too harsh to put in a conversation. How about infidelity? How about unfocusedness? How can a “bisexual” be loyal to one partner when this label screams of a colorful sex life that’s contradicting to monogamy?

          • Marauder

            The word “bisexual” only “screams of a colorful sex life that’s contradicting to monogamy” to people like you who don’t know what it means. Everybody in a committed relationship finds themselves sometimes attracted to someone other than their partner, regardless of sexual orientation. That’s human nature. That doesn’t mean they necessarily do anything about it.

          • Jonathan

            A woman who’s sexed up with a makeup and revealing outfit is more attractive than others in modest clothing. She may draw attention from everyone, both lovebirds and single ones. That doesn’t mean anything.

          • cp2895

            That’s like saying if you’re in a relationship (presumably in your case with a woman), you stop being attracted women in general because the nature of being attracted to women means that you’re being unfaithful.

            The rules of attraction are the same for all of us, regardless of which (or how many) sexes you’re attracted to.

          • cp2895

            ………nope, still wrong…..

          • Jonathan

            A man is born a man and a woman is born a woman. It’s god’s will and god makes no mistakes.

          • cp2895

            Okay…still has nothing to do with bisexuality…

          • Jonathan

            Men and women are symbolized as Yin and Yang in oriental philosophy as they complement each other. No one can be both, and no one should be.

          • cp2895

            Bisexuality means that you are attracted to members of both sexes, not necessarily that you “are” both genders.

          • belgianchic

            you can have both, actually. Wouldn’t surprise you at all I’m sure, godless heathen that I am, to hear that I’m bisexual.

          • Jonathan

            No you can’t. When a “bisexual” feelings arise, maybe you should try to dismiss the thought in your head or see a psychiarist other than openly talking about it.

          • belgianchic

            There’s no need to put bisexuality, a common accepted sexual orientation in which one is attracted to both men and women in condescending air quotes. And I will openly talk about my sexual orientation whenever I want, thanks. Why would i see a shrink? there’s nothing wrong with me. Maybe you should see one though, for willful ignorance/ homophobia.

          • cp2895

            With all due respect, you’ve been doing nothing but judge on this comments page.

          • Jonathan

            If gays don’t wanna be judged, they should get off the public sight. There was a wonderful policy called “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

          • cp2895

            That was a policy for the military, not for people commenting on public forums. I would again remind you that no one mentioned sexuality at all until you took an article about the implications of advanced maternal age and turned it into a rant about gay couples using reproduction technology.

          • Jonathan

            Well, I don’t really know what to say about firth childbirth in early 40s. Some women at that age in the south are already grandmas.

          • MamaBear

            You do not go off topic just because you don’t know what to say. Read Proverbs 17:28.
            “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.”

          • Jonathan

            I don’t know what to say because I’m being honest. I’m not a woman, nor am I over 35. When to embrace motherhood is a personal issue. Though I hate the misguiding term “pro-choice”, I gotta say that I’m pro-choice on this. If you get pregnant at 40 with a daughter, she could be the next Tina Fey – whose mom had her at that age – or with Down Syndrome. You roll the dice and take your chance.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I believe in the sanctity of marriage, yet I do think a child is much better off at a home with two moms than in a chinese orphanage, or even the home with married heterosexual parents I grew up in

          • Jonathan

            Yeah, because this is America, not China or Norway.

          • MamaBear

            Jonathan, America is a wonderful country, I am thankful I live here. But Ingrid’s reference to China was comparing with an orphanage, not a Chinese home with parents. And as for Norway, Ingrid had a very bad childhood that had nothing to do with the country she lives in.

          • Basset_Hound

            I tried to get the point across that this website wasn’t geared to the sanctity of marriage . I probably agree with many of your opinions though.

          • Jonathan

            Then what was the comparison for? It means nothing and proves nothing.

          • MamaBear

            The comparison was a loving home of any kind, even one with two moms, is better than an orphanage (one place with orphanages is China) or an abusive home such as Ingrid grew up in.
            (Although most children in Chinese orphanages could and should be growing up with their own parents if it were not for China’s Machiavellian one-child policies.)

          • Jonathan

            Kids with two parents are always better off than those with abusive parents or no parents. Everybody knows that. It’s pointless.

          • AmyE

            It’s a lot better than being in an orphanage I believe, having a steady family. What about single parents? Should they not be allowed to have kids?

          • MamaBear

            Certain people here, I shall not call names, would be very shocked to know that foster care deliberately looks for single parent homes for certain kids. Older kids who have been sexually abused actually adjust best in a home where there is no adult of the sex that abused them. The hope is that there will be healing over time and with continued treatment.

          • Jonathan

            Allowed or not, single parents are already parents whether having kid was a part of their plans or not. It can’t be undone. If you wanna prove your point, you should give an example of a kid who, raised by gay parents, lives better than another who grew up with normal parents in the same social class.

          • Marauder

            Would that actually prove anything to you, though? Seriously, if someone provided that example, would you really say, “Oh, hey, I guess I was wrong”?

          • Jonathan

            Truth to be told, a nuclear family with both natural parents is the safest and healthiest environment for a kid to grow up, and not surprisingly, “he and she lived happily ever after” is what almost every romantic story would end with. It’s by God’s design.

          • AmyE

            It isn’t about living better though. Gay parents don’t have to prove that they are superior parents. As long as the child functions like any other child, then they’re okay. And I haven’t seen any scientific research that proves elsewise.

          • Jonathan

            They ain’t role models either, as long as the super majority of the people is straight.

          • AmyE

            The majority of human beings being straight doesn’t affect their parenting.

          • Jonathan

            Yes it does. Usually one of a gay couple thinks like a woman, acts like a woman, talks like a woman and even dresses like a woman. I don’t think that’s a good example for his children.

          • AmyE

            Do you have scientific evidence of this?

          • Jonathan

            I think anybody who’s not blind can see that. I wonder if men like that have accidentally eaten something that contains a high level of estrogen.

          • AmyE

            I’m apparently blind. Can you send me a link please proving this?

          • cp2895

            They haven’t.

          • cp2895

            First you say that gay parenting is bad because you’re denying a child of a mother and father, or feminine and masculine influence. Now you’re saying that having one member of the couple act and talk like a woman (whatever that means) while presumably the other half of the couple adopts masculine traits, is bad.

            Pick one.

          • cp2895

            Just the fact that they aren’t in the majority isn’t enough to make them bad role models. The super majority of people also has brown eyes. Are blue-eyed people now bad role models for their children? (Also considering that blue-eyed people are exponentially more likely to have blue-eyed children than gay parents are to have gay children).

      • belgianchic

        That wouldn’t actually prevent people from being gay- and it’s impossible to discourage people from being who they are. So denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to become parents would just make them gay and….miserable. What a Christian way of thinking. So my brother and his partner had my niece through a surrogate. Would you rather she not have been born? Funny coming from the ‘pro-life’ crowd but it’s about as consistent as anything I’d expect from you.

        • Jonathan

          Why wasting money on surrogacy instead of abiding by the nature’s law of reproduction? It’s kind of like a mystery to me. Surrogate mothers and sperm banks are supposed to be services that are provided for infertile couples, not gays who are perfectly fertile.

          • Marauder

            Are “supposed to be” according to who?

          • belgianchic

            there are a lot of mysteries to me as well, such as why people waste time harassing women outside of abortion clinics instead of doing something useful that will actually lower the abortion rate, such as charity work. And yeah, gay and lesbian couples are fertile, but as the anti-gay crowd has been pointing out, they can’t have children together naturally. QED, surrogacy/sperm banks.

          • Jonathan

            A good government takes care of people who CAN’T work, not those who’re too lazy or too dumb to work. For the same reason, surrogacy/sperm banks should be alternatives for infertile couples, not gays – who are not willing to reproduce with women – and lesbians – who are not willing to reproduce with men.

          • belgianchic

            Well nobody mentioned welfare except for you but the vast vast majority of people on welfare can work but are unemployed (or employed but can’t make ends meet), not lazy or dumb. That kind of attitude towards the less fortunate seems interesting coming from a “Christian”. Oh, so gays and lesbians are lazy. Ok got it.

          • Jonathan

            I didn’t say that the current government under the Obama administration is a good one. Where did you get this idea?

          • AmyE

            He’s not saying they’re lazy. He’s saying that they’ll pass down homosexuality. I think. Or maybe he’s saying having children is a reward and those that don’t do as society expects should not be rewarded?

          • belgianchic

            i’m just messing with him

          • MamaBear

            Please do not see Jonathan as typical of Christians. He has some “unusual” ideas.
            Adult people who disagree should still be able to treat each other respectfully.

          • belgianchic

            Oh, I don’t, I’m just messing with him. Even though I support marriage equality, having a different viewpoint doesn’t mean that person is awful- but his shenanigans are just amusing.

          • MamaBear

            Sometimes how you put something when you disagree makes all the difference.
            Jonathan has gone off on some weird tangents before.

          • belgianchic

            No kidding, I like you after all!

          • MamaBear

            Thanks.

          • AmyE

            Do you mean children are a type of reward and gays should not be rewarded because they have not followed society’s expectations?

          • Jonathan

            Children are a type of reward for normal couples. Gays have not followed God’s expectations. Any kid they get is not their own.

          • AmyE

            Whenever someone adopts a kid, they are technically not having their own.

      • cp2895

        That’s not how that works….

      • Marauder

        Jonathan, please quit making these comments on things you clearly know nothing about.

        • Jonathan

          Oh really? I’m talking about a cultural war. A clash of ideologies. Homosexuality shouldn’t be encourage in any way, not with access to reproduction technologies, not with promotion of their influence on national tv, but to my disappointment, gays have invaded everywhere. This month we’ve lost Idaho and Arkansas as the judges in these states lifted the ban on gay marriage.

          • cp2895

            Yes really. Homosexuality isn’t an “ideology” it’s “biology.” That’s what Marauder is talking about when she asks you to quit making comments on things you clearly know nothing about. No one will EVER be discouraged from being gay. You either are or you aren’t. I didn’t realize you could take a conversation on advanced maternal age and fertility treatments and turn it into a “gay agenda” hang-wringing fest, but darn it, you did it.

          • Jonathan

            Gays having children is not fair to normal couples. Childlessness should be the price for being gay, no alternatives. Maintaining a robust relationship with somebody in the opposite sex is always more difficult than with somebody in the same sex, so if there’s an easy way to be “happy” and having kids, why taking the hard way? Why bother to raise the next generation anyway if it feels so good of enjoying a world of two and for two?

          • cp2895

            1. “Gays having children is not fair to normal couples.”

            …………….What………?

            2. “Maintaining a robust relationship with somebody in the opposite sex is always more difficult than with somebody in the same sex…”

            Wow. How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? How could you possibly know that?

            3. “…so if there’s an easy way to be ‘happy’ and having kids, why taking (sic) the hard way?…if it feels so good of enjoying a world of two and for two?”

            I really don’t think you’re getting this. People do not enter into homosexual relationships because they are “easy.” They enter into homosexual relationships because they are gay. I have never heard anyone suggest that same-sex relationships are an easier alternative to heterosexual relationships.

            Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this, but I’m assuming you are a heterosexual male who has had at least some dating and relationship experience with a woman, and may possibly even be married. Think back to a time in one of these relationships when the going has gotten tough. Did it ever even occur to you say “I’m done with this; I’m going to find a male partner to share my life with?” I’m guessing the answer is no, you couldn’t even conceive of the idea of having a sexual relationship with a member of your own sex. This is not because you have a moral, upstanding character (not that you don’t), but rather because you are a heterosexual man. Most heterosexual people are the same way. Fairness to, as you call them, “normal” couples has nothing to do with it.

            I feel I should also point out that many heterosexual couples remain childless by choice. However, they choose to be married (whether in the eyes of God or by the law of the land) because sometimes, when people are in love, they choose to become bonded to each other and share everything about themselves with the other person, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and yes, legally (as far as assets, money, etc). Yes, being married also involves having children more often than not, but to suggest that the only purpose of heterosexual coupling is for the sake of reproducing seems rather bleak and unromantic to me…not conducive to building a “robust,” as you said it, relationship.

          • Jonathan

            How I possibly know that? Because men and women think in completely different ways. For example, when a problem occurs, a man tends to offer his analysis and solution, while a woman tends to share her feelings about that problem and the people involved in it. Two men or two women can easily feel emotionally connected to one another based upon the similar thinking pattern, but it’s much harder for a man and a woman to achieve that without any confusion or misunderstanding. Sometimes he could make her feel ignored and she could make him feel incompetent although neither has such intention. And how to avoid it? Not by reading Men are from Mars Women are from Venus, but being gay. Does that sound like a good idea?

          • cp2895

            Men and women aren’t that different. Communication errors occur in all relationships. It is true that there are differences between the average man and the average woman, but they are not so great as to make the average heterosexual relationship easier than the average same-sex relationship. You are also discounting the fact that there could be aspects of same-sex relationships that are way more difficult than those of heterosexual relationships- again, as a person who has presumably never been in a same-sex relationship, you can’t know.

            As for you comment that of course the purpose of coupling is only for reproduction, and what else could it be for?- People marry each other for love as well. Children are often a happy byproduct of this love, but I would think the desire to share your life with another person comes first and foremost, seeing as how that person will be with you when the kids have left the nest. Also, remember that not every child shares their parents’ genes, such as adopted children or step-children.

            I am not familiar with House of Cards (Frank and Claire) so I cannot really comment on that.

          • Jonathan

            Love is a precious gift from God, but nonetheless it’s an emotion. It’s not something that you can effortlessly find at everywhere except on the movie screen, and nobody can live on it forever. If there’s no fruition in it and it’s predictable, why wasting time and fortune on it in the first place? Just for a hard lesson? And when love fades away as you and your partner grow tired of each other, what else can keep your relationship alive? Oh, man, this way off topic. I don’t wanna go there.

            P.S. : Frank and Claire are a powerful couple of two ambitious politicians in the white house with no child. They could’ve had three if Claire hadn’t ABORTED all of them. I think there was an article about her character on this site.

          • Timmehh

            “For God so loved the world…”

            Seems like love was enough for God to want to save us all.

          • Jonathan

            Yeah, but romantic love is the most special kind. Its biological basis is mating and reproduction, which is why kids don’t feel much about it before reaching puberty.

          • Basset_Hound

            Good God. Nobody can live on love forever! Tell that to the friend of mine who lost her father last week! Her parents had been married for fifty years!

          • MamaBear

            My parents were married for 57 years. Until he died, my dad still told people he was married, even though he knew my mom was already gone.

          • Jonathan

            Love is Everything by George Strait is one of my favorite country songs. I think this title and its lyrics tell me that you can live on “everything” – which comes from love – and feel love in “everything”, but you can’t live on love alone and do nothing. I’m sorry for your friend’s loss. Maybe her father rest in peace.

          • Griffonn

            Rabbis from the religious Zionist community have launched an initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women – with some surprising successes.

            So far, 11 marriages have been performed. Haaretz conducted an email interview with one such couple, Etti and Roni (not their real names ).

            Ettiand Roni, both religious, were married five years ago. Though they werehonest with each other about their sexual orientations from their firstmeeting, to the outside world, they portray themselves as a normal heterosexual couple. Today, they have two children, and are thrilled with the results.

            “It’sincredible,” they wrote. “Six years ago, we didn’t think we would ever be this happy. We thought everything was black, that we’d lost our chance of a normal life. But today, things are good for us. There are gaps, but that’s true in every case.

            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-rabbis-launch-initiative-to-marry-gay-men-to-lesbian-women-1.348465

          • Marauder

            “And what else can keep a couple together other than the responsibility of parenting children who carry their genes?”

            Ever hear of something called “love”?

          • Jonathan

            Love is an evolutionary trick that unites a man and a woman to have kids. I’d rather call it an instinct of mating. Without it, why would anybody be incentivized to do that?

          • Marauder

            You might be the first self-professed Christian I’ve ever encountered who believes love is nothing more than an “evolutionary trick.”

          • MamaBear

            Please read my post to Jonathan above to see what the Christian teaching on love and marriage actually is. If you don’t have a Bible, just go to a website called Biblegateway. You can even pick your favorite translation. (I prefer NAS and ESV.)
            Please do not consider him typical. People do not have to agree to treat one another respectfully.

          • Marauder

            Thanks, MamaBear – I know what the Bible actually says about love and marriage. I go to church every week and I went to Catholic school for sixteen years. :) Don’t worry, I don’t consider Jonathan typical of anyone.

          • Basset_Hound

            Thank you Marauder. If you were in my town, I’d buy you a frappachino from Starbucks….

          • Marauder

            I don’t drink coffee and I probably shouldn’t be having caffeine because of the baby, but I appreciate the sentiment very much. :)

          • Basset_Hound

            OK, make it a Smoothie…..

          • Jonathan

            What else do you think can make a person put his family before power, wealth, career and everything else? It’s the moral compass inside your heart. What I said is just a scientific explanation of it.

          • MamaBear

            “Love is an evolutionary trick”
            If that is what you think love is, I pity your wife or girlfriend.
            It is true, Adam and Eve were told to “be fruitful and multiply.” However, read Genesis 2:18-25. God did not say man needed someone to have kids with. He said man should not be alone, he needed a helper, a companion. That was the primary purpose of marriage. If God does not send kids, it is still a marriage. When kids are grown, it is still a marriage.
            It is men like you that’s the reason the divorce rate after a woman has breast cancer is 30%.
            You want to know what love is? Read I Corinthians 13 – the WHOLE chapter!
            (If you have KJV, it will say “charity” instead of love. The Greek word is agape, translated everyplace else in the Bible as LOVE.)

          • Jonathan

            If everybody can live 930 years long, who needs kids? Even Adam and Eve embraced their ends, so they needed kids to replace them as an extent of their lives.

          • MamaBear

            You seem to have missed the whole point.

          • Jonathan

            Adam’s life in Eden and the creation of Eve are prior to the Temptation and the Fall. Until then they were eternal.

          • MamaBear

            Read what Jesus said about marriage. Notice He went back to the BEGINNING, thus before the fall.

          • Jonathan

            Yes, he went back to the beginning – when there were only Adam and Eve who did not have a son. “A man” therein – Cain, Abel, Seth or any other son of Adam’s – was not born yet.

          • Basset_Hound

            So by using your “logic”, what exists between my husband and me doesnt really exist (and is an evolutionary trick, asyou put it) since I am biologically unable to produce any more children (that’s what menopause is)

            So what should he do to be a good Christian? Divorce me for a 30 year old?

          • Jonathan

            Huh, that’s so convenient for you to ignore the first part of my point. Love does its magic to bring a man and a woman together. Once they are together, the mating part is accomplished. Whether they go to the next step – which is reproduction – or not, it’s up to them.

          • Basset_Hound

            “Oh, and the purpose of coupling, what else do you think it’s for other than reproduction? And what else can keep a couple together other than the responsibility of parenting children who carry their genes?”

            “Love is an evolutionary trick that unites a man and a woman to have kids”

            Then we have THIS little “pearl of wisdom”…..

            Love is a precious gift from God, but nonetheless it’s an emotion. It’s not something that you can effortlessly find at everywhere except on the movie screen, and nobody can live on it forever. If there’s no fruition in it and it’s predictable, why wasting time and fortune on it in the first place?

            YOUR words, not mine, Sparky.

            How convenient for you to backpeddle, throw up smokescreens and mention your favorite song and cry like a spanked child that you’ve been (*sniff…sob*) taken out of context when your confronted by people who find that the words you post here are hurtful AND UN-Christian to the HILT.

          • Jonathan

            I’m being consistent. Love, as an “emotion”, makes the difference between a pregnancy caused by a husband and a pregnancy caused by a rapist, while the motivations are the same.

          • Basset_Hound

            Oh My God…/*facepalm*/…./*headdesk*/ /*running around screaming in frustration*/

            Obfuscation! Denial when confronted. Totally out and Left Field response.

            Here’s an open plea to the moderators here at LAN.

            PULL THE PLUG. BAN THIS POSTER! He constantly posts off-topic comments and responses. He refuses to engage in any type of debate. I can’t speak for Mamabear, but personally, I’m sick and tired of apologizing to other pro-lifers who post here for him. He’s a distraction and a bigger embarrassment to the pro-life cause than Donald Sterling is to the NBA.

          • MamaBear

            Agreed.

          • Basset_Hound

            That’s why I’m encouraging others to flag this guy. Maybe that might send a message that he’s a REAL problem, and motivate them to do something.

            I swear to God, I think Jonathan is channelling Fred Phelps.

          • MamaBear

            I almost asked him if he attends Westboro.

          • MamaBear

            Love is a heck of a lot more than an emotion. It is the men who think that that either leave their wives if she is pregnant from rape or force an abortion. They are the ones who leave because they now have emotions for another woman. The men whose love is only emotion are the 30% who divorce their wives when she gets cancer. I could go on and on with more examples.

            But, instead I shall quote what Job said to his “friends.”
            “O that you would be completely silent,
            And that it would become your wisdom!
            Job 13:5

          • Marauder

            Makes you wonder who really has the “agenda”…

          • Jonathan

            If conservatives had an agenda, it would be an agenda of creating America’s own future, not following EU’s footsteps.

          • Marauder

            Yes, really. You seem to have the belief that any feelings you don’t understand, whether it’s PTSD or attraction to members of the same sex, are things people can just pick to turn off whenever they want.

          • MamaBear

            Shhhh! Marauder, please do not start him on PTSD again.

          • Marauder

            Sorry, but I just saw the connection between his beliefs on both things – whatever *he* feels is very strong and compelling and justified, but whatever other people feel, if it’s something he doesn’t personally understand, is something they can easily quit feeling if they only try.

          • MamaBear

            I see murder as the ultimate moral wrong. That is why we are here.
            Jonathan has obviously never seen anyone with really severe PTSD. I have, several in fact. One was the husband of a friend.
            As to homosexuality, when a lady in your support group gets dumped by her partner because of breast cancer, her pain is as deep and real as the women who were dumped by husbands for the same reason. I did not need to approve or agree with her lifestyle to offer comfort and compassion for her pain. Or be her friend now.
            When we deal with abortion, many of these mothers have less than ideal lifestyles. We cannot help them by preaching, but by meeting needs and genuinely caring for them, as well as their babies. If they have already aborted, helping them find God’s forgiveness and to forgive themselves.

          • Basset_Hound

            Yeah, Mom. I totally agree. Granted, there’s a time and a place to denounce evil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t embrace people at whatever point they are in their lives and befriend them. We can do this without “approving”.

          • Lilian Stoltzfus

            Yes!

          • Jonathan

            Attraction? That’s ridiculous. Why not just ignore it and think about your job or education or other important things?

          • cp2895

            Sure. Stop thinking about women. Divorce your wife, remain forever celibate, think about your job, education, and house in order to take your mind off of your hormones and your lust.

            How well do you think that would work for you?

          • Jonathan

            I think you’ve got the wrong order there. Nobody would marry to a man without job, education, house and other material stuffs. A wife is supposed to be the reward for the accomplishment of these things.

          • Marauder

            A wife is supposed to be a woman you fall in love with and commit to spending your life with. If you think women are some sort of prizes that should be awarded to men as rewards for material accomplishments, that’s disgusting and degrading.

          • Basset_Hound

            Ok Marauder….I DO think it should be incumbent upon a woman to take a good look at a man’s character before falling in love, and one trait that should be examined very closely is his stability and his emotional stability. I’m sure you’d agree with that, and I’m sure I’m just stating the obvious here. I don’t have a gripe with your post, I’m just trying to “flesh it out” a little bit, and mean no offense to you. As for “Jonathan”, he seems to be in the “stuck on stupid” mode AGAIN……As for you….have an up-vote….

          • Jonathan

            Maybe, but it’s easier for men with these material accomplishments to find a wife anyway. Thick wallet and deep pockets allow their wives to have a choice about whether to stay at home with their families or climb the economic ladder. Why is that a bad thing?

          • Marauder

            Yes, calling you out on treating women like prizes for men is *totally* the same thing as saying it’s a bad thing for women to be able to stay home with their children.

          • Jonathan

            Staying at home with their children is an amazing lifestyle that many young mothers dream of, but they have to work against their will. Why do you think they have to?

          • Beverly Harlton

            My guess is that it’s because of the terrible economy and societal encouragement of pre-marital sex and single motherhood.

          • Basset_Hound

            Hit the flag button at the upper right of his comment. Then move on.

          • MamaBear

            Guess I come from generations of doing it wrong according to Jonathan. They set a very bad example for me. My greatgrandparents lost their farm through a situation beyond their control, started over in their 40s. Granddad owned a wagon, plow, and a couple of mules when he married grandma. My parents married during WW2. Only part of Jonathan’s requirements met was dad had a job – like every other young man of the time, he was in the military. My husband was military, too, with plans to go to college – no house and he even took out a loan for my ring.
            But, every generation was taught to find someone to love who was a devout Christian, a man or woman of good character who would stand by them no matter what. You can lose everything worldly, jobs, houses, bank accounts, none are permanent. But real love, loving your spouse more than yourself, plus faith, will get you through.

          • cp2895

            Again, your response doesn’t address the meaning of my original question.

          • Jonathan

            The premise of your question is wrong. The majority of people get married at 30 or later. What do you think they were busy at before that?

          • cp2895

            ??? My question was to ask you to put yourself in a position where you were not allowed to be in relationships with women, and furthermore to suppress all of your feelings for any member of the opposite sex by focusing on your job, etc as a way of taking your mind off of your sexual feelings, which is what you suggested people with sexual attractions different to yours should do.

          • Jonathan

            And what’s wrong with that? Isn’t the recession bad enough? It’s time to fix it with work ethics, not escaping from it into some silly feelings.

          • cp2895

            My point is that you would never be able to do it, and you would be outraged if someone suggested you had to.

            Also, I don’t know why you’re bringing up the recession now, because that is not relevant to anything I’ve said.

          • Beverly Harlton

            Hot dog, I’ve always wanted to be a trophy wife! I can’t wait to let my fiancé know! I guess this means I won’t have to get him a graduation gift, since *I’m* the prize!

          • Lilian Stoltzfus

            If I could just turn off my OCD and anxiety, it would be grand. Perhaps schizophrenics can simply turn off the auditory hallucinations or sudden conviction that the sun is watching them. Or perhaps rape victims could just turn off the flashbacks that arise when they smell a certain cologne.

            That’s not how it works. There are tools. There are things to help and choices to make. There are good patterns and bad patterns. But it’s not as easy as pushing a big red button somewhere.

          • Basset_Hound

            Excellent post, Lilian! I’ve struggled with anxiety for YEARS and I’d be the first to tell you “that’s not how it works”. People struggle with all kinds of addictions and sins, and it takes a lot of wisdom to know when to confront someone and when to come alongside them and say “me too”.

          • Lilian Stoltzfus

            Well said, Hound. It is indeed a battle we face.

      • Griffonn

        It is true they should be denied access to those technologies, but not because it would discourage them from being gay.

        There is simply no reason why being gay means a person either needs or deserves the right to deprive a child of mother or father. Gay or straight, all people should honor their child’s other real parent. If the biological parents are not in the picture, the child’s best interest should be the sole factor determining custody – which means a mother and a father. The push to pretend having two men or two women is “just as good” is not grounded in the needs of the child, but in the desires of the adult.

  • Lilian Stoltzfus

    Thanks for putting this together.

    There’s a lot one could talk about here. There are good reasons for taking steps to avoid conception, but the national trend for delaying childbirth into the late 30’s and early 40’s has a number of physical risks for our mothers and infants and it would seem economic risk for the country.

    As for delaying parenthood for the sake of financial security… financial security doesn’t have to take a woman until she’s 35 or older to reach. It took me a two year degree to get into a flexible field that offers financial stability and plenty of potential for future advancement. I’m 24. If I’d started my higher education straight out of high school… I could have been in that field even earlier.

    Obviously this isn’t the path for everyone, nor is it even a possible path for a lot of people. And of course financial security is important to consider before taking steps away from delaying conception. But has the economy really tanked so terribly that this entire trend of aging first-time mothers is completely justified for reasons of financial responsibility? Children have been successfully and happily raised with a lot less than what many couples could offer them in the middle of their education and/or career journeys. Some individual’s worries about their financial stability aren’t well founded.

    • Ingrid Heimark

      For me, it would be irresponsible to try to get pregnant now, as I have only recently been hired in a prat-time job and don’t have a permanent position, and can’t afford an apartment with at least one bedroom, yet I really want children, and it sucks that financial reasons should keep me from that. I am 35

      • Lilian Stoltzfus

        :-/ That’s unfortunate, Ingrid. Financial security *is* important.

    • Rebecca Rose Downs

      Hi Lillian, I’m glad you like the piece! And yes, it certainly does have a lot of food for thought in it. And I’m glad we can realize some have different paths. I’m tired of hearing of financial security as a reason for delaying childbirth. Certainly it is a valid concern, but people have been getting along well enough before when they had kids at younger ages and it’s the age when you are supposed to be doing so! I think not so much that the economy tanking so terribly justifies it, but rather people really are that scared/depressed/paranoid.

  • Lilian Stoltzfus

    Personally, I think it makes more sense for women to delay careers for the sake of childbearing as opposed to the other way around. My body will only allow me to birth a family for so long. My career is more likely to wait.

    Of course, I’m an RN and nursing is an especially flexible field. It also doesn’t take a PhD in nursing to get a decent-paying job in nursing. It’s harder in other fields.

    Women and their partners are and should be free to make these kind of choices for themselves and their families. It just doesn’t change realities of biology.

    • MamaBear

      Many careers are indeed flexible enough that they can be interrupted or postponed. Many women are working moms, part or full time. Many people even change careers during their working years.
      Some careers do require delays, but rarely until 40s. (My guess is my cancer surgeon is in her mid/late 30s. Can’t get a much tougher field, with lots of education requirements that I am sure she completed before starting her family. She has two preschoolers.)
      People need to think about priorities. Somehow, with modern fertility treatments, we have been lulled into thinking we can change the realities of biology.

    • Jonathan

      What are the health risks of being a mother in early 40s or later? I heard that it could cause abnormalities to the child. Sarah Palin’s fifth child is with Down Syndrome. Perhaps it wouldn’t happen had she had him earlier.

      • Ingrid Heimark

        i think the risk f Down Syndrome increases most after 38, but that won’t affect my decision to try later should I financially be able to care for a child

      • Lilian Stoltzfus

        To be fair, if Sarah Palin hadn’t had Trig when she did, she wouldn’t have had Trig at all. Any child she would have had wouldn’t be Trig. :)

        • Jonathan

          She’s my role model and many other conservatives’. Both she and her oldest daughter chose life under dire circumstances.

          • Marauder

            Sarah Palin is your role model, but you call LGBT people freaks? I don’t think that’s how Palin talks about TIlly, her friend and college roommate who’s a lesbian.

          • Jonathan

            When she was in college, homosexuality was a private choice of lifestyle, not politicized yet. Liberals didn’t shove it down everyone’s throat and shut every opponent down at that time. They weren’t irritating as they are, and their didn’t pollute people’s tv screens with their influence.

          • cp2895

            Too bad it’s not a choice though.

            People aren’t hiding anymore. The right to love who you want and to get the same legal benefits that all married couples enjoy overrides your right not to be irritated. That’s part of living in society. The only people who are being “influenced” as you call it are people who have always been gay and are becoming unafraid to come out to family friends and live as they always were.

          • Jonathan

            They’re comparable to drug addicts, drunkards and gamblers. It’s just an obsession, an act of showing that they’re “cool” and “rebellious”. Nothing good comes from that. It just pushes our country closer to Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • cp2895

            It’s not a way of showing that they’re “cool” and “rebellious.” It’s how they are biologically wired. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

          • Jonathan

            Yeah, keep fooling yourself with that deception. You know, even for a gay couple, one is more masculine and the other is more feminine. Deep down it’s still a man and a woman.

          • cp2895

            Well then that kind of defeats your previous point about homosexual relationships being the easy way out for people who can’t hack heterosexual relationships. If one person plays the role of the man and the other the role of the woman, it doesn’t matter what sex they are. They’ll still have the same issues that arise because of the inherent differences between masculine and feminine people, ergo, they are equally difficult as traditional heterosexual relationships.

          • Jonathan

            Economically speaking, I think lesbians are those who have taken a large share in the labor market, while gays are emasculated men who lost that share. This skewed society twisted their minds. It kind of ditched the traditional gender roles, but these roles are still there in all relationships.

          • cp2895

            These are things you came up with by yourself, and are not the result of careful study of unbiased scientific research, or conversations with actual gay people.

          • Jonathan

            What’s in it for you to defend them? You’ve got brainwashed by their liberal propaganda or what?

          • AmyE

            Abortion is a matter often considered life or slavery depending on whose side you are on making the media hesitant to report and reveal a bias. Homosexuality is generally looked at as a one way issue. Most people don’t see it as harmful because they believe it doesn’t affect anyone else. Technically it does have an effect on society, but I don’t believe homosexuality is harmful. It’s two consenting adults just living their lives.

          • Jonathan

            It wasn’t harmful until it was politicized. The liberal media’s bias to the gays threatens people’s faith in God and the right of free speech. Anyone who disagrees with them could be accused of “bigotry”, which is quite unfair.

          • AmyE

            Yes bigotry accusations are quite unfair. As long as no actual attempts are made to silence speech though I don’t see gay rights such as marriage as harmful.

          • Jonathan

            It’s harmful to many states’ sovereignty, especially the bible belt states. Despite the majority’s objection, the local judges give their permission to gay couples as a political move.

          • john lind

            You need to be careful about equating a majority opinion with right or wrong. If a certain town had a majority of anti-Christian atheists, they could outlaw bible reading, witnessing , or speaking out against sinful behavior.

            A better approach would be to stop relying on the State to legitimize marriage. If I could go back in time to when my wife and I got married, I would have had a church ceremony but told the pastor not to use the power granted to him by the State to make it a “government approved” marriage.

            My wife and I would still be as married as we are now as the government marriage license in no way enhances our monogamous commitment to one another.

          • cp2895

            Your response is not relevant to the statement I made.

            However, if you think abortion is not covered by the mainstream media, you need to look at more media (I acknowledge that not every news source concerns itself with abortion, so I don’t mean to dispute you outright, only to challenge that they completely ignore the debate). People are capable of having multiple thoughts and concerns on their minds at the same time. We can discuss abortion and gay rights in the news and on forums, and attention to one doesn’t draw attention away from another.

            Why do I have to gain personally in order to defend gay people? You made some comments that were not only offensive, but based on biased, unscientific, and false information, and I wanted to respond. That’s all.

          • Jonathan

            The legalization of gay marriage in any red state is an offense to the local residents. If it’s forever banned in these states, gays will eventually be driven out to the blue states where they are more acceptable. At least that would give normal people an option to avoid them. Approval of their lifestyle shall not be a national mandate.

          • cp2895

            It is not a Constitutionally protected right to not be offended by something, red state or not.

            Approval of their lifestyle won’t be a national mandate- the government will never force you to personally approve of it. You can choose to avoid gay people as much as you wish, and same-sex marriage won’t change this, much in the same way that you may avoid any heterosexual married person that you want to.

          • john lind

            I absolutely agree with your first paragraph. However, while your second paragraph is literally true (nobody can be forced to approve of somebody else in their own mind), government can and does force you to take actions that cause you to indicate that you approve of another.

            For example, the Christian baker was fined for not baking a cake for the gay couple’s wedding.

            Take it a step further with regard to abortion. If the government instituted a one child per couple policy, a pro life person could be forced to abort their own child. So even if they were against abortion, the pregnant woman would be forced by government (a group of people with guns who can take your life or property) to act in a way that contradicted what they really believed.

          • Marauder

            In “Going Rogue” in 2009, long after college, she wrote about how she “loved Tilly dearly.” Saying Sarah Palin is your role model and acting like you do is, frankly, an insult to Sarah Palin. (I’m also pretty sure she doesn’t call people “feeble-minded” as an insult, or anything ending in “-tard.”)

          • Jonathan

            What else would you suggest to do when we’re under attack by the evil pro-aborts? Turn your other cheek and remain silent? Well that would be a greater empowerment for them than public funding for their bloody industry.

          • Marauder

            Oh, here we go again: the pro-choicers made you insult people with developmental disabilities, and calling people “feeble-minded” or things ending in “-tard” somehow constitutes standing up for babies threatened by abortion, some of which have developmental disabilities.

            Sarah Palin is pro-life and she doesn’t call people “feeble-minded” or “libtards.” Do you think she’s turning the other cheek, remaining silent, and empowering abortion?

          • Jonathan

            You should’ve known that people with developmental disabilities get to live because of staunch pro-lifers’ like Sarah Palin. When many RINOs compromise on abortion, she always stands with the unborn and she’s always being consistent. I know using these terms is not the best way to win a debate with the pro-aborts, but I really can’t think of any other words to describe them who practically glorify a killing business and brazenly call it “pro-choice” when they eliminate all choices but abortion.

          • Marauder

            I think it might be more useful to unborn babies to focus more on helping them and less on “winning debates.” Have you ever read the book “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson? In it, she details how the pro-lifers who sidewalk-counseled outside the abortion clinic where she used to work were always kind to her and concerned about her. When she first started working there, some other pro-life protesters were frequently outside the clinic, and they were very abrasive and just made both her and women who were at the clinic for abortions want to get away from them as fast as possible. (One guy would show up wearing a Grim Reaper costume.) In contrast, the people from the Coalition for Life let Abby know that they actually cared about her, and when she saw an ultrasound-guided abortion in which the baby was actively trying to get away from the cannula, the Coalition for Life people were the ones she went to saying that she wanted to quit the abortion industry. I’m pretty sure that if the guy in the Grim Reaper outfit yelling about death had still been there, she wouldn’t have come to him.

            People respond positively when other people have their best interests at heart. They don’t respond positively when other people are clearly trying to prove them wrong or to create a win-lose situation, in which one person has to accept defeat. They definitely don’t respond well to being insulted – nobody is going to concede to being wrong about abortion to someone who insults their intelligence.

    • Rebecca Rose Downs

      I certainly can agree with that! Plus I feel like the longer you wait, the less likely your chances are to have children. Some people never even have children at all. While I certainly do plan on having a steady career, having children is not an option with for me.

      And agreed, women and the father of their children are indeed free to make these choices, but like you said, it does not change the reality of biology! We shouldn’t try to change biology just because we have money and/or the technologies to do so.

    • Griffonn

      It is crazy stupid to put in decades building a career – then just as you begin to see the rewards of your labor, *boom!* – gotta take a few years off and/or divide your attention.

      But the myth of today’s feminism is that women have to be individuals, not part of a family. To have a baby young means you have to trust your family to be there to support you when you are vulnerable.

      Not to mention how many young ladies today do not have a family to support them, and just to make it really cruel, they don’t know the first thing about how to find a reliable mate (having a lifetime of only the wrong sorts of role models to learn from).

      • Lilian Stoltzfus

        I’ve come to realize that having a good support group available is very, very important regarding one’s ability to cope.

        • Griffonn

          A good support network can literally be the difference between life and death.

          It is the most precious thing a mom of any age can have, and yet it is underrated and underpromoted by today’s culture.

  • Jonathan

    “If women have their first kid in their late thirties or early forties, they’re also more likely to have smaller families, pushing down the nation’s fertility, which hit a new low in 2012. Lower fertility, in turn, can reduce the economy’s long-term growth potential by cutting the size of the productive workforce and leaving fewer people to support the elderly.”

    This is why both parties push the Amnesty bill, even though it may cause employers’ discrimination against US citizens and legal immigrants because illegal aliens are cheap labor and they’re also exempted from Obamacare’s mandate. Somebody has to work to support the social security system and pay taxes.

    • Rebecca Rose Downs

      I see immigration as a separate issue, though certainly it does relate here. While I am in favor of legal immigration and fixing our immigration system, I cannot support amnesty.

      • MamaBear

        Some of the strongest opponents of amnesty I know happen to be people who immigrated here legally, and jumped through all the hoops to earn citizenship. Many of them are Hispanic!

  • cp2895

    I need an objective, scientific source.

    • Jonathan

      Then google some news about little boys being molested by gay monsters.

      • cp2895

        Sure. While I’m at it, I’m sure I can pull up tons of articles of little girls being molested by straight men, straight adult women being raped by adult men and female adults taking advantage of little boys. You can find bad apples in every single group of people, so I’m not sure why you choose to believe that gay adult men hold the monopoly on child abuse. Unless you’re suggesting that straight adult men and women are monsters as well by virtue of the members of their sexes and orientations who molest children.

        • Jonathan

          Those gay monsters are the worst apples. Molestation of little girls and adult women no longer satisfies them. They’ve gone beyond that. Their evil has no bound.

          • Marauder

            Child molestation is evil, period. Are you actually claiming that men who molest little girls are somehow morally better than men who molest little boys? That’s a really abhorrent attitude, as though little girls molested by men are somehow victims of lesser monsters than little boys molested by men.

            I suppose it would be useless to point out to you that men who molest boys do so because that’s their preferred type of victim, not because they started off molesting girls and got sick of it.

          • Jonathan

            Alright, I apologize for the limitation of my imagination. I can’t believe any man could do that to little boys. I thought human nature, though sinful, has a bottom.

          • cp2895

            No. People who molest little boys do not do so because they’ve exhausted their appetite for women. Again, that is a conclusion you jumped to out of your own hatred, and using biased articles written by people who share similar hatred. Unfortunately, your unfounded opinions have real consequences for real people.

          • Jonathan

            What do you have to prove that homosexuality is “natural” other than an acquired trait from social life?

  • cp2895

    I can’t even find a name to this article- who wrote this?

    • Jonathan

      There’s a link in that article titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse, authored by Timothy J Bailey, PhD. It exposed GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), a gay activists’ organization that misguides students to admire gays.

      • cp2895

        Timothy J Dailey is indeed a Ph.D, but has his degrees in religion, not science, social science, or biology. Also, I had GLSEN and similar programs in my old schools, and they encourage respect for people regardless of orientation; they are an anti-bullying program. You are incorrect when you say that they are an activist organization that seeks to make students “admire” gay people any more than they would admire straight people. There is a big difference between admiring someone for a trait beyond their control and causing them physical and emotional harm for a trait beyond their control, and GLSEN programs seek to address the latter. I was there, I know what I’m talking about.

        • Jonathan

          That’s not true. Gender, race, age and physical ability are all self-evident, while “sexual orientation” is not. How can you tell what a person’s sexual orientation when this person is celibate or has no social life?

          • cp2895

            Many people who have not yet come out to family, friends, school, etc are still bullied by others who perceive them to be gay for the silliest of reasons (many straight kids are also picked on if they are perceived as being gay, for whatever reason). Also, people can still find out about a person’s orientation by malicious means, so your position that people can’t get picked on if they are celibate or “don’t make it known” (whatever that means) is false. This is where anti-bullying education comes in.

          • Jonathan

            In that case, gay is merely an excuse for the bullies to justify their actions. They can do what they do for any reason they seem fit without any proof as long as their motto is “might is right”.

  • colleen10001

    Thanks for great important article Rebecca. I’ll definitely look into this. Will share as well. KEEP up the great work.