marrying too young...

[snowcat]

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

My spread was 23-49 for 6. Both ends were not necessarily planned (first, unplanned pregnancy, last, unplanned adoption). So I was the young dad and will be the old dad.

Our first was unplanned while we were both in school. No insurance and a cesarean delivery. It did not even dawn on me to claim this on Medicaid. We paid for it all ourselves, some of the bills took years to finish. We did get a good deal with the doctor who gave us a set fee for whatever came-up if we paid upfront.

[myboynoah]

Quit wasting our time with this kind of nonsense. It's already been posted.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...king-AND-smart!

Sorry about that Mr. Scoutmaster, sir.

[YOhio]

BRAINS AND BEAUTY: 25 Colleges Where The Students Are Both Hot And Smart - #16

BRAINS AND BEAUTY: 25 Colleges Where The Students Are Both Hot And Smart - #1

BOOM!!!

Quit wasting our time with this kind of nonsense. It's already been posted.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...king-AND-smart!

[CardiacCoug]

Yale ranks eighth in husband-seeking

Ha! I went to #2 and #3 on the list (as did my wife).

Makes sense because I'm a helluva husband.

[ERCougar]

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.

It's not "Mormon culture"--there are plenty of statements over the pulpit on this. They've softened a bit (well, most--I can't really speak for random SP/Bishop) from the "Birth Control is a tool of the devil" stance (yet another reason why I have a hard time trusting much modern council over the pulpit), but the message is still there and strong (P's referral to this month's Ensign). Anyway, I agree with you as to the motives--they want big families, which is easily the most cost-effective means to growth. It may not be quite so cynical as that as I think they feel like big families have worked for many of them (except most of the Apostles, mind you...), so they'll work for you too. But really, in the end, it's about growth.

Just on a side note--I have a friend who's single and in her late 30s. Active, but on her own terms--isn't endowed, has some somewhat unorthodox beliefs. About a year ago, she decided to get pregnant through artificial insemination. Her bishop called her in when he noticed she was pregnant. She told him that all was good--no sex, just insemination--to which he responded that the church didn't approve of that and that she may be subject to a disciplinary court. She laughed and walked out. I think she's kind of hoping he'll call one.

Some day, the church will learn to stay out of these issues. It never ends well. Or with them being right, at all.

[myboynoah]

Yale ranks eighth in husband-seeking

[myboynoah]

Wow. That was funny.

I can assure you that students having kids at BYU is in no way unique to Utah students.

Well, he did qualify it by saying "almost all."

But let me counter with my own anecdotal evidence showing that "almost all" the married students I knew at BYU that had children were from outside of Utah. We didn't bother with the silly "must be a girl from" follow ups.

[Paperback Writer]

I was 27 when my oldest was born. We waited four years after marriage. Honestly, I wish we would have started earlier.

I was 29 when I became a family man after 4 years of marriage. No real regrets about not starting earlier. By then my wife and I had both earned our degrees and started our careers. Were able to purchase/build a home before the baby arrived. And we're very sure we ended up with the same number of kids that we would have had if we would have started having kids while still in school. Not so sure we could state the same with both of us graduating and starting careers.

[venkman]

I was 27 when my oldest was born. We waited four years after marriage. Honestly, I wish we would have started earlier.

[byu71]

The point has been made here above, but i think it is worth noting that medicaid is funded with taxes, including those paid by people who qualify for benefits. We had our eldest baby while we both worked and have since paid back the system well in excess of what was used. I don't really see what the hubbub is about.

However, I do find the number of people at church that complain almost ceaselessly about the receipt of public benefits by anyone to be comical, especially in light of the situation where I most have had babies on medicaid. I don't begrudge them that, but i do begrudge the fact that they do not want to offer a hand up to anyone else.

I have the same problem with members who look down on those who don't have a lot of kids. They mainly site, these folks aren't following the Lord's plan. Then some of these same people bitch and moan about class size in Utah.

How do they reconcile having large families. Say it is the Lord's plan and yet the Lord has his churches pay nothing in property taxes to support the large families they promote.

Note: This is no way shape or form a criticism of those who have large families. If you can do it and want to, that is great.

Along with the blessings of a large family come sacrifices as those who have large families can attest. One sacrifice might be large class size.

[New Mexican Disaster]

The point has been made here above, but i think it is worth noting that medicaid is funded with taxes, including those paid by people who qualify for benefits. We had our eldest baby while we both worked and have since paid back the system well in excess of what was used. I don't really see what the hubbub is about.

However, I do find the number of people at church that complain almost ceaselessly about the receipt of public benefits by anyone to be comical, especially in light of the situation where I most have had babies on medicaid. I don't begrudge them that, but i do begrudge the fact that they do not want to offer a hand up to anyone else.

[Uncle Ted]

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.

Option (4) 23 - 39 for me.

Yes, what's wrong with spreading kids out a bit? I was nearly 40 when we had our youngest. Besides if all the kids leave the nest too soon the church will start bugging me about going on a mission or something.

[byu71]

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age.

I think it is for the same reason many of the cultural things, that have in the past and some that are being taught now are to lock members in before they get a chance to "explore". I used to tell myself that can't be. If I believe that then I believe men are running the church not God. Well, I have come to the realization as God's children we are a pretty weak lot. Why wouldn't it be that God inspires the manipulation of his children to do the right thing.

His more reasoning children recognize the blessings of doing without being manipulated into it, but those are the minority not the majority. Thus we have a group that claim every young man a missionary is a commandment and even though the brethern know that is bull, they aren't going to stop letting people think that. Same with diet coke and in the past birth control, getting married early and having kids as fast as you can.

[kccougar]

Personally, I'll take Option 2.

[Paperback Writer]

I agree about medicaid - see my other post. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, frankly.

Forget medicaid then. Assuming a couple is the same age and is going to have 4-5 children over 12 years. What door would you choose and why?
1) Age 20-32
2) Age 23-35
3) Age 26-38

I ask this because Mormon culture appears to promote having children at a young age. I think it's because that's the only way a family is going to have 8+ children. But I think that ship has sailed; far fewer large LDS families. I don't know how much planning is involved. Maybe these folks start out wanting 8+ children and get half-way there and re-evaluate (or come to their senses). But my point is, if a couple knows they are going to have 3-5 children they can start at 26 and still reach that family size. Why the rush? So they can get out of their fold-up chairs more often on the soccer sideline? Have more empty nest years? If family size remains the same, I want those years without kids up front while completing school and starting a career. I'll figure a way to somehow get out of that fold-up chair on the sidelines. Age is somewhat relative anyway.