In lieu of my Boston Legal post (my dad wanted to tape something, and by the time I get around to watching the tape, it will be Tuesday, adn I can’t be bothered remembering until Thursday…) I’m going to post something I found interesting. The full article is here. I’ve edited as I saw fit (and possibly took the article out of context).
People are more likely to see their 100th birthday if they were born to young mothers, research hints.
The age at which a mother gives birth has a major impact on how long her child will live, two researchers from the University of Chicago’s Centre on Aging told the Chicago Actuarial Association meeting this spring.
The chances of living to the ripe old age of 100 – and beyond – nearly double for a child born to a woman before her 25th birthday, Drs. Leonid Gavrilov and Natalia Gavrilova reported. The father’s age is less important to longevity, according to their research.
Their latest research suggests that it is the young age of the mother, rather than birth order, which is significant to longevity.
The finding that children born to young women are more likely to live to 100 “may have important social implications,” Gavrilov added in a statement, “because many women postpone their childbearing to later ages because of career demands.”
“This research helps us better understand the predictors of longevity and quantify the implications on society and business,” said Thomas Edwalds, a fellow of the Society of Actuaries, which co-sponsored the study.
The researchers emphasise that why children born to younger mothers have an advantage when it comes to longevity requires further study
As I said, I’ve edited out about 1/2 the article and may have taken out some of the context, but there seems to me to be an implied blame in women postponing childbirth. What do you reckon someone, somewhere out there reads this article and holds it up as proof: See, I TOLD you women should be barefoot and in the kitchen by eighteen! Women are depriving their children of longevity by postponing childbirth!
I mean, it pretty much says women should be having children young, but men have no such obligations. This is rather an extremist perspective to take, I realise, but how about someone doing a study about how men having children well into their fifties and sixties – leaving them fatherless at twenty or earlier – is detrimental to the child’s wellbeing?