I really don't understand the notion that children suffer so terribly that they shouldn't even be born when they don't the optimal material goods or the perfect family. It simply isn't true, because children are very resilient. I know, because my mother had me when she was 17 years old, with no man around and in a country in which she was persecuted and impoverished. She had a simple faith in her ability to raise a child even in the midst of terrible circumstances, and despite those things I can only say that I have grown from those experiences. I just don't buy that you need the perfect career, the perfect house and tons of money lined up in order to do the most natural thing in the world ---- if you wait for those high standards to all be met you could end up never having a child.

I have never met a woman who regretted having a child, even if it was hard at the time. But I know many women who regret never having one, because they were so eager to avoid even the slightest inconvenience in their comfortable life plan.

Johnnie Girl: My niece went through menopause at 27. Was likely suffering from diminished fertility for several years before that. So the sad truth is that no one, regardless of age, has any fertility guarantee. So, while I'm all for women understanding that their fertility starts to decline probably earlier than they imagine, it's ludicrous to suggest that anyone start trying to have a baby any sooner than they are ready.

Here's a newsflash for you. Life's not fair. My mother accidentally got pregnant at age 39 and with only one ovary. My niece couldn't get pregnant at 27. The truth is that while fertility declines dramatically, it's still pretty good odds for most women in their 30s.

It's sort of like the stats for Downs Syndrome. They scared the hell out of me because they rise so dramatically in your 30s, from 1 in 500 births in younger women to 1 in 54 at the age I was when I got pregnant. Wow, that's a huge risk increase! I should worry, get amnio, freak out, right? Then someone pointed out to me that it was still more than 98 percent likely that my child would not have Downs. That put things in perspective.

Well, I'm a father. I didn't specify that in my letter because I didn't think it was important.

One way to look at it is I've done all the things a father might typically do. I was around for the pregnancy, I went to the hospital, I cut the cord, took care of the baby, fed her, cleaned her, held her, kissed her. Got transformed. Then all the other parental things ... too many to list here. There were a few minutes right at the absolute very start I wasn't involved in, but I'm not concerned about that. A few days after her birth, yes, I waited as a young woman said goodbye to a beautifal baby and handed her over to me forever. That is a scene I can never forget; I will always respect her loss.

Those sorts of emotional experiences are the reason why I know my daughter is my daughter. Anyone who hasn't been in that room can't judge it.

It is true that if you don't have a kid before 30, your chances go way down, and quickly. On the other hand if you had a child pre-30, your fertility doesn't go down as quickly, and you can probably still have kids in your 40's. The issue with women unable to get pregnant in their 30's and 40's usually only applies to first time mothers.

Also if you don't have kids, your odds for all kinds of nasty cancers just keeps going up - so you might not live long enough for those kids you adopted in your late 30's or early 40's after all - because when their in high school or just starting to send you the college bill, you'll be in your 60's unable to retire or perhaps suffering from cancer.

So have kids early, and suffer financially (studies show a permant loss to your life time earnings) and impact your careers, or preferred level of education. Or have kids late, risk not being able to have kids, increase your cancer risk, and any kids you have (natural or adopted) you have to think about the impact of your death on them, or bearing the cost of finishing high school/college and delaying your retirement. Either way sucks - that's life , so go with what ever makes you comfortable.

After all welcome to USA - where the mother is always wrong, no matter what choice she makes, when to have kids, stay at home - working mom, displine methods, private schools vs public schools, how many kids to have .......

I am 60. My birth mother was 20 when I was born, and my adoptive mother 30 when she took me home 5 days later. My adoptive mother could not carry babies to term and my birthmother had had a one-night fling with a Coast Guardsman outside the USO. She and my birth father were both married which made me, in 1945, a bastard. When I met my birthmother 30 years ago, she said I could have been an abortion. (Yes, although they were illegal, one could get an abortion in 1945.) But she decided to give me up for adoption. She opted to be asleep and refused to hold or see me.

My adoptive mother was over-protective and expected me to be perfect. It was the least I could do after being "saved" from being raised by a slut. Being adopted was hard for me and was an important issue for most of my life.

I became pro-active while I was pregnant with my second child and came to believe that it is an adoptee's right to meet his birth parents regardless of how they feel. We didn't have a choice in the matter and through our birthparent's indescretion, they surrender the right to say no to us. I was discrete and I didn't threaten but I did persist and I finally met my birthmother. Oh, how nice it would have been to even have been able to write to her through those long years.

Those so-called pro-lifers who offer pregnant women adoption as the perfect answer to their problem, haven't a clue. Open adoption is just as hard. The two mothers have to work hard to establish how their child will see them in their lives.

Adoption works most of the time, but everyone involved has to work at it.