747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3984 times:
I been hearing and seeing a lot people who had there first child in there 40's some in there 50's. I my self is pushing 30( ) and do not see myself having kids a time soon! But do you think you are taking a risk when you wait till you 40's or 50's to have child. Did any of you have a child late in life, if so please let me read your story.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3959 times:
The risk to the mother and child goes up the older the woman gets. I think there is a dramatic increase somewhere past 36. My wife and I agreed that we would be done having kids when she turned 35 for that reason, so we maybe have time for one more. I agree that it is selfish to try and start a family past a certain point. There is more to raising kids then just getting them graduated from high school. I look forward to further events such as thier weddings, college, and so on.
ArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3621 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3951 times:
For women I would say no later than 35. Because of the lesser physical requirements I'd say 45 for men. Tthere are some concerns about the increased chances of a child having certain illnesses, like downs syndrome, in women older than 40.
I think its a bit selfish to have children so old because the age difference will be so much that it will be harder for parents to be as active as they would be if they were in their late 20's or 30's.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3942 times:
Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 4): For women I would say no later than 35. Because of the lesser physical requirements I'd say 45 for men
Personal experience I would use the age of 35 for both parents. How mature the parents are also plays a factor in other range also. My first child (boy) came along when I was 35 no problems. I currently have a child (female) type that came along when I was 42, so I will be 60 when she will be getting out of high school. With this child, one has to balance her needs and wants with planning for retirement etc, while the other has had experiences this one might not have, and don't let anyone tell you there no difference in bringing up a boy or girl. The male is much easier.
CastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3938 times:
As someone who will probably never have a child, I say: from the day you are born, I don't want to have your DNA spread through the cosmos. Have a beer and have some fun. I just don't understand the need to procreate; it never made any sense to me. It's rather silly. Adopt a starving child if you feel the need to have a young thing in your house.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
Quoting Notdownnlocked (Reply 2): 18 or 19 is good so you can play sports with them and also be mentally coherent to change the diapers when the time arises but that is another story.
IMO 18 or 19 is still way too young. They're still kids and need to experience more things before they can think about settling down and start a family. Personally, I'll only think about having kids at earliest when I'm 26.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
I decided early on I didn't want any kids . . . my first wife was unable to have children (and eventually - after 5 years marriage at age 28 died from Cervical Cancer). I didn't want kids not because she couldn't have any, rather because once I reached at 30 (when I got remarried) I didn't want to start a family that I would "be rid of" until I was into my 50s. And because I don't like kids, anyone's kids, in virtually any quantity or setting, and it takes work for me to tolerate them.
I now have a 12 year old daughter . My plans to remain childless didn't exactly work. No regrets though. She's an awesome young lady . . .
I would say a decent cut-off would be late 20s/very early 30s. Don't want to be saddled with a rug rat(s) well into your 50s/60s retirement time. Get it done, get it overwith.
Go3Team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
My mom had my sister when she was 48. She had me when she was 33. I was the first, my sister, the last. She had 2 in between. There is a 10 year gap between the youngest, and the next youngest. Was she an accident? Yes. My parents figured they were safe, but they thought wrong. My sister was tested prenatal, and was confirmed to be fine. My mom suffered with gestational diabetes, but other then that, she was fine. She was able to do normal things during the pregnancy.
My sister was raised differently from the rest of us. She was pretty much raised as a grandchild. She gets away with a lot of things that we didn't. She does great in school, does a lot of extracurricular activities, and wants to go to college. My dad turns 65 next year, and plans to continue to work, to make sure my mom has enough for when he is no longer able to support her. If there were a problem and my parents were no longer able to take care of her, she has 3 sibling could take care of her. She is almost 17, and pretty much able to take care of herself.
Would I or my family want to change what happened? Hell no. Are we a better family because of her birth? Yes.
As for myself, I am too selfish with my money to buy diapers or a college education. I don't plan on having any nuisances. If it should happen, I think I will name it Houdini.
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
The most important things to think about are the following:
A) How healthy are you now, and how healthy do you expect yourself and your mate to be when you decide to have kids, and
B) When are you going to feel like spending about 6 months of your liffe without sleep?
If I had known then what I do now I would have had kids MUCH younger. I had the health and energy to do everything they would have wanted then. Having kids @ 30 and 33 was not bad...but I don't reccomend it to any but the healthiest of people.
Carmenlu15 From Guatemala, joined Dec 2004, 4757 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3728 times:
I guess it's more of a personal matter... Having kids at a young age seems to be a family thing in my case, as Grandma was 21 when she had my dad, and Dad was 20 when he had me. I can't complain, as I will hopefully be able to count on my dad for years to come; same goes for Grandma, as longevity also seems to run in the family.
However, at 23 I don't think I'm ready to undertake the responsibility of parenthood. There's still a lot of projects on my plate, and none of them involve children. I'd rather wait till my late 20's / early 30's to start raising a family.
Though I think waiting too long to have children isn't a good idea either. There's the health issues (especially for me as a woman), and the issue of wanting to see your children grow and form their own families, and sharing with your grandchildren... sort of my experience with Grandma.
All in all, I'd say 35 would be the limit for me. But as I said before, it's more of a personal matter.
What do I know, I'm just an 'immature troublemaker with only a passing interest in aviation' (or so they say)
Sabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3723 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7): IMO 18 or 19 is still way too young. They're still kids and need to experience more things before they can think about settling down and start a family.
I agree! My mother was 18 and my father was 20 when I was born, must have been a hard time for them back then, my father had to serve his military service and my mother was an apprentice at a bank, so both didn't earn much money and both didn't have much time for me.
WSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3576 times:
I was 41, she 40, when our daughter was born. (I must add that everything in the project was normal otherwise, we were just late in starting, but normally fertile. We even had a miscarriage 9 monts before the real pregnancy on week 10.)
Nothing is preventing men and women at 40 to have a go at it with good results. Be advised to use all the benefits of modern technology, like ovulation tests to determine the optimun time for conception, as there will be not too many cycles to lose.
Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 4): For women I would say no later than 35. Because of the lesser physical requirements I'd say 45 for men.
Which "lesser physical requirements"? You can't mean the labour at birth, can you? Or do you mean that you're not going to take part in the daily routines in a family with small kids, and burden your wife instead?
Note: I come from a country where daycare is a legal right for everyone under three.
Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 4): I think its a bit selfish to have children so old because the age difference will be so much that it will be harder for parents to be as active as they would be if they were in their late 20's or 30's.
What ability you reckon is required but lost at 40-50? Reading bedtime stories, changing nappies, teaching the kid to drive the bicycle, or what.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 3): The risk to the mother and child goes up the older the woman gets. I think there is a dramatic increase somewhere past 36.
That is simply untrue. Obese and diabetic mothers have a somewhat higher risk, and the prevalence of obesity increases with age in this society. See:http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/pregcomplications/3127.html
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3491 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21): As long as one can Financially support that kid & give the kid a proper Education until the kid passes college.Its not late.
Don't you think the role of a parent is quite a bit more than just financial support? What about love, guidance and emotional support?
My father died when I was in my mid-20's of a rare form of cancer (he was 56). I felt really blessed that my father was able to see me graduate and get married and enjoy some success in my career. My younger brothers, particularly the youngest who was 18 at the time really suffered not because he wasn't financially supported (my father left the family well cared for) but because in his words, "I never got to show dad what I became."
Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9945 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3468 times:
My dad was 40 when I was born.
He's 65 now, and he's probably more active than I am. He plays tennis a couple days a week, plays golf probably 3 days a week, bikes maybe once every two weeks, does yard work, etc. etc.
In all likelihood, having kids somewhat later in life has kept him far more active for a much longer time. So he actually managed to keep up with us (relatively) for as long as he had to.
However, I'm pretty sure that he's quite a bit more active than most people his age. I tend do doubt that I'll be the same way in 40 years, and therefore, I'd rather have kids when I'm somewhat younger (if I end up having kids).
But hey, I'm 24 right now, single, and have no intention of getting married anytime soon. So one thing at a time.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.