My ex’s dad was in his early 60s when she was born. It was neat

Instead of making new kids, let’s save the ones stuck in the foster care system. The ones who are needing care and love more than the vague concept of “what my child could be” and an actual human being on this earth today.

Have kids for the kid, not for your journey… I think I know what you mean, but still: it has to be said. I also think 50 is way too old. That potential kid is gonna loose his dad way too soon.

Upper 30s is pushing it, genetically speaking, but I wouldn’t discourage people in their early 40s from trying it. Ever person and every family can have different sizes and shapes.

My father was 41 when I was born and just from my personal experience I wouldn’t do that to a child. My father was very active and played sports regularly, but still when I was in elementary school he was already too old for many things. Accidents happened and at that age the body doesn’t really heal well from injuries. His back hurt too much to pick me up, no riding in daddy’s shoulders. A lot of “Please be more quiet”, “Don’t be so wild” etc in my childhood. I always resented that, because I saw other dads being very active and going out, playing, running with their kids the same age as me. No matter how active your husband is now, his body won’t tolerate injuries or sleep deprivation as much anymore.

When I went to university my parents told me they wouldn’t be able to support me as much as my older brother, because my father was retiring soon. Have you thought of the financial aspects? If your husband retires around 65, your child will be in his early teens. Will you be able to provide money for school trips, college funds etc.?

You also have a high chance of any health related problem quickly becoming exponentially worse with age. As I said, my father was very active and played in a local basketball team. He had a knee injury and needed surgery when he was around 50, so I was still in elementary school. It was a minor surgery and would have been no problem for someone younger, but at his age it never fully healed and kicked off a lot of related health issues. He visibly deteriorated after that and within 10 years he became slower in moving and thinking. He was still as active as possible, but that wasn’t very much. Being a teenager whose father always demanded peace and quiet, who needed things to be repeated several times because his hearing was failing, wasn’t very fun.

You will deprive your child of a lot. Their father won’t be there for them in many key ways that other parents are: he’ll be too old to help with moving to the first appartment, too out of touch and tired when the question of buying the first car comes up. There’s a good chance he won’t be there anymore for the wedding. And you aren’t doing yourself a favor either when you’re going to have to take care of an aging husband and a young adult who just left the nest and still needs support in your 50s.

And all that is if you can get pregnant quickly, which is also getting unlikely given his age.

Health issues due to paternal age are a lot more difficult to do genetic testing for compared to issues tied to maternal age. If planning to use his sperm, consider speaking with a genetic counselor and have some serious conversations about what it looks like if you have a baby with certain health issues.

Had kids at 36 and 37. Feel this was a good age, as I’d done my adventuring and world exploring, and now they’re young teens and I’m in my 50’s. I’d be hesitant to have a kid now, as the sleepless nights of the first few years would hit really hard.

“you’re never too old to have children” – Jeffrey Epstein

I don’t think your issue is age, it’s more motivation. You may have some ‘baby fever’ but also so say you don’t care one way or another and your husband is at least mildly against. Those are the best reasons why you should not consider children. If you BOTH were really excited to have a child and willing to make whatever changes necessary to have that child, your current ages wouldn’t be a problem.

A rationality check for you, specifically, from a purely biological standpoint:

For a woman, peak fertility occurs between about 16 and 28. After 30, fertility starts dropping more and more rapidly every year, with pregnancies after 35 being classified by the medical system as “geriatric pregnancies” due to their age-related risk.

By the time most women hit 40, they need to put forth up to 30× the effort to become pregnant as they would have when 18, and by 45 most women are considered by the medical system as being functionally sterile.

That’s not to say that women cannot become pregnant after the age of 45, it just becomes highly unlikely without many tens of thousands of dollars of medical assistance.

Natural pregnancies after 45, and without any medical assistance, really only happen to women who have - ironically enough - been pregnant for most of their adult lives, because pregnancy pauses the natural cycle for up to 9 months. This pausing of the ovulation cycle prevents eggs from being expended, and pushes back the decline of fertility by up to as much as a decade if full pregnancies occur often enough. However, since this means carrying a full pregnancy to term each and every year from the teenage years onwards, I seriously doubt that any woman would willingly reach for brood mare status just for a longer fertile window.

So if you have any desire to have a child safely and easily, now would be the time to do so.

Your husband, on the other hand, is likely to continue being fertile until the day he dies. The only risk he faces is a significant rise of mutations in his sperm (starting in his late-40s) that can lead to rates of genetic diseases and birth defects in his children that directly correlates to his age. As in, he ought to be motivated to act soon, as well, but has far less pressure to do so than you do.

When I think of older men having kids I mostly think of how unfortunate it is for the kid.

By the time your kid is 20 his dad will be 72, which would me like, on average he might get 5 more years of having a dad. If he’s lucky maybe 10-15.

Sorry to be macabre but it is something to consider.

You’re asking for opinions so here’s mine.

1. It’s kind of a shitty world to bring a child into. I know people have said this for probably centuries, but now it’s more true, I think, due to climate change, politics, technology, etc.

2. Are you wealthy? If not, kids are expensive and makes you more dependent on not losing your job.

3. Kids ruin your independence and maybe your relationship. Would you and your husband agree on how the child would be raised. What would happen if you broke up?

4. Your husband will be 70 when the child turns 18. SEVENTY! ( I can’t see the post while I’m typing. I think you said he’s 51, right? )

People always say they are happy they did it and wouldn’t give up parenthood for anything. But they also say they were happiest BEFORE the children arrived.

That said there are lots of positives too, but this is sort of from my perspective when we had to make the choice. My wife is a devout Christian and I’m an atheist. I let her do her thing and she lets me do mine. We don’t talk about religion really, but a decision would have to be made regarding a child.

I’m biased. 42 when we had our first kids, twins.

Depends on your guy and your circumstances.

Being more settled (having more money) as an older parent is a huge advantage.

I had 6 months off work during our pregnancy just to do all the things (complex pregnancy). My partner hasn’t worked since she fell pregnant.

We had 2 au pairs for the first 6 months to help out.

I just generally have more dad time than other guys. For example, i almost always drop our kids at day care and pick them up after, on my e-bike. I very, very rarely see any other dads there. At fathers day afternoon tea there were me and 2 other dads…

We’ve recently made down payments on an apartment for each of them. They will be paid off by the time they’re ready for uni.

We’re not wealthy, just more settled in our 40s.

Other dads in their 20s might have more hair than me and I’m sure some dads are just cooler than me, but I dont think there’s any real risk my kids will be disadvantaged in any way.

In my opinion over 50 is too old. I don’t have a hard cutoff but I think I would place it somewhere around early 40s.

Some of my reasons are very subjective. My best memories of my childhood with my parents are of active stuff – camping trips, exploring rivers, kayaking. My parents are still very active in their late 60s but I can’t imagine them doing a lot of the stuff we did back then. At least not in the same way.

Also I hate seeing my parents age. It was fine until their early 60s, they were also still very healthy and energetic in their 50s. But now I am often reminded that our time together is limited. I would have hated to deal with that as a child or teenager.

I know it’s very possible for a child to have a happy life with an older parent, possibly happier than many other children. But I personally would hate to have one and think it’s a bit selfish to consciously choose it.

Forget ‘if you’re this old your kid is this old’. Older men produce subpar sperm that can cause birth defects, pre-eclampsia and premature birth. It’s not just dangerous for the child but for the mother too.