Would you have a baby if you were in your 50's?

[Independent voter]

There's a reason people are designed to have babies in their 20's, 20 yearolds have energy.

[Gratlim]

Nope. Got my kid at 32 and it was late enough ( I am the father, mother was 28). Being over 50 means you will be in your 60s when the kid is 10 and everyone will think you are grand-parent and not father / mother. It happens all the time with a colleague who got his first kid at 43.
On top of that, depending on your health, you might die while the kid is still under 18. So that is a bit irresponsible imo.

[Deleted]

I don't know really.
As a man it's not that bad I guess, that is if you have a younger partner at least.

Would suck for the child to have parents in their 70's when they are 20.

[Aeula]

I wouldn't have a baby at all. Living alone is usually more fun (unless you're really lucky) and economically beneficial.

[Joobulon]

I would totally have a baby at age 52 in fact, what better time to do it?

By age 52 you probably have your whole life figured out and are best poised to raise the kid

I'm 28 and nowhere near ready to have kids tbh

[Amaterasu65]

Never. Maximum 40. Can't become a grandpa before the kid comes of age.

[Raelbo]

There's a reason people are designed to have babies in their 20's, 20 yearolds have energy.

People are designed to keep having kids for much longer than that. Women into their 40s and men even much later, and there are good reasons for it. Older people have more experience and power, wealth, resources etc.

Anyhow not saying you're wrong about 20 year olds having the energy, but rather pointing out that there is more than one correct solution.

[Deleted]

I personally wouldn't. The kid would be taking care of his parents before he's an adult himself.

[Rotted]

My co-worker did just that. He is 52. I want to be happy but i'm still confused. Who the hell has unprotected sex this day and age?

So, are you more curious about would we be having a child 52, or about having unprotected sex in general?

Personally, and I hope people dont take this the wrong way, but at 50 if my other half wanted a kid I'd probably say yes - I'd like to think with my own fitness and how medical technology and health care is progressing, that'll I'll be active until I'm a bit older. That being said, my other half would have to be younger. It's so dodgy for a woman to be preggers past 35 ish, I could understsand 40, maybe 45, but 50 would be a no

[Joobulon]

I echo the sentiment.

You know one time I fucked a woman who was at least 46 and she made me wear a condom cause she was actually still afraid of getting pregnant smh

[Deleted]

Im not gona breed but as a man yes woman no cus of high chance of autism and stuff.
But lets say i meat this young filipina that has super powers as parent that really wants to try them out on a kid.

I would then train harder and live even more healthy than now for like a year to past on as good of a start for that kid as possible.

[DarkAmbient]

No fucking way. I had my son when I was in my 20s. That's the perfect time. You still have the energy to raise a child, and when they become adults you're still only in your 40s, giving you plenty of time to save for your old age without the financial burden of paying for your kids.

[Raelbo]

No fucking way. I had my son when I was in my 20s. That's the perfect time. You still have the energy to raise a child, and when they become adults you're still only in your 40s, giving you plenty of time to save for your old age without the financial burden of paying for your kids.

Not that I think your choice to have yours when you were young was wrong, nor do I wish to criticise that decision, but having kids younger isn't really the best recipe for financial security.

Saving money before you have kids is by far the most effective method of saving for retirement because it gives you a massive head start in terms of the power of compound interest. For example if you can have your cars paid off, and most of your house, then you're going to be spending a lot less servicing debt and a lot more saving.

Of course the worst case scenario is young people who spend their incomes recklessly and don't save before having kids and then don't have any time left to save once their kids are financially independent. So the one potential benefit of having kids early is it can force financially irresponsible young adults to become more responsible.

Ultimately though it's a trade-off between having financial stability and having the energy to put into parenting (all the while assuming you do it responsibly given your own scenario). There are many workable solutions although I would say that being on either extreme of the age window in which it is possible to have kids is likely to have some pretty severe consequences one way or the other.

[Deleted]

The entire point of raising a kid is to have a mini money-making slave that will secure you an ez retirement. By the time you are 50 that window is sort of gone.

But if they were going to turn out not so great you have less bother supporting them through trying to establish themselves! They can still be used for wheeling you to a bridge game at the rec centre though. In that case its like buying antifreeze at the start of October rather than the beginning of April.

[Keyblader]

Just a little tidbit of knowledge, people that have children at older ages tend to be better parents, and be closer with their kids. This is usually because of more life experience, patience, and just a different look at the world than younger parents. By younger parents, I mean parents in their teens through 20's and early 30's. And by older parents I mean late 30's all the way through 40's or even in some cases, like this one, their 50's.

[DarkAmbient]

Not that I think your choice to have yours when you were young was wrong, nor do I wish to criticise that decision, but having kids younger isn't really the best recipe for financial security.

Saving money before you have kids is by far the most effective method of saving for retirement because it gives you a massive head start in terms of the power of compound interest. For example if you can have your cars paid off, and most of your house, then you're going to be spending a lot less servicing debt and a lot more saving.

Of course the worst case scenario is young people who spend their incomes recklessly and don't save before having kids and then don't have any time left to save once their kids are financially independent. So the one potential benefit of having kids early is it can force financially irresponsible young adults to become more responsible.

Ultimately though it's a trade-off between having financial stability and having the energy to put into parenting (all the while assuming you do it responsibly given your own scenario). There are many workable solutions although I would say that being on either extreme of the age window in which it is possible to have kids is likely to have some pretty severe consequences one way or the other.

You are forgetting that people tend to earn more when they're older. In the UK, men reach their peak earning potential at age 50.

The financial aspect aside, it's just all-round better to be younger when your children fly the nest. You're likely to be in good health for a while yet, and thus less likely to become a burden for your children when they should be at university, or building their career, or starting a family of their own. You get to watch them marry and have their own children, and you're probably still healthy enough to help out with the grand kids occasionally. And if you're still married or with a partner, you get some privacy and the freedom to enjoy a social life as well paid mature adults.

[Deleted]

Parents 35 are older seem to be a risk factor for a lot of fun things like schizophrenia, so while I wouldn't use that as a hard cut off, I probably wouldn't be looking to have a kid that will take me until well past retirement age to raise either.

Though undoubtedly there are greater risks during pregnancy and the delivery with unusually older mothers, the jury is out on exactly why the incidence of some conditions the child might later develop vary with the parents' age.

To use your example: With highly functioning and perhaps "mostly well" people with schizophrenia there is a tendency for them to have trouble establishing and maintaining any relationship especially when young. Therefore if they have a family it is quite often later in life. Often when diagnosed and treated and acquiring the necessary coping skills this later becomes possible.It is also far from unusual that, if they are capable of doing so, they end up forming those relationships with people who also either have or have had mental health issues themselves or who are from a family with a history of such(in particular schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and recurrent depressive disorder; some studies appear to show some "genetics" in common and much similarity in the case of the first 2 conditions). People who are totally well with such family histories tend to be far more knowledgeable and accepting of someone who has had difficulties in the past that probably included hospitalization.

This might plausibly explain something of the spike that is seen wrt to parental age. It may well not be the age as such but simply the shift in when people might have kids with underlying conditions or predispositions to such.

[Shadowferal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/yo...lies-late.html

It's becoming more common, men (and women) who were focused on their careers deciding that they missed out by not having a family. Some 50-something men are dating younger women, I'm sure.

Yup my bro is 51 and was dating woman less than half his age.

For me it's not age that's the factor. It's whether you can afford it in time and money.

[pateuvasiliu]

Yes, but with a younger woman.

Women that make kids after their mid 30s have a heightened risk of Down's and I really wouldn't want to go through that.

[Raelbo]

You are forgetting that people tend to earn more when they're older. In the UK, men reach their peak earning potential at age 50.

This is probably why so many people land in financial trouble come retirement time. They always assumed they'd be able to save more when they got older because they'd be earning more. What they fail to realise is how real life happens. It's the patterns you establish when you're young that determine your financial fitness when you retire, and putting off having kids for a few years can make a massive difference to where you finally land up.

The financial aspect aside, it's just all-round better to be younger when your children fly the nest.

This is true. That being said, the being younger when they fly the nest aspect aside, it's just all-round better to be older when you have children. You're more mature, so you are better equipped to deal with the challenges, you're more financially stable, so you can afford proper clothes, food, schools etc for them. You're more secure in your career so you can actually spend time with your kids if you need to instead of having to work overtime all the time to afford the basics etc etc....

Anyhow, my point wasn't ever to try and advocate one choice over the other. It's more to try and highlight how there are pros and cons to both approaches. What works out better for one set of parents may be very different for another. Importantly I would say it isn't wise to knock another person's choice simply because you think another choice would work better for you. I would argue that understanding the pros and cons is important though, because it helps you to make informed decisions

- - - Updated - - -

Men are designed to have children at any age. Women are not. That's why there's a lot of health risks associated with it for older women and the baby.

Oh I don't disagree with that. But that really is a far cry from the argument I was replying to, which was basically saying that by age 30 people are pushing themselves beyond their design parameters by trying to have kids.