Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: At what age do you consider it to be "too old" to have children?
25 0 0%
30 1 2.27%
35 4 9.09%
40 10 22.73%
45 14 31.82%
50 9 20.45%
55 2 4.55%
over 55 1 2.27%
Not sure 0 0%
No opinion 3 6.82%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2009, 06:33 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the south
403 posts, read 1,581,259 times
Reputation: 287

Advertisements

I have to say 40 or 45 is definitely too old to have children. Many people, not everyone would be more tired out physically and emotionally in your 40s and beyond, with having to wake up several times in the middle of the night, and running after your child. In the long term, it affects people more, as your child gets older, your child will probably have to take care of you and their own children, you most likely will not become a grandparent until you are in your late 60s and 70s, at a time, when your body is beginning to become frail. Life expectancy is about 80 years or so, so you would only have about 10 years with your grandchildren, while most grandparents have about 40 or so years with their grandchildren and they get to see their great grandchildren and sometimes their great-great grandchildren and so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2009, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Georgia
201 posts, read 240,148 times
Reputation: 49
It is never to old to have kids that is my personal opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
2,568 posts, read 6,752,445 times
Reputation: 1934
For me 35. For more energetic people maybe 45. Then again if they are up to it who I am to judge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 12:36 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,449,435 times
Reputation: 55563
im 61 and i am thinking about settling down. no sense however in rushing into anything. like most women my age, i am waiting for a young model with money, no sense in "settling"
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 12:58 PM
 
Location: LES & Brooklyn
1,209 posts, read 2,930,484 times
Reputation: 1242
Me personally I would not have another child over 35. I just want to spend as much time with my child as possible (physically). I am not yet 30 and my son (6) drains me now! I still have a couple of years for my final & last (if i do).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 01:33 PM
 
1,135 posts, read 2,385,615 times
Reputation: 1514
I think this depends on a number of factors. I don't think there's a magic number at which you are suddenly old enough or too old to have kids.

Two of the most energetic moms I know had kids when they were 43 and 44. The mom who had her first and only kid at 43 is a former professional ballerina and now runs her own dance academy. She's fit and gorgeous and looks much younger than her age. She takes her child all over the country on fun vacations, skis with her every weekend in the winter and is as active as any younger mom.

My friend who had her her last child at age 44 is like the energizer bunny. When she gets home from work, she puts her kayak on the roof of her car and takes her girls paddling all over the local rivers and lakes. They camp all over the state, take frequent road trips and she's known for throwing fabulous themed birthday parties.

Meanwhile, I know moms in the 25-30 year age range who sit around all day, are overweight and unhealthy and don't do anything fun with their kids.

I had dd #1 in my 20s, dd #2 in my 30s and I'm expecting #3 at age 40. I recently had a series of genetic tests and the results showed that I'm as healthy as an average 20 year old and the baby I'm carrying has no more risk of having a genetic birth defect than a baby carried by a woman half my age. So getting pregnant later in life doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on myself or my child. I will admit that I'm much sicker this time around, but my doctor attributes that to pregnancy-related hormones rather than my age.

Any mom or dad could be killed in a car wreck or diagnosed with terminal cancer, so having kids at age 25 doesn't guarantee you'll live to see your grandchildren and having kids at age 35 or 40 doesn't mean you won't live to see them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Happy in Utah
1,224 posts, read 3,375,359 times
Reputation: 932
Its a personal matter, in my 20's I could not carry a baby for some reason, my body just did not want too. At 31 I had my frist son and at 36 my 2nd, both very unplanned blessings( I was begining to think I could not have children). Maybe it was stress, or maybe my body was just not ready i have no idea, we would like one more however, not gonna plan or worry about it.
Blessings michelle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Durham, NC
3,576 posts, read 10,660,312 times
Reputation: 2290
I voted for 45. I just don't see it being practical for a guy my age to be starting a family that late in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2009, 08:39 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,722,740 times
Reputation: 22474
I think it's up to the individual and nature. I don't believe a lot of medical intervention should be done because if the woman's body says it's time to stop then it's best to stop.

If someone is healthy, fertile, energetic - then it's up to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2009, 08:43 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,722,740 times
Reputation: 22474
I know a couple in their late 50's that had 2 surprises. Their oldest child is 27 and the next oldest is 6, and the youngest is 2. He says they tried to have more children after the first but no luck, then lo and behold they ran into luck. Now they'll just have to plan on staying active for the next 20 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top