How old is too old to still be having kids?

[Rnejic]

I know this is a personal choice but I'm wondering what others think about this topic.

My husband is 42 but there is a 15 year difference between us so I still have a lot of fertile years ahead of me. We've been talking about having another child soon and the thought came into my mind that he would be at least 61 (if I'm lucky enough to conceive quickly) by the time the child is grown. We would both love to have a large family but I cant stop thinking about his age. I just dont know how I feel about it. I keep thinking about his parents, they are 67 and I just can not imagine them still raising children, they just seem so old already. Maybe it would be different for us if we always have children in the home?

So what are your thoughts?

[philomom]

Do you have a loving community or tribe in which to share this child? Do you have younger guardians picked out in case something should happen to both of you before your new child turns 21?

If you can honestly say yes to both these things, then go for it. If you are introverted misanthropes who live a life away from others then I don't think it is fair to the new little person given your ages.

[angelpie545]

As long as you have a realistic plan for you children should something happen to you or your spouse, then I also say go for it. My only issue with much older people having children is that it is terribly hard for the kids if one or both parents passes away. It's certainly not enough for me to express the opinion of "don't do it", but it's definitely a concern that I don't think should be taken lightly.

[JBaxter]

I think you have to reverse menopause its to late. Other than that.. go for it. Men I think as long as they are viberant and healthy.

[jem1976]

My Mum was 42 when she had my brother. He's now 23 and she's a sprightly 65. Honestly she has more energy than me and I'm 30 years her junior. He has had no problem whatsoever with his mum being older than most.

[nola79]

So, you're 27 and your husband is 42? I don't see anything wrong with that.

[oaktreemama]

Age is but a number.

My Mom had an oops baby very late in life. I think my sister kept them young. They are incredibly active still (my sister is now in college) and look ten years younger.

There are no guarantees in life regardless of age. 61 these days is a lot different than 61 for previous generations. Maybe your dreams of having a large family can't all be realized, but I see no reason to not have another child or two.

And I think every family should have a guardian picked out whether they are 22 or 62.

[Alyantavid]

I don't think age makes much of a difference. Does he have an issue with having a child at his age? If not, go for it.

[Rnejic]

Yes I am only 27 not 42, DH is 42. We've been married for 7 1/2 years and we already have 3 kids.

Thank you for all the responses so far! It will give us some things to talk about.

ETA
No he has no issue with it. I am the one questioning it.

[BetsyS]

When I was a midwife, one of my healthiest patients had a baby at 46. He was her last one, but a great pregnancy. Her oldest was 21 at the time, so she had quite a spread.

Personally, I don't want to have babies much past 40. My dh would like to be done by the time he's 45, just so that the child will be (theoretically) close to finishing college when dh is ready to retire.

[kcparker]

My friend's dad got remarried and had a whole new set of kids who are the same age as my friend's children. He was in his early 50s, and his wife was 35 when they started. They now have four gorgeous kids, and I think he is thrilled to bits as he always wanted that. Now he has two grown, and four little ones.

The thing I would worry about more is that as he ages, his risk of fathering an autistic child increases, but I am a Nervous Nelly that way.

[Cascadian]

*

Edited by Cascadian - 6/2/11 at 8:35pm

[JBaxter]

DH & I were both 41 when Jack was born. I ROCK as a mom We have 4 boys and I really think I would have had one more but the actual delivery took a lot out of me. We are happy with 4

[Lisa1970]

I am 40, dh is 39, we are ttc. We have a 13 month old.

[CatsCradle]

DH and I also have a 15 year spread, and he is now 61 and we have a 4-year-old. I agree with a PP that 61 is not the same as it was years ago. I think about my now deceased grandparents when they were 61, and they were just old...even looking at them in retrospect. I can proudly say that DH runs circles around most guys half his age. Some of it is physical, much of it is attitude. He does get asked a lot whether he is the grandfather or the father. He's got a lot of grey in his beard. But granted, there are grandfathers who are 42, so it doesn't bother him much.

It is good to think about these things. But I put this in the same category as choosing family size based on guaranteeing sibling relationships and/or avoiding one child having to take care of you in your old age. There are no guarantees. Also, choosing to do something that is relatively out of the norm does not automatically sentence a child to a life of heartache. Now that DD is here, we have had to plan accordingly.

Now that I'm 47, 42 seems awful young! LOL.

[ollyoxenfree]

I don't think the 40's is too late for children. It's pretty commonplace, especially with the number of second marriages these days. I'd seriously consider a few issues though, some of which don't apply in the OP's case, since she is still in her 20's:

- menopause and adolescence simultaneously (was any household meant to be awash in that many hormones at one time ?)

- paying for university during retirement years

- likelihood that an older parent won't know their grandchildren

It isn't just having a baby when one is 42 or 45. It's having a teen when one is the 60's or a uni student when one is 70. If the child of a 45 y.o waits until s/he is 45 to have a baby, then it really is unlikely there will be an extended, multi-generational family in place for the grandchild.

None of these are good reasons to avoid having children in your 40's, but they are things to think about if you have a particular lifestyle or family situation in mind. Then, of course, there are those for whom a family isn't a possibility until they are in their 40's, which makes all of these kind of considerations beside the point.

[carfreemama]

Count me in the "go for it" category.

I come from a long line of late-in-life babies. My mom was 46 when I was born and says I was her easiest pregnancy. She is now 87 or something (I can't do the math, but I'm 42 and change). She is soooo healthy. In fact, she is much happier and healthier than I remember her during my dysfunctional childhood.

I will say I feel lucky to have had her this long. It took us a long time to come back together when I was an adult and had she died earlier in my life, we never would have had a chance to be close. I never had a chance to work things out with my father that way, because he died when I was 24.

My biggest piece of advice, having lived with older parents, is to keep up with your kids' generation and do everything you can to stay physically fit and energetic. My mother grew up during the Depression and then her first husband was a WW2 soldier. She had very old-fashioned ideas; for example, didn't want me to wash my hair more than once a week, because it was wasteful. I had SUCH greasy hair and I was continually ridiculed for it. Stuff like that.

Now, though, she is very active and much happier since my dad passed away. Unfortunately, he really dragged her down. She is in better health and more fun and open-minded than most of my friends' parents who are decades younger. And now we are still thinking about trying for another child, after miscarrying in the spring. I think children really do keep you young if you let them.

[cappuccinosmom]

Because of a 10 year age difference, dh has the potential to be in his mid to late 50's when my body ends it's childbearing years. Which means being 60 or even 70-something when the last kid would be up and out. We dont TTC or prevent, so I have no clue what's going to happen in the next 20 years.

But if we had a child when I was say 48 and dh 58, that wouldn't even be an issue for us. We didn't start out as a hyper-energetic, involved in everything, super-busy family. Dh is not a base-ball-in-the-backyard kind of dad with our current children. The last time he ran around with them it lasted all of 5 minutes. He's just not a "play" dad, so a kid 20 years from now would not be getting much different than our kids currently get. And that kid would get the benefit of that many more years for dh and I to practice being parents and mature some more. I think it all evens out. And I think having kids around will keep us young. I'll be at a loss if my 3 are the only ones I get, and I end up with decades between them and grandchildren.

[nextcommercial]

I think my cut-off age was 35. My own daughter was six by then, and I was done with the infant stage, and had no desire after that.

My husband's was about 40-ish.

We didn't have that age in mind.... it was just when we felt no urge to start over with a baby.

[mamazee]

I was 41 when my younger child was born, and my husband is a couple of years older. I am not worried about this at all. Being in your 60s and raising a child who has diapering needs and has to be bathed and that kind of thing is different from having an older teen in your 60s.