A moral question: How old is too old to have children?

reply to post by OMsk3ptic

So it's better to have never been born at all than to have a parent die before you reach adulthood? Ok, got it.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

It's the parent who first has to make the decision to have a child in a late age.

By the time the child's old enough to reason by himself, it will have occurred to him "my father knowingly fated me to not having a father" - he wont have a father present to witness the birth of his children; he'll never be able to share his own experiences as a parent with his own father.

These are losses however you look at it.

My daughter is 41 and has 5 year old twins and an eight year old My son is 40, he is married to a 43 year old woman and has a 3 year old.. They both waited until they were well situated monetarily and mentally stable enough to provide for children... All of my grandkids were breast fed and are extremely healthy as well as much more advanced both socially and academically... I remember when I was a kid there were kids whose parents were older due to World War 2 that interupted their lives... The guys and girls with older parents had better social skills and made better grades than those with younger ones... Having kids around means you are going to be more active and that activity contributes to better health and a longer life.. Also older parents are more likely to be health consious and provide decent meals opposed to junk food and Happy Meals.. I was lucky that my kids turned out as good as they did since I was 22 when they both were born and the mothers were 18 and 19..

Originally posted by ottobot

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
So it's better to have never been born at all than to have a parent die before you reach adulthood? Ok, got it.

No, of course not! But, it's still the kid that gets the short stick in this scenario.

Not necessarily.
Even if the parents aren't wealthy, if they've the foresight to set up some rather lucrative life insurance policies, any children inheriting the benefits may very well have a better start in life than many who still have their parents.
University costs, with housing allowance could be paid in full in the unfortunate event of the loss of a parent where the majority of students must struggle, work part time and still be loaded with near crushing debt on graduation.

Further, what's to say there isn't extended family for those that are family oriented and want that family connection?

reply to post by dontreally


I tend to go the other way.. How young is too young to have a child?

reply to post by Darkblade71

If it is meant to be, it will happen. If not, then it won't.

This is the deeper issue which I wanted to address.

Saying this could also be said after one kills someone.

If it was 'fated to be, it had to happen'.

But no one thinks that way. With killers, we punish them because they first had to decide on an action. There is always, absolutely without a shadow of a doubt, the presence of a will able to recognize and choose what is morally right.

So while 'after' an action is committed' you can chalk it up to fate, before an action is committed, you are morally required to act responsibly.

reply to post by hypervigilant


Yes, but there is a limit.

40 is not 65.

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
So it's better to have never been born at all than to have a parent die before you reach adulthood? Ok, got it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about never being born. Otherwise we should procreate 24/7 to bring all those potential children into this world..

reply to post by ottobot

he wants to have children just to experience having children,

Usually it's legacy that motivates people who haven't had children to have children late.

regardless of whether the child will end up being parent-less at a relatively young age or not. It is very unfair to the children of these circumstances.

It is, I absolutely agree.

This is why I take somewhat of a passionate tone about this.

I'm bothered by the logic and philosophy that goes into disregarding the fate of the child born to a father that far out in life. What about him? What about his life? What his father would be depriving him of?

These are such important, moral questions, that to disregard them is a shameful and arrogantly self-focused thing to do.

The first poster - with the Buddha quotation in his signature, pretty much reflects the philosophy that see's things in 'non-dual' terms, or whatever that is supposed to mean in real life.

Acting that way is essentially akin to the biblical metaphor of 'throwing your child through the fire"; for YOURSELF, and YOUR OWN PLEASURE, you are willing to sacrifice the quality of your childs life.

Not having a father is an unfortunate thing, but its something that CAN Be avoided.

This pseudo-spirituality reduces things to nothingness because it take far too literally ideas like spiritual unity.

Take for example the fact that I naturally love my parents more than yours. It is in fact through my own personal love for my parents that I am able to know how much you love your own. Love in other words is by nature preferential. I love you, but my love for you is far more abstract and less real - less based on real life experiences - than that for my mother, sister, brother and father.

If you dont like that, than you have two choices: you can not love at all, and so spare yourself the need to 'divide reality' between people you love greatly and those you love much less, or you can kill yourself, because this world and it's conditions are not for you.

As for the thread topic, this has an interesting eugenic twist. Older parents are on average more likely to have better genes, because it takes a certain genetic luck to survive to old age.

reply to post by Maslo


and what about the degraded DNA at old age?

It's been shown that old men are more likely to have children with physical or neurological disabilities.

reply to post by dontreally
I thought it was older women.

And now they say women never stopmaking eggs as thought before.

Originally posted by Druscilla
No, of course not! But, it's still the kid that gets the short stick in this scenario.

Not necessarily.
Even if the parents aren't wealthy, if they've the foresight to set up some rather lucrative life insurance policies, any children inheriting the benefits may very well have a better start in life than many who still have their parents.

Yes, but in the real world, there are many people who were not born wealthy and who are still financially irresponsible even in their 50's.

Case in point, I know a fellow who got married in his late 40s to a woman 15 years younger than him and from another country. They had a child when he was around age 50. He is now in his late 50's, suffering from potentially fatal health problems, and works very long hours away from the wife and child because he is trying to save up money for their future when he is dead. This is because he did not plan while he was younger. He has no savings, and often laments that he is missing the youth of his child because he (in his mind) must work to make sure there will be monetary support for the child later in life.

Even if this were not a truth, money can never replace the care and benefit of having a parent to turn to in times of need.

A trust fund is nice, but let's be realistic. Many children born to older parents are not going to have a cushion to fall on when the parent is no longer able to work.

And let us not forget the cases where teenagers become the sole caregivers for their elderly, ailing, parents.

This is very unfair to the child.

University costs, with housing allowance could be paid in full in the unfortunate event of the loss of a parent where the majority of students must struggle, work part time and still be loaded with near crushing debt on graduation.

Could, sure. Will? Not such a certainty.

Further, what's to say there isn't extended family for those that are family oriented and want that family connection?

The whole point of becoming a parent is to actually be the parent.

Having a child late in life and using the reasoning, "Well, even if I die, they have a lot of family members who will take care of them." is just absurd. To have a kid with the expectations that others will take on your responsibilities when you die is irresponsible, inconsiderate, and just plain bad judgment.

reply to post by OOOOOO


It is both. A study was recently released that showed a link between older fathers and a higher rate of autism and mental illness.

www.nytimes.com...

www.nature.com...

DNA degrades with age, this is a fact. While, of course, there are no uniform degradation patterns, we all know by now that our cells have a finite lifespan. Reproductive cells are no exception.

How Late Is Too Late?
Tony Randall Says Never When they finish mapping the human genome and tinkering with our DNA it'll be no big deal to live to 150. Whether we'll be able to field a grounder is another matter. And what about having kids? Fortunately, a few intrepid men have already donated their bodies to science to serve as guinea pigs. Hugh Hefner, 74, had a couple of late-life offspring (no, not those twins-his own kids) and seems none the worse for wear. Yassir Arafat, 71, juggles crusading for peace and populating Palestine. Congrats to Warren Beatty, 63, whose wife Annette Benning gave birth to a baby girl soon after she got aced for an Oscar. The grand-prize goes to Saul Bellow, distinguished man of letters, who put down his quill long enough to father a child at age 84. He was too busy, unfortunately, to respond to our query. Not so Tony Randall, 79, beloved actor and doting new dad, who faxed us the following: "When Julia was two I hurt my back and couldn't pick her up. She said, 'When your back is better, then will you be able to pick me up?' Think of the complicated grammar of that sentence-the conditional first clause, the future assured of the second. How did a two-year old formulate such a sentence? For that matter, how did she know my back would get better? When I put Jefferson to bed-he's one-I wait until I think he's asleep and then creep out. He says, 'Not yet.' Imagine that! How did he know those words, that concept of time? "Now imagine the pleasure of a man who wanted children all his life. "I hope Jefferson will become an actor better than his old man. My only sorrow is that I'll never be able to act with him."
www.dadmag.com...

reply to post by ottobot


Your arguments are sound, but, at the same time, there are a category of people who simply don't settle down until later in life due either youthful irresponsibility (without having children), and/or a strong orientation toward career involvement such that they never form relationships that could lead to offspring, or make time for finding a mate until they've established security and personal leisure such they feel marriage and raising children is within their responsible means, as well as those who simply have the dumb luck of never successfully pairing off until later in life.

Putting a foot down, and stating that just because someone is older they've missed their 'chance' to procreate, is absurd.

Everyone should be free to pass on their genes with at least one child.
Sure, there's the emotional argument for the vacancy of an older parent after passing and the points you've made, but, if someone desires to procreate, if only just one child, why deny anyone such just because their age?

Should everyone whelp out half a dozen squalling brats in their youth and live off of government subsidy just to ensure they've successfully qualified for genetic immortality through their children in a race to beat some clock?

Yong parents can die just like older parents. Young parents are increasingly more so single parents. Young parents can be irresponsible and either run off with different partners abandoning their previous offspring, or engage in youthful risks like drunk driving on a night out to blow off steam away from the kids that cuts one, or even both young parents out or leaving the children to care for massively debilitated parents.

There's lots of what-ifs on both ends of the spectrum.

No one should be denied the chance to have at least one child, regardless their age, so long as they're of legal age.

If anything, people should be restricted from having too many children.
People having 3, 4, 5, 6, or even more children are a greater plague on the earth, drain on resources, contribution toward over population, and larger example of irresponsibility than anything related to older people desiring to have a child.

No one should be denied having a child.
Too many children, on the other hand, now, that's an issue that should be addressed.

I tend to think that much depends upon the social context- how much the community is interdependant, other family members that can be part of raising the child, and predominant values and ideals.

After that, there are real concerns about the quality of sperm after the age of 50, I think it is? I just read an article yesterday that said a recent study found genetic deterioration of the sperm at a certain age, with higher rates of some disabilities (I think it specified autism, especially, but I don't remember exactly).

This is really pertinant for me right now- I am 44, and missed my period this month completely. I am either pregnant or starting early menopause, and kind of freaking out as I await my doctors appointment. My husband is 48, and our youngest of three is the only one left at home and will be leaving for college in a year.

The idea of having a child right now is so wrong for so many reasons! There's more risks for me and the baby, as well as imagining taking my ten year old to school and having to constantly explain I am not his/her grandmother!!
Plus, I just don't know if I can handle the sleepless nights and all that.

The only positive thing I can think of that can come of having a child later in life is that I think I would be a better mother discipline wise. I learned a lot from each kid, did a better job with each, and I am pretty sure I could steer this one better than I could when I was younger and less experienced.

But I would really rather put that wisdom to use as a grandmother though!

for males=20-35

for females=25-35

give or take a couple years on a case specific circumstance.

other than that, you are going to produce weaker children that what your body WAS capable of.

40+ is too old. You should have skipped the vacations and living like Romeo and Juliet and hunkered down and made a family. You can't live the good life and then one day think, ok.....now I will raise kids I can't play with or keep up with in their adolescence.

Originally posted by BIHOTZ

40+ is too old. You should have skipped the vacations and living like Romeo and Juliet and hunkered down and made a family. You can't live the good life and then one day think, ok.....now I will raise kids I can't play with or keep up with in their adolescence.

I will try to stay civil here.
Everyone I know that was born to older parents were born from couples that had already raised other children earlier, and it was an accidental pregnancy.
That may also be my case- we have been married for 22 years, have three children who are now young adults. We designed and built a house, built a career, and raised babies together all in our early twenties, thank you very much.

Back to the discussion in general, now that I have read the earlier comments here,

I wanted to add a thought about the subject of the parents being potentially no longer present when a child reaches the age of adolesence or adulthood...?

I do not think that is necessarily negative!
My mother died when I was 23, my husbands father died when he was the same age.
(my mom was 18 when she had me, his father was 25, so neither could have predicted their early death)

We watched a psychological phenomenon happen with our entourage at that time- it seems there is a correlation between the difficulty people have in reaching independance and adult responsibility as parents themselves when they have parents that are present and close.

It is hard to integrate into yourself the concept of being "father" when the father is so obviously someone else outside.
-Or become The Mother in your head when that is evidently someone else outside.

I watched young people struggle with issues of entering and fulfilling completely their roles as parents. I watched some put off starting a family and remaining at their parents homes way after the age of 18 !
This seemed to be the case with people ho had their own parents very present.

In other words, having your parents gone, (as sad as that may be to consider,) can also enable you to embrace and step into adulthood and responsibility quicker and easier.

reply to post by dontreally


If there is a good chance that you will be dead or nackered before you child is an adult then I would say you are to old.

I expect to live to 80, grown up for me is 20. So 60 is OK but I don't know why you would want to at that age. Have kids young, get em out of the house, get on with your life. That's gotta be the way...

Personally I my wife and I chose not to have any at all. Mid 40's and not regretting it one bit! And no - I won't be having any in the future either. FFS Aren't there enough of the little buggers about already?