Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

My dad was 47 when I was born and he always said he was too old to become a father that late. Also in my view, he was too old. There is a generational gap between us that just can't be bridged (he was born during WW2, I am a millennial).
We never understood each others worlds. It does not mean we did not have a good relationship and this is highly individual and subjective. People called him my grandpa when I was a kid (I didn't care). The only thing that is brutal, is him dying too soon. I am very glad he is still around with 80+ and I had the opportunity to graduate and standing on my own feet. But I know it will happen very soon and I feel he should be around for longer. It's unlucky he will never be a grandfather to the child I haven't even had time to plan yet.

First: You shouldn't care about what others think.

I can understand why your husband thinks it's too late for him. I am also in my 50's and my daughter has a 6 months old son and I could never do that again. It's not just now but if that newborn is 20 your husband is 71.

I think this is highly individual. I had my latest at 37 and I knew that I wouldd not want any later than that. Unsure if it was due to age or the fact that I have four kids, though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adopt an older child if you do want to raise a kid but are worried about ages?

The minute you have kids it's no longer about you and your journey and it's all about them. There are enough humans already.

Eh. My parents are really old and im youngish. It kind of sucks. I wouldn't do it

If you're expected to die before your kid turns 30-35, you're too old.

So if life expectancy of your husband (factoring in your genetics and family medical history) is, say 81 or older, then sure, go ahead.

As for your age (maternal age), it generally should not be older than 40, and optimally younder then 35, so you're at the right age. (Because older women tend to have children with developmental issues, biologically speaking)

He also already has a 27-year-old son, and he worries that the big age gap between siblings would feel strange.

Um yea this is not optimal... my older brother is only like 5 years older and we already have a lot of problems. 👀

For women there are finite age limitations on giving birth.

When adopting top end is age 60.

With that said, I am pretty much 60, and I have raised a kid, I couldn’t imagine dealing with that shit again.

I loved my kid, Trust me when I tell you raising a kid is so fucking overrated.

On the 27-year-old son issue that won’t mean nothing that basically mean the 27 rule will act as an uncle for the child.

I know a family with a similar age gap between step siblings, the cohorts just don't interact much and it works fine.

Being over 50 may make early parenting more rough than usual; after the first few years I don't think it matters very much (being retired around the college/late teen years may actually be a big advantage).

I remember hearing a big scare about increased cancer risk and such, but these can be screened for and managed. I'm told it is not a real concern.

I’ll go with 40.

• for women I believe the risks went up dramatically 35–>40, with the new label “advanced maternal age”. There’s a clear medical threshold here.
• for men, I was about 40 and really think that should be about it. In fact I wanted another child but after that was delayed by medical issues in the family, decided we were getting too old. There may not be such a clear medical threshold but ….

When we did things with other parents we were invariably the oldest in the room. Not a blocker but it’s harder to be part of that community. I went to school with a kid from a very large family whose parents were older and they never did fit with other parents.

But the biggest thing is energy. As a Dad, I took a big part of my role to be active involvement. To keep up with toddler energy while also handling logistics. To jump into physical playtime or homework after a days work. to be always ready for the adventure, the sport, the activity. My crowning achievement was getting up at first cry so my wife could sleep, throwing the little one into a backpack, and doing a predawn hike to give his first bottle at sunrise on top of a mountain.

What was I saying? Oh energy. Now that my kids are in college, I’m old enough to make it difficult to keep up. I got my littlest into hiking but now I can’t go 5 miles without my knees killing me. Meanwhile he’s sending pictures back 15 miles in.

But seriously, energy. Now after a full days work I just want to get home and sit. Vegetate. It’s getting much harder to stir up the passion to join them whether for a video game, hone improvement, or even take them to an ice cream stand

I realize your mileage will vary, greatly, but I just don’t have the energy to be actively involved with kids anymore. They grew up just in time. But that active involvement, again doesn’t have to be physical but active participation , makes parenting so rewarding for both you and them. You don’t want to miss it. Kids aren’t goldfish where you can sit back in your chair and watch the aquarium but they shine ever brighter when you’re in there with them. You’re not a simple babysitter where you just make sure they survive, but it’s so much more rewarding as a parent to be there, do stuff, keep up.

But you have a different scenario with a large age gap. You’re at a great age for becoming a parent so don’t let age stop you. Medically it should be fine (statistically). You should be fine. But be aware that your husband may no longer have the energy or as much involvement as he would have a decade or two earlier. Both he and your child will miss out and likely you will face more of the burdens alone. But it is what it is. Life doesn’t always deal a straight flush and you have to play the hand you’re dealt.

IMO, you shouldn't have a child if the thought/feel behind it is "I'm genuinely happy with or without them" regardless. It's worse than being with someone and thinking "I'm genuinely happy with or without them", because that person can get another partner but you can't get a new mom...

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.

We have friends with a similar age gap, she is I think 36 and he is 56 now. Their son is 3.5. He also has grown up kids not much younger than his wife. The kid was planned.

It's hard and he is passing on having another child for age reasons (see below), but their son is great and none of them regret the decision. The dad's back and knee are bad, so running after their Duracell powered son who looks like Finn from Adventure Time (that hair! Dude is set for life, he'll make bank as a hair modell) can get difficult. But they manage and are active and a very cute and happy family. Having a kid is always hard and stressful, unless you are a tiktok influencer, then it is the easiest thing you've done because it comes so naturally to you /s

As for it "feeling strange": from my own life experience, things only feel strange if you allow them to feel strange. Everything can be awkward and weird and strange and whatever, or you just decide this is your life and only you get to decide what is and what is not strange.

As for my friends, I think nothing about anything in their life feels weird. She literally lived with her now husband and his son for a while. It was fine. His kids are cool with the younger sibling. They get to choose what is normal. They chose that this is. Their family is. This is their family and their normality.

To add: Having two little kids vs one little kid is a whole different level. He has first hand experience in that, so I don't think not wanting another kid means he regrets it. Not at all. I think he just realizes that this would be not double as hard but quadruple as hard and he won't be able to do that. My husband is 35 and cannot imagine having a second child for similar reasons. He just doesn't have the energy level for another small being - and it will be more than double the energy required, while he couldn't give an extra 50% even if he wanted to.

So the question is really, how do you feel about it? Do you two have some energy left? Are you ok with taking on the majority of the physical work? Even if your partner is doing fine physically now, he might decline sooner than you think, unexpectedly.

I might add, bluntly: you have already decided that it is ok for you that the likely (if not ideal) outcome of your relationship is that your husband dies much before you. You will likely be a young widow. It might also be that he lives to 100 and you die in a freak accident after reading this. I'm not telling you anything new here. This is just to remind you of your choice and your thoughts on this when you decided to commit to each other. Because a lot of people point out that your kid might not have a dad for long. (Which, yeah, other people lose their parents at a young age too, but having it be more likely is another thing, although, does this mean sick/disabled people with a shortened life span should not have kids either, and then we are in eugenics territory or the antinatalists chime in.)

Anyway, I'll get a lot of hate in the comments (honestly taking this question to lemmy where a lot of antinatalists are hanging out is crazy) but in my opinion - which must be totally valuable to you lol - I'd go for it. Even if it is hard and you reach your limits, this is such a short time of intense chaos in your life. And then you'll have a kid. You'll have experienced this crazy thing. And love and support don't care for your age. Hugs and kisses are just as heartfelt. Your kid will be just as much of their own person, no matter what age their parents were. We all don't have a perfect family. But as I mentioned above, normal is what you define is normal. And a perfect and ideal family is whatever you decide it is.

Thank you for reading all of this.

My wife and I had a daughter with her at 45 and myself at 31. We had to use IVF, and in the end, donor eggs. So it is possible, despite the age. You're probably in a better situation biologically with him being the older one.

That said: don't have a kid if you just think it might be nice.

Kids aren't some sort of casual addition to the existing patterns of your life. They disrupt almost all of them. They are hard work, take up more time than anyone without could imagine. You can't just put them to the side and deal with them later when it's convenient for you. They need you when you're sick, when you're having a bad day, when you're grieving the death of a loved one, when you haven't had your coffee and are still waking up, when you're just trying to get some sleep, when you're hung over, when you're trying to cook, when you're trying to clean, when you're trying to get five minutes to yourself to take a shit, when the last thing you want to do is deal with a kid.

They are 100% reliant on you for years. They need to be taught everything, and I mean everything. Basic stuff like "don't bite people because you wouldn't like being bit" isn't intuitive. They will fight against you trying to get them to do something they enjoy. They will break things that are important to you. They will push boundaries intentionally and unintentionally.

And you need to handle all of your shit and all of their shit, and still have energy to handle them with kindness, near infinite patience, understanding, and with an eye for their learning and growth. You at least need to strive for this outcome, and hit it the overwhelming majority of the time. No one is perfect, but you have to strive to be for them, especially early on.

It's exhausting. It is one of the most gratifying things in the world. Just don't do it unless you're 100% sure you want to sign yourself up for it.

But look, at the end of the day, there are people having kids older than you two, and grandparents having to take sole guardianship over kids as well. You can do this, if it's something you both want.

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.

I never really wanted them anyway. But now, at 49, There's no way in hell I'm raising a child. My S.O. has two adult kids, the youngest of which just graduated from highschool. And I didn't come into their lives until they were already teenagers and that is perfect. I can offer them "fatherly" advice if they ask, and their mom and I can go out and actually have a life without planning around babysitters a week in advance.

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.

What was the plan prior to marriage?

If you have a kid now you husband will be almost seventy by the time they graduate high school. He probably won't be able to keep up with his grandchildren because he will be in his late seventies unless they get started young.

I would be reluctant to bring life into the world you know you won't be around for. It is not a total deal breaker, but it is something you should talk about.

Idk about other folks but for me my cutoff is 40. I'm only now starting my 30s and I already can't see how I'd be doing active stuff beyond that. It would be irresponsible on my part. That and I can't even afford a house rn so haha

I had some in my 20s and some late 30s and I personally wouldn't want to literally be pregnant older than 40.

If I was not married though, and if I had more money wouldn't mind fostering to adopt a couple of teenagers. My kids are adult now, they are a good network and those older kids get set free without any help or place to land, we could give family to more kids.

More relevant to your situation - there are no guarantees even if you aren't old. My dad died when I was 16, he was only in his 50s and I wouldn't change anything, we were so close, I would rather have had him for my early years than anyone else for longer. And my kids and step kids, the gap between oldest and youngest is 22 years and they all get along. If his kids have kids I do think that could get weird.

ETA - old dads do introduce some risk, higher chance of schizophrenia for one thing, so do consider that, if you thought it was only the mom's age that mattered.

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.

My father had another son with his 2nd wife when he was 58. At first I thought he was too old and it would be a burden for him and for the kid, but finally it works fine for everyone. He kind of seems younger now and my brother (now 11 years old) deals fine with having an older dad.