Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Interesting article in this morning's paper... <a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_5306840" target="_blank">http://www.insidebayarea.com/b ayarealiving/ci_5306840</a> >>MEDIA TITAN Rupert Murdoch had a daughter when he was 72. Actor Tony Randall became a dad for the first time at 77. When the average life expectancy of the American male was a few months shy of 78, Nobel Prize-winning writer Saul Bellow fathered a kid at 84. Long after a woman's biological clock stops ticking, most men can still father children. Yet many men say it's not just women who worry that they are too old to have kids. The physiology might allow for septuagenarians to bounce their beloved bundles on their arthritic knees, but the psychology suggests there is an age to stop bringing another baby on board. Men having children past 40 is generally not a good idea, says Chris Mason, 46, of Danville. The father of three daughters by the time he was in his 30s, Mason says that he wouldn't consider having a fourth child, even if something were to happen to his wife. "When your kids are young, you want to be out on the soccer field running, actually practicing with them," says Mason, the co-owner of a firm that out-sources sales. "But you get to a point where you can't keep up with the younger kids."<< So, what do you think? Is there an age where it's just too old to be a parent? If you are older but wealthy, does that affect the decision at all? Should it?
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes I agree with the article. I think past forty is a bad idea because physical activity with your teenage kids is very important to their emotional development (I'm not a psychologist, but I play one on T.V.) You need to be able to "hang out" with your teens now and then. What these older men are doing is very bothersome. It's assured that the kids will lose their father at an early age of their lives. How can that be good for the kid?
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight IMHO, I think everyone who wants children should be able to have the joy of having children. However I do agree that being older and having children can be sad for the child perhaps along the line. Granted any younger person can have an accident and be wheelchair bound, bedridden or pass away at any given time, but it ups the anty when your older more so. I think 45 is the limit for me as for having kids. but thats just my humble opinion.
Originally Posted By LuLu While I find septuagenarians becoming dads oddly disturbing, I think 40 is very young for a limit. I think 50 is reasonable - then you can retire when the kid goes to college ;-) I'd even accept up to age 60. I can't see folks of retirement age having preschoolers tho. On the whole, I'd rather see 50 year olds than 15-21 yo's becoming parents. In my opinion, (and I was 34 when I became a parents!) kids should wait til their late 20s to become parents.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think I agree with Lulu, pretty much. If someone is in good health and wants a(nother?) kid, why not go for it? I can understand the argument that someone VERY old will likely die while the kid is relatively young, but on the other hand you really never know who'll be around no matter WHAT age they are (I lost my Mom when I was 4, she was 32...c'est la vie). So I don't think "I might die" is a really good reason (yes, it is if you're in your late seventies or something though!). By the way, K2M, are congratulations in order? I never thought you were THAT old...you can still play catch with the little one for a few more years yet! Congratulations, K2M!!
Originally Posted By debtee I always find it ammusing that people think it's ok for a man in his 50's and 60's to have a baby but if a woman chooses to, like that woman in Italy that had twins, the world is against her?? Maybe it's because we all know it's the woman that does most of the caring for a baby and so it doesn't matter how old the man is???? Ha ha..........
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, I was willing to become a father at 47 and 48, but my wife didn't get pregnant, so I'd have to say at least until that age. It's different for each person though.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb There are no assurances in life, my husband was only 34 when our son was born and he never got to see Kyle's second Christmas. That said, I think you up the odds of never seeing your kids graduate HS if you're collecting Soc Sec when they're born. >>>I always find it ammusing that people think it's ok for a man in his 50's and 60's to have a baby but if a woman chooses to, like that woman in Italy that had twins, the world is against her??<<< It's true there is a double standard at work here, but remember as those eggs age (a woman is born with all she'll ever have) the risks of birth defects go way up. Not to mention the risk to both mother and child during a late in life pregnency.
Originally Posted By LuLu I was going to add something about women too... obviously it's much harder on a woman physically to birth a baby, regardless of who does the caretaking. While I find it relatively easy to accept a man in his 50s becoming a dad, I don't feel the same about a woman. I *do* however, think that adoption up til the parents are age 60 is reasonable. I wouldn't recommend it tho! I do agree that parenting a teen would be a lot easier in your 40s to 60s than in your 70s! Don't prospective parents think about that?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>By the way, K2M, are congratulations in order?<< LOL -- um, no. My uncle was 50, my aunt 38 when they had my cousin. There were some of his co-workers that would murmur about it, little things he'd hear from time to time, the usual concerns about someone starting a family at midlife. In fact, I think he actually treasured the opportunity more, made more of a concerted effort to be very much involved with his daughter throughout her childhood. To the best of my knowledge, he never missed an event, not a game or a dance recital, and he volunteered in the classroom often. My aunt & uncle worked opposite shifts so one of them would be there. I know that they didn't have the financial hardships younger parents often do.
Originally Posted By LuLu I'm so sorry Deb... and SPP. This could be a very emotionally charged subject for some, I hope no one will take offense. I think everyone's just coming from their own frame of reference. I know I am!
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight I'm with Lulu on this as well.. I was speaking for my own humble opinion and that was all. In fact , that's all I ever post is my own humble thoughts on things.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Thank you LuLu. I feel worse for my friend and his son than I do for Kyle and myself. They lost their wife/mom last year when the boy was 10. It's a MUCH bigger adjustment for them. My boy never knew his dad so life with out him is normal, where as his friend misses his mom everyday. I've been a single parent for so long I don't know any other way, but my friend is having a harder time adjusting and is lamenting the fact that his son has had to grow up sooner than he other-wise would. btw, no oppinions here posted so far have offended me.
Originally Posted By avromark Another thing to consider is, are both parents older? As brought up earlier, the older the mom, the worst it gets for her. Also is there somewhere there willing to accept the responsibility of bringing up the child if and when the parents pass on? Is the wife willing to accept maybe raising the child alone, or is there some family member who will rise up to the challenge (no pun intended)? If there is and both parents are in good health why not. Also morally is it better for a child to loose her or his dad when the child's 5? 10? 15? In college? Or is it better to know you have a father who won't accept you (young parents, flings etc.?) The other thing is the general health of the father, some 60 year olds are still spry, some are feeble mentally and/or physically. For example I know of a person who is in his 90's and still has all his marbles, still enjoys bowling... Age is one factor, so is health and maturity. Some people are never really fit to emotionally bring their child up as they're still struggling to grow up themselves. I personally would rather see a 50 year old father, then a 15 year old father.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb >>> I personally would rather see a 50 year old father, then a 15 year old father.<<< True dat! I have heard of many older dads having a better "fatherhood" the second time around than when they were fathers in their 20s and concentrating on career instead of family.
Originally Posted By avromark And they may spoil that child a little to much, not that I'd know or anything. No hand-me downs whatsoever.
Originally Posted By DAR A friend of the family has two kids ages 3 and 2 and he's turning 60 this year.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Let me comment here. I think I am too old to have the kids I have now. I am 39 with 6 kids ranged from 12 years down to 9 months and I am quite serious that I am too old as I sit here an type this!
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Well then roll over or watch a late night talk show or somethin'! ;-)
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Or even buy a calender! J/K...I am about to turn 59 and I can tell you that is way to old to have children. There is a reason why people usually have families when they are young. It takes a lot of energy to take care of kids and as you get older your energy starts to decline or head toward another direction such as golf or shiny cars or bingo.
