Anonymous wrote:Having children past the age of 45 is pretty selfish, IMO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My dad had me when he was 43.
He's 79 now, and Im in my mid-30s and his health is declining rapidly.
Makes me sad we wont be around to see my DC grow up. I still want another and it pains me to think he may never meet him/her!!
So, I speak from a sad daughter here. ;-/
Same; all this.
Anonymous wrote:Having children past the age of 45 is pretty selfish, IMO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My dad was 22 and my mom was 17, when my oldest sibling was born. He was 28, mom was 24 when the youngest was born.
It was wonderful for us because we did not have to care for them until we were in our 40s - 50s.
DH and I had our youngest at 40. My mom has been able to help all of us with our children because she is in very good health.
I hope I can be healthy for the next 20 years. I know I will miss out on some stuff with my kids and will not enjoy my grandkids like my mom did.
On the other hand - people are deferring getting married and having kids because of the pressure of education and career. My mom and dad were of a generation where early marriage and having kids early was the norm. Now, they will be seen as children having children.
I think as long as one is healthy and happy, having kids at 40, 50 is no big deal.
Better an engaged older father than a deadbeat teen dad.
+1
My dad was 37 when I was born. Probably not as "old" as people here are referring to, but he's now 72 and his health is ok, not great. I'm pregnant with my first and not at all bitter that he won't be around forever to see the kid grow up. He doesn't owe me anything. All he owed me was love and a proper upbringing and I got that from him in spades.
IMO people really put a big burden on their parents to be these amazing, storybook grandparents.
Anonymous wrote:I know a few dads in Arlington that just had kids at 50-years old. I can't help but thinks---WOW--you'll be almost 70 at their HS graduation.
Anonymous wrote:My dad was 22 and my mom was 17, when my oldest sibling was born. He was 28, mom was 24 when the youngest was born.
It was wonderful for us because we did not have to care for them until we were in our 40s - 50s.
DH and I had our youngest at 40. My mom has been able to help all of us with our children because she is in very good health.
I hope I can be healthy for the next 20 years. I know I will miss out on some stuff with my kids and will not enjoy my grandkids like my mom did.
On the other hand - people are deferring getting married and having kids because of the pressure of education and career. My mom and dad were of a generation where early marriage and having kids early was the norm. Now, they will be seen as children having children.
I think as long as one is healthy and happy, having kids at 40, 50 is no big deal.
Better an engaged older father than a deadbeat teen dad.
Anonymous wrote:I think it is selfish and gross. My dad was 50 when I was born. We had 8 kids in the family. My dad was 42 when my first sibling was born. I say tie it up if you don't use it young. You don't want a dad who is so old when you're a kid. People are fooling themselves if they think it is ok.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Another advise is do not dress poorly.
My older daddy often dressed poorly bc he didn't care anymore. So not only he was the oldest daddy but also the poorest dressed daddy. I was pretty embarrassed when he showed up in school occasionally.
Wow. He raised a really shallow child. How sad. I doubt that was a function of his age, though.
Anonymous wrote:Another advise is do not dress poorly.
My older daddy often dressed poorly bc he didn't care anymore. So not only he was the oldest daddy but also the poorest dressed daddy. I was pretty embarrassed when he showed up in school occasionally.