At what age is it selfish to have a child?

[thelengthspeoplegoto]

Just thinking if Naomi Campbell becoming a mother again at 53. What age would you say is too old? I am an older mum (not as old as Naomi Campbell though.)
At what age does it become selfish?

I think in some things, nature has a very good point. There's a reason that women's natural childbearing years tend to end somewhere in their mid 40's.

Having a child is always selfish imo. But having one past natural childbearing age is risky and unwise.

O agree it’s certainly not the norm to wait until 40s. However I know a lot of women who have had babies in their 40s but in very few cases is it a conscious choice - most either met their partners late or had fertility issues ( or in a couple of cases hadn’t planned children and got a surprise). I do think by positioning older motherhood as a reproductive choice we do many women a disservice.

Some of the arguments against older mothers here (nature etc) are the same ones that used to be used to argue against gay couples having children. I wonder if people would still use them in that context?

I had mine with no issues (1st cycle unprotected sex and easy pregnancies) at 35 and this one will be born when I'm 37.
However I take umbrage with your comment because some 22yo need ivf/can't conceive at all - are they too old?

When you have the love and are rich enough to look after them and provide for them long after they've died plus have a village of support around them then have at it.

I absolutely agree that for many, or possibly most women, it is not a choice. But neither should we judge those for whom it was a choice.

Well, like anything, it varies. I entered menopause sometime between my.mid-20s and 35 due to the results of chemotherapy. It was disguised by being on the pill. By the time I was married and ready to have kids, it was too late to do so naturally. Then it took a lot of time to get organised with donor IVF. Result, one child at 41 and the other at 48. I don't feel too old now at 54, but I can't say how I will feel in 10 years. So, yes, probably children in my late 30s/very early 40s would have been preferable.

On the grandparents front though, my brother and I only had one due to wartime deaths, and she lived in a different country so the ideal of knowing your grandparents well wasn't one that concerned me hugely, although it's been nice the kids have known most of theirs as children.

I also had a baby at 40 (and 37), it was the right time of mmm for us. We had a house, income etc that could support dc, and had reached Sony of needing more than our (full) childless lives provided.

I've subsequently realised -

if she wants to do a "long" degree, I'll probably be working for longer than I'd like.

If she waits to 40 to have a baby, I'll be 80. There no guarantee how well I'll be at 80 / it's my DM's age now and I look after her as much as o do my teens. She's a diabetic cancer patient with long Covid.

Some of the arguments against older mothers here (nature etc) are the same ones that used to be used to argue against gay couples having children. I wonder if people would still use them in that context?

I'm fairly confident that two gay men or two lesbian women attempting to conceive a child together would also be risky and unwise. And in that scenario, obviously pointless.

There are some things in life that can't be helped. If you're gay then you're never going to share a biological child with your partner. If you're a woman that reaches 50 with no biological child, you missed the boat. That's it (or should be).

I think carrying a child has a big impact on your body. No amount of medical intervention can mitigate this impact.

So yes, a woman is bound by a natural timframe in which to have children in order to keep her healthy enough to care for her baby.

Personally I wouldn't have wanted children past 38. I had DC age 27 & 34.
My recovery after 1st was much better, quicker and easier than for the 2nd.

However the birth of 2nd was quicker and easier. So only speaking with that experience.

Hmm. I don't have an absolute answer for this. My DM had me at 37 and my sister at 41, which back in the 80s was incredibly old to be a first time parent or having a baby. And it was great, and I think we really benefited from having an older mother; she was more secure in her career, her sense of self (and what she was doing), and we had a fabulous relationship.

Unfortunately she also died when she was 67; we lost her in our 20s. And it's definitely had an impact on my thinking about it - I actually think that people should make the right choices for them and their families but I couldn't bear the thought of leaving my children at that age and it is a consideration which should be made when thinking about it. 67 was 'early' to die but absolutely not unheard of, and it has absolutely affected us.

At what age is anyone having children for purely selfless reasons? It's the most self centred thing one can do.
Fucking crack on at any age if that what floats your boat

Do men in their 80s use surrogates to have children? If so, then I would judge them exactly as harshly as a woman in her 50s using a surrogate.
Some people think using surrogates is fine. I don't.

Oh FGS there's nothing self centred or selfish about having a child! In fact having a child/bringing another human life into the world, and cherishing it and nurturing it, and creating a loving home for it, and being so selfless and thoughtful that you raise a wonderful, well balanced young adult, is the most selfless thing that anybody can do.

There's nothing 'selfish' or self centred about having children !!! Why are people coming out with this absolutely stupid ridiculous statement?! Is this the child-free saying this? Have they had enough of people calling THEM selfish, so they're saying it back?! How ridiculous!

@Wishitsnows

NOPE. I judge men past mid 40s for becoming a parent at that age too. NOT just women.

Barring unusual, tragic circumstances, I would say it is selfish to have a child if you don't expect to live long enough to see them reach adulthood, or if you use a surrogate, or if you know that you are not currently in a position to be able to support a child, or if having one would be likely to have a detrimental impact on any children you already have.

I disagree.

I had children because I wanted to. Selfish.

the child has no choice. I chose to bring those children into the world. My choice. Because I wanted to.

It’s not a selfless act. There are a lot of reasons not to have children- the planet, overpopulation for one. But we do it anyway.

if you don’t want to raise and nurture a child you don’t have to. No one’s forcing you. You do it because you want to. Selfish.

I have kids, and still stand by the sentiment it's absolutely selfish.

Why do you feel that your offspring is the ultimate gift to the world? Did you really sit there and think "I really don't want a child but I simply must give something back to the universe and produce an extra person or two because the 7-8 billion people on the planet simply isnt enough and my kids will be extra extra special".

You have kids because you want them, same as I did. Let's not dress it up as anything different.

Of course having a child is selfish, and why would it be childfree people saying this!? Anyone who has a child knows it's a selfish thing to do, we have them because we want them no other reason. Quite disturbing you don't realise this tbh!!

Well, anything can happen to you at any age so I’m not sure. My 50 year old male friend had three kids with his younger wife. The wife died unexpectedly at 37. He’s now raising three kids under six alone. I don’t think anyone would have berated her for having kids at her age but life didn’t work out like it’s “supposed” to.

I'm 52 and still having periods so could technically NATURALLY have another child (not that I want to).
So I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence 🤷‍♀️

@PurpleButterflyWings for what wondrous selfless reasons did you choose to procreate?

Well I had my children at 31 and 34. And I think on balance I'm happy with that; if really picky I think we could have got on with it a year or two earlier. But I was lucky; I met my husband in my early 20s, felt financially stable enough to go for it, and didn't face infertility problems.
If things had been different I'm sure I would have felt compelled to keep trying until 41 or 42.
If I'd found myself in Naomi Campbell's circumstances, I would hope that by age 53 I'd have made peace with being child-free, years earlier. Sometimes things aren't meant to me, however bitter a pill that is to swallow.

People keep talking about abstract concepts as if they actually mean anything. Nature is an abstract concept, in this context. However if what you mean is actually 'without the aid of modern medicine,' then in 'nature' loads of women and babies do not survive pregnancy and labour. And loads of parents die, for all sorts of reasons, while their children are still young. We don't mind using modern medicine, along with other scientific and technical advances, to prevent these things, so why not use it to extend our reproductive lives? People are living longer (I understand life expectancy in the UK has actually dropped a little, but that is due to political choices made by this government and is hopefully a blip in terms of the general trend. Where I live life expectancy is very high.) People are healthier and more active for longer. Why would people not have children later if that is how life pans out for them, or if they so wish? There is no other area of life or medicine where we expect people to be limited by what was possible 50 or 100 years ago. Our use of cars is ruining the natural world but I doubt all the pearl clutchers here are walking everywhere. In hindsight the road to where we are now probably started when we cleared the forests to grow crops. Agriculture isn't 'natural.' Do you only live on things you've foraged? As humans we've always pushed the boundaries of what is possible to give ourselves more comfortable lives and more options. Some may say to do so is a 'natural" facet of the human condition.

As for 'meant to be,' I don't believe in destiny myself, but Naomi Campbell has had two children in her 50s, so difficult to argue it wasn't 'meant to be.'

For me, about 40. I had my DS at 39 and if I'd understood beforehand how exhausting parenting a young kid during perimenopause is, I'd have had him 5 years earlier...

@Pennybubbly just because you're still having periods in your 50s doesn't mean you are likely to get pregnant or have a successful pregnancy, statistically it is extremely unlikely (not that I would take the risk!).