Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Over 30  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FloridaRes123
Joined: 5/11/2013
Msg: 45
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?Page 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
When I turned 40, I pretty much had done away with the idea of having children. When I was younger I had high hopes when I was in college, and everyone in my class was engaged, preparing for weddings at the same time as their college graduation...but..that never happened with me. I had plans to even have kids in my late 20's and early 30's, but when I turned 35 and esp. when I was approaching 40, the idea of having kids didn't appeal to me anymore.


At that age you are running the risk of making your child an orphan before they graduate from high school, and that's the most selfish thing in the world.


Yes, the idea of being an elderly parent does not appeal to me.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 46
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 7/29/2013 4:24:34 PM

First, find the right person, THEN see if there is the desire for kids.

That's hugely important, and often unnoticed or people think they are covering it when they're not. The desire to have kids shouldn't limit who you end up being with.

Which would you want:
(a) An okay/acceptable/ehhh Marriage 5-7 years later, with kids?
(b) In a great awesome relationship & married 5-7 years later, with no kids?

Some people will go down a path that leads to (a) because having kids is HUGE for them. More important than having a great relationship vs an okay/tolerable/acceptable one like the Jones'. And by that time they may think "no relationship will be awesome, they're all okay/acceptable/blah over time anyway".
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 48
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 8/26/2013 10:07:20 PM
There's always adopting too if you really want them.



Why can not people adopt?? There are so many great kids giving up for adoption.
My aunty has 1 adopted child.And she has turned out great ,and became a very successful person in life.
Owns her own business and has a child of her own.

In a lot of ways its very selfish of society.
People just want "Mini Me's" of themselves.


Where I live you have to be in a married couple to adopt. I think the OP was referring to biological children though.

I am one of those selfish people who want to reproduce I guess. I never knew it was selfish to want to reproduce.


What is everybody with that adopting stuff? Yeah I'm in same both and I'm single no bf so no possibility of me having kids by 35 ( I'm 33 now) well whole idea of having kids is to sorry to be sounding like man now but it's to pass of ur genetic material right? U want a child with ur eyes and u husband smile and his voice talent and ur artistic abilities. It is not same as someone else's child


I agree. Apparently, we are selfish for wanting our kids to look like us.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 49
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 8/28/2013 10:07:22 PM

Well... it kind of is, to be honest. What purpose does it serve for your child to look like you? Would you love them more? What if they ended up looking like some random relative (my brother has my grandmother's red hair and I have her curls but my hair is dark, neither of us really look like our parents all that much)?

Besides there's absolutely no guarantee your child will look like you. My brother's daughter looks like a mix between me and her mother, and looks nothing like him at all.

Wanting biological children solely for the fact that they 'look like you' or 'are my dna' is pretty much the epitome of selfishness. You sound less like you want a child to love and care for etc, (which you can get through adoption just as much as you can from having one yourself) than you care about having a Mini Me.


It's a matter of identity. Humans for scientific purposes are classified as animals. Although there are many surrogate mothers in the animal kingdom, typically a parent would prefer their own offspring. Of course, there are exceptions where they may eat their young or kill their young because of their harsh environment not being suited to raise young, but that's another topic. I think it is pretty natural for a person to want to carry on their bloodline. Perhaps as humans, it is natural for us to be selfish. That may be our territorial, animal instinct.

On the other hand, maybe everybody should just swap kids at the hospital as well as adopting. That might purge the world of bigotry. No one would know their true background, and our past cultures would erode. Eventually, all races will be mixed, and the world may actually be a better place.

So yes, I would prefer to have my own children, not only for the sake of carrying on my bloodline, but also to be the father that I never had. If that makes me selfish, so be it. I'm comfortable in my own skin.
 elmuchoburrito
Joined: 8/27/2013
Msg: 51
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 9/1/2013 9:17:51 PM
Company I interned for did an invitro on a 60 yo Romanian grand mother - health birth.
of course your results may vary - but it is not impossible.

as far as giving up on kids - I think I did that at the age of 13
had the surgery at 18
these genes die with me.
 dwmitch
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/5/2013 3:04:04 PM

First they are abused by their biological parents and then stuck in the foster care system which is riddled with abuse.


Not every child is up for adoption because of abuse. Five of my cousins ended up in foster care and ultimately being adopted because their father died in a car wreck and their mother died of an aneurism. There are people who fall on hard times, don't see any chance of recovery, and believe that their children will be better off with another family. There are people who simply don't want children but are opposed to abortion. And then there are parents who would treat their children great but because of developmental issues they're considered unfit parents in the eyes of the court and if they don't have any family able/willing to take custody the child goes straight from the delivery room to foster care.

Plus abuse can and does turn fatal. This past June a 13 year old girl around here, who had been abused by her step-father and his brother since the day her mother married him, was murdered. Most children who are murdered by someone in their household have a history of abuse. If there's as much abuse in foster care as many claim then who wouldn't want to get a child out of that situation?

Back to the original post, as has been stated adoption is always one method, but in vitro fertilization pretty much removes most of the limits. You might have to plan ahead for it, but with IVF the only things that limit you in terms of age these days are if your body can still safely handle the stress of pregnancy and how old you want to be chasing around a toddler.
 Like2dance
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 59
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/29/2013 2:11:24 PM
At my age of 60 if I met the right woman, she wanted to have children and I married her I would expect to have children with her. I would go one more round for the right woman.
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 61
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:58:47 PM
Every time one of those studies that indicate that sperm quality falls off with age, and contributes to birth defects, is examined; they end up showing the same thing. Once the age of the mother is normalized, there is no measureable effect of male age, until you are into the 70s. The increased defect / male age correlation ends up being the same rate as the tendency of older men to father children by older mothers. That is, if we examine births to all mothers in the sample, of a specific age, there is no measureable correlation between birth defect rates and the age of the fathers. e.g. all mothers of age 32 shared a statistically equal risk of birth defects whether the father was 20 years old or 50 years old.

But, 50 year-old fathers tended to father children with older mothers than do the 20 year-olds. So, they showed a higher birth defect rate, accordingly.

Current theory is that, while human eggs are all present from birth; and being aging from that point, sperm is produced and replaced, continuously. Further, the sperm “compete” to fertilize the ovum. Hence, the presence of “less fit” sperm, in a sample, does not have the deleterious effect that one might expect.

But, eventually, this does break down.
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 62
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/30/2013 3:59:35 PM


The risk of birth defects increases with not only the age of the mother but the father as well.


Actually, no. The studies show this, over and over. While fertility rates can drop off, there is no statistical correlation between the age of the father and birth defect rates. This seems to be related to the “competition” among the sperm. Among millions, the strongest most/fit win out.

Trying to (over) simplify it. If for every year that a man ages over 30, the average age of the mother of his children ages 0.5 years. Then you would expect to see an increased defect rate of 0.5 times the established curve in females, if there were zero effect among the males. So, it appears that men also have an increased defect rate, just a smaller one. Which is what gets reported.

But, then, upon examination, that rate is always the same as the rate that predicts the age of the mother. That alone is not conclusive. The two rates could be independent. Although the correlation of the values is suspicious.

So… you go back to the raw sample. Defect rates for mothers of each specific age are checked. When a mother of 30 years of age has a child, the defect rate is the same whether the father is 20 or 40.

But if a father of age 30 has a child with a woman of 40, there is a much greater rate of defects than if the mother were 20 years old.

There is a lot of pressure out there; right now, for “advocacy science” that shows a “biological clock” for men. But, so far, nothing has managed to show a statistically significant effect. I know; because, I do the math.

There will always be anecdotes of the 45 year-old woman who had a child that turned out perfectly healthy. But, then, 5 people usually turn out ok in a game of Russian roulette. Going older just means playing with two bullets, rather than one. Four people still walk away ok.

The best that can be said, at the moment, is that is it better for a man to have his children younger, while he is likely to have a younger partner. Plus, who wants to be "the old dad" in the neighborhood?
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 63
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/30/2013 7:37:10 PM


Actually, yes


Actually, no. Seriously, no.


Read that again…..




The risk of birth defects increases with not only the age of the mother but the father as well.

Actually, no. The studies show this, over and over. While fertility rates can drop off, there is no statistical correlation between the age of the father and birth defect rates.


You did not read what I said. I was describing BIRTH DEFECT rates. I am not nearly as concerned with fertility rates for theoretical children as I am with actual children born with serious birth defects,


Ok. For those with a reading comprehension deficit; as I said before:

Male age affects fertility rates = yes
Male age affects birth defect rates = no

Google is NOT a peer-reviewed journal of medicine or science.

Reading ACTUAL scientific studies to validate mathematics is part of what I do for a living. The “findings” reported in the media ( press releases ), more often than not, are not supported by the data. Sadly, this happens, commonly, across the board; for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

It does not matter what anyone WANTS to believe. The data is what it is. The math supports the conclusions; or, it doesn’t.

Sperm banks do not accept sperm from men over 40 because that is the –3dB point for male fertility. The last study that I read showed the –3dB point for female fertility at 29.
But, that study did not track fertility rates for women below the age of 18.
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 64
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 11/30/2013 9:42:54 PM


You said "while fertility rates can drop" and this in itself includes the risk of birth defects.


No. It does not. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the data shows. As I have already noted. These are independent variables; with the birth defect rate being ORTHOGONAL to the age of the father. You just cant get around the data.



When sperm deteriorates, how could it not pose as a birth defect risk? Think about it long and hard, you'll get it.


This was the original thinking on this matter. It made sense, intuitively. But, It turned out to be completely wrong. This happens all the time.
Remember when the sun orbited around the earth ? Made sense at the time. You could see it moving for Pete's sake!

In science, when a hypothesis' predictions do not coincide with actual measurement/data; then, the hypothesis is wrong.

But, people did think about it, as you suggested. And several models were proposed to explain the actual data. Currently, the accepted model is one of "sperm competition"

Put simply, sperm compete with each other to fertilize the ovum; with the most fit out competing the less fit. If we were to rate each individual sperm in a sample on a simple 1 - 10 fitness scale, the 10s would tend to out compete the 9s, and so forth. A male who is 20 years old will likely have proportionally more 10s 9s and 8s than a man who is 40 years old. But, since it is a competition among all of the (mobile) sperm in the sample, the 10s will still tend to win, until there are effectively no more 10s in the sample. Then the 9's, etc. So, the overall average value of sperm in a sample can drop from 6 to 4 without any measureable effect in fitness of the winning ( fertilizing) sperm. However the likelihood of a fertilization event can drop. Due to a smaller field.

When this model ( with proper coefficients ) is plotted against actual data, it does correlate. This does not mean that the model is correct. But, it is "regressively predictive". Which is the 1st step.



even my doctor would back up.


Your doctor, VERY LIKELY, is a mathematical illiterate. I know because I had to teach what passed for calculus to pre-meds for 3 years while a grad student, This is why mathematicians ( even ones who specialized in fluid mechanics ) are invited to review these papers. Plus, some of the questions that I get...jeez In all my interactions with medical doctors, I know EXACTLY ONE who can describe what a tensor product is.



you'll find a sufficient amount of accurate and up-to-date information/stats on the internet




I suggest you take your library books back and read what's real.


Yep. basically, you are arguing "stuff that you read on the internet" vs. the content and review of actual studies and data from medical/scientific journals such as you might find in a university library.




Lastly, I also read that women donating eggs are also accepted (from most clinics) is until age 35, not 29. Just saying.


Eggs are MUCH harder to come by. Hence, the wider acceptance band. Review the respective harvesting procedures, for each.
 Terravarious
Joined: 5/22/2013
Msg: 65
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 12/26/2013 6:14:34 PM
Almost.
I had my youngest at 34, My personal cut off point.

Can you? yes. up till 65 has been done medically. The question isn't giving birth, it's raising them.

At 36(your due date, assuming you start now). Running after a baby is easy enough.
chasing down a 4 year old at 40 isn't Teaching them to drive when your own ability to drive is starting to be questioned.

I currently have a lady I like very much, her youngest is 4... I'm 44. I just don't know if I can do it all again. As a step dad I'm not responsible for that much but it still means car seats etc.

I'm looking forward to the fact of not worrying about the school year, babysitters etc.

Tl:DR If you really want to, do it very soon.
 cooldog65
Joined: 6/27/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 12/28/2013 11:20:47 PM

Also, how do men feel about dating women after 35 with no kids, are they geared more toward younger women because they have a better chance of having kids or more kids?


A woman over 35 with no kids and definitely doesn't want to have kids...sign me up!
A woman over 35 with no kids and she knows her bio clock is ticking...run!
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 67
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 12/29/2013 3:11:59 PM
My clock ticked a couple times in my 20s. I took a sledgehammer to it.
 PlentyofThis123
Joined: 11/23/2013
Msg: 68
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/5/2014 2:53:41 PM
My clock ticked a couple times in my 20s. I took a sledgehammer to it.


I have decided that upon reaching my late 30's, that I changed my desire for kids on my POF to "No". The idea of becoming an elderly parent (i.e. - being in my 50's while my child is 10 years old, isn't my idea of something all that appealing, lol).



A woman over 35 with no kids and definitely doesn't want to have kids...sign me up!
A woman over 35 with no kids and she knows her bio clock is ticking...run!


LOL

Though, I have seen women slightly older than me, who haven't had kids, in their early 40's...still marked "Yes" to having children. I suppose there is still desire even at that age, too. Though I wonder if there are health risks to having children in your 40's? I heard something like that.
 seasonsinthesun
Joined: 9/5/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:04:45 PM
When I turned 40, I realized that I was running out of time to have a kid. I did not want to rush into a relationship that may not be right just to have a child, so I instead ordered a sample from a sperm bank and went to the doctor...and voila. At 41, I now have my beautiful, baby girl, and now I can take my time looking for a relationship without any pressure. 35 is definitely not too late. :)
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 70
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/6/2014 3:11:01 PM
I was over a friends house on Friday, his twins are 5 years old, he is 59 and his wife was 42 when she got pregnant. So he was 54 at the time.

They used in vitro fertilization, as did another couple I know who were a little younger when his wife got pregnant. I think maybe he was 51 and she maybe 40.

I am open to having children at 61. It maybe true that there is a slightly increased risk of a birth defect from an older dad, but if there is it's a slightly increased risk.

So 35 doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 71
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/6/2014 3:58:14 PM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

From only a 10 second scan of your own citation:



A 2009 review focusing on the effect to children said that the absolute risk for genetic anomalies in offspring is low, and concludes "There is no clear association between adverse health outcome and paternal age but longitudinal studies are needed."[1]


From the 1st paragraph !

i.e. no detectable effect. But, we hope to find one.



King et al. (2009) used California birth data from 1992 through 2000 and autism data to 2006.[46] They determined that the risk of paternal age varied by birth cohort and was inflated if data are pooled across multiple birth cohorts.[46]


Or... the effect is only present if the age of the mother ( birth cohort ) is taken into account. i.e. Older men tend to father children with older mothers.

Over and over again, the only effect that statistically ties birth defect rates to paternal age is the propensity for it to predict the age of the mother. When a study examines a single age bracket for mother ( say, all mother of age 30 ), the paternal age effect disappears.

There is a lot of “advocacy science” going on here; looking to support a preconceived position that just isn’t in the data. Purposely omitting the “age of birth cohort” linkage, in a study, is a sign of “advocacy science”.

Fertility rates and propensity to birth defects are two completely different things. Paternal age does affect fertility rates ( chance of pregnancy per coupling ). It does NOT affect birth defect rates ( chance of defect per live birth ).

This does not mean that, in the future, we will not find some direct linkage between paternal age and some specific birth defect rate. But, so far, none has been established for all of the birth defect types studied.

If you actually read the studies ( not the press releases ) , and, do the math, the results on this matter are always the same.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 72
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/19/2014 1:16:07 AM
I just turned 35 two weeks ago. People insist it isn't too late for me. I remind them that I cannot just shoot them out and reproduce asexually.
 arlo2
Joined: 5/30/2013
Msg: 73
view profile
History
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/19/2014 1:59:52 PM
If I developed two magical creams; one would make 30-40 year old women look 18-23. And, the other would make 18-23 year old women look 30-40, I would be canonized for the first, and, cannon fodder for the second. THAT is how you know when your peak is.
 ThatGirlNamedAlli
Joined: 12/28/2013
Msg: 74
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:06:19 PM

A woman over 35 with no kids and definitely doesn't want to have kids...sign me up!

hah, good to know.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 75
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:04:48 AM
Older Dads Give Good Telomeres, But Longevity? Not So Much

Some [pdf] studies [pdf] of historical data on longevity have found that older fathers, particularly those who reproduce beyond the age of 65, are actually associated with a shorter lifespan for their children, especially their daughters. Middle-aged offspring of men in the oldest age group were 60 percent more likely to die than the progeny of younger men. The children of older dads are also more likely to have lower IQs and suffer from leukemia, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism. Why aren’t the longer telomeres granting them longer, better lives?

The issue is that sperm cells aren’t only gaining telomere length—they’re also picking up more mutations.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/02/older-dads-give-good-telomeres-but-longevity-not-so-much/

The issue is a lot more conflicted and not as simple as everyone is making it.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 76
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/21/2014 11:51:08 AM

This is exactly what I have been saying. Men's sperm DNA increases in quality as they age to a certain point, and then it declines (negative mutations outweigh the benefits). I had pegged this point at about 50+, your article says it is somewhere between 46 and 65.


But do you want to get married and have children? And do the women want children?

In the forums, many say they don't want children, don't want to get married. So unless the men and women in question are looking to have children, this is all a moot point. Doesn't matter at all for those people.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 77
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:29:16 PM

That's a completely different, and completely unrelated, question. I don't know the data on that answer.


smilely, I was asking if you specifically wanted to have children?

But I think it's a very important point, if men have not had children by 35 don't want children at all, and some women opt for artificial insemination, then this changes the dynamics of finding a mate to have children with at 35+. There maybe a sweet spot for men genetically, but that isn't the only factor.


At this point (35+) it's really a decision that is out of the hands of women.


Women can opt for artificial insemination. Isn't that an obvious way to go if their goal is to have children? And not an option for men. And I suspect it's pretty difficult for a single man to adopt a baby.


It's a complete role reversal that older women have to acknowledge and deal with if they are serious about wanting children beyond that point.


What I have seen is both men and women are only as limited in a mate as they chose to be. People tend to cause their own limitations by failing to think outside of the box they used 15 years ago. Men and women being picky about things that don't matter to their long term happiness.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 78
is it time to give up the idea of having kids after 35?
Posted: 1/22/2014 8:59:11 AM
_sunshinegal_, smilely isn't really addressing who people date, he is just discussing the sperm quality of men older than 35 but less than 50.

He extrapolates this to say who has more power to chose whom they want to date, the the stats he quotes don't address who dates who.

An extreme example would be someone like Christopher Reeve who had a spinal cord injury. Or someone disfigured in a fire. Their genes are still good, but the will have a very difficult time if they want to date.

Really, there are different peaks for different parts of life. Financial peak earning, peak physical condition, peak of mental powers, peak of sexuality, etc.

Just because someone can genetically make a good mother or father, doesn’t mean they can date whomever they choose. And now days with fewer people wanting to have children, this is even less of a factor for dating.

The stats are mostly for marriage, and those stats indicate most people marry close to their age, and the farther away for their own age the other person is, the less likely they are to get married.

Some sites track who MSGs whom, but that isn’t dating either, it's just contacting someone.

Now marriage isn't dating either , but it's as close as you get. don;t know if anyone actually keeps track of who dates whom by age group, I assume for most it's someone close to their own age group.

Nearly every man who posts about when men are at their peak pick an age that is 0-7 years older than they are. If they are 20, then it's 22, if 35 it's 35-45, if 49 then 49.55. Funny how that works out.
Show ALL Forums  > Over 30  >