what is the best age for men to father children if they want to avoid paternal age genetic disorder such as autism, schizophrenia, cancers, autoimmune

This question is not specifically directed by the poster towards men, but should be!
FROM THE TELEGRAPH UK
Friday, November 30, 2007


What is the best age to have children?
Posted at: 06:20
The number of women having children over the age of 40 has doubled in the last ten years, providing the clearest evidence yet that many women are delaying starting a family.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that 23,600 women over 40 fell pregnant in 2005 compared to 13,220 a decade ago. There was also a drop in the numbers of mothers in their early twenties and a rise in the number of girls aged 20-24 having abortions, up from 43,800 to 53,000.

Do you think it better to delay starting a family until after establishing yourself in a career? Do older parents have more to offer their children? Or are older mother and fathers risking the health and well-being of their child by putting off parenthood?

Are women increasingly assuming that they will fall pregnant in their forties and risking leaving it too late?

Are you a parent and when did you have your children? What factors influenced your decision to start a family?

Comments (83)
I am 20 but I think I'm too immature and
irresponsible to have a child and I haven't changed much since I was 15. I want to have fun,travel and experience life first. I would like to get married and have kids in my mid 30's. That probably won't happen though.
Posted by hihi on December 1, 2007 3:39 PM
Report this comment

The right age is a matter of individual choice and is nothing to do with anyone else. BUT you must be in a position to keep your children out of your own resources.
Recently I heard a girl (heavily pregnant and about 16yrs old) telling a friend that she wanted nothing to do with the father and would be bringing the baby up all by herself. If she really meant it - good luck to her, but I have a feeling that she will be putting her fingers (up to the elbow )in the tax payers pocket.
Posted by Peter W on December 1, 2007 2:22 PM
Report this comment

It is a self-evident no brainer that our species was evolved to start reproducing in the teens, and continue until death, in the hope that as many progeny survived as possible. Death generally occurred before 'middle age', which is why the human body self destructs after forty - people didn't live that long. However, in the last century medical advances had such a dramatic effect on mortality rates in the West that better off women can now pick and choose.

The best time to have children is not the first time! Second and subsequent arrivals are easier to handle because you then know what to expect. Nothing prepares you for the realities of parenthood, with its unprecedented demands on nervous and physical energy when that first baby appears. You have unsuspectingly gone through a one-way door, and there is no going back. The sudden onset of real maternal instinct is an amazing phenomenon that I observed in my wife and daughter.

The only mothers who can evade the ordeal caused by the first (and subsequent) arrivals are those who are rich enough to employ professional live-in staff to do the nappies, croup, and sleepless nights.

I am certain that the strength and resilience of youth would be a major asset during those difficult times. The later you leave it then the less energy you have, and the less robust is the mother's body. In addition, if you really delay then you will be in late middle age or even early old age when your kids are teenagers, in which case I wish you luck!

The realities of parenthood are catered for badly in our culture because our female dominants are either childless and/or rich enough to dodge the realities, and so have a blind spot about motherhood. Unfortunately these ladies have wangled the system to suit themselves, including brainwashing children in the schools to perpetuate the feminist system. House prices have adjusted to double incomes, and many couples have no option but to establish themselves financially before they can start a family, even if they wanted to - they have no room for manoevre.

Posted by Scott, East Anglia on December 1, 2007 11:46 AM
Report this comment

Passing through Gatwick recently I was most amused by the juxtaposition of two recorded announcements which in monotones endlessly repeated the messages.

The first is "Baggage must not be left unattended. Unattended baggage may be removed and may be destroyed"

The second message is along the lines of "small children must be accompanied on the moving walkways and escalators at all times".

In my mind this morphs into "Small children should not be left unattended. Unattended children may be removed and may be destroyed"

For those of us regularly in airports who are constantly trying to keep an eye on the small children of others who don't seem to give a fig where they are, the thought does not sound entirely alien.
Posted by simon coulter on November 30, 2007 11:01 PM
Report this comment

Before your eggs dry up, so probably best to get on with it once you reach 30 just to be sure. Forget the career, the posh house and car. Once you have children they matter not. Enjoy your children! My eldest is 16 this weekend and believe me time has galloped by. Luckily I've been there all the way and what a ride! Highly recommend it.
Posted by Helen on November 30, 2007 10:24 PM
Report this comment

Women who have children after 40 are plain bonkers......so the poor have children at 20 and the rich at 40....that shows the tax system is a national disaster!
Women in work...take all the cosy jobs from men.
Who suffers in the long-term?
Women and their children.
Posted by jack anderson on November 30, 2007 9:22 PM
Report this comment

I say each to their own as long as you can support them financially and love them unconditionally.

I'm 28, single and happy and ideally I don't want children until until I'm in a loving, stable relationship and not until I feel I have something to teach them about the world which is why I travel and go on ridiculous adventures as often as I can!

I would also like to adopt and if it ever occurs that I am unable to bear children, adoption is the path I will be taking. Until then I am happy to lavish attention and maternal love onto my gorgeous 10 month old niece and children of my friends.

Even if it so happens that I don't meet Mr 'Right' and I end up permanently single (!!!), then I will still adopt as a single person. Whilst I am not naive enough to think it would be easy, I am optimistic enough to know that I will make a great parent one day, whether that child is my own or adopted.
Posted by Natalie on November 30, 2007 8:59 PM
Report this comment

The best age to start having children,is when you reach 75, your mortgage is probably paid, you now have a bus pass and free television licence you are probably deaf,so there is less likely hood of being woken up at night, science will be so advanced, that your baby will be pre-educated before it is born hence you will not have to worry about the School run, ect, ect, ect
Posted by Roy Amphlett on November 30, 2007 8:17 PM
Report this comment

Anybody thinking of starting a family please bear in mind that they are a pain in the axxx and I'd much rather have a puppy.Most of the pregnant girls I see appear to be children themselves.
Posted by freedom to prosper on November 30, 2007 8:16 PM
Report this comment

The "French formula" is interesting: "half your age plus seven": so, the last time I was single and available was at 52, half that is 26, plus seven equals 33. In my mind that's an absolute minimum... better 35-45 for companionship and commonality. So if a 35 yr old and I had a child with me at 52 I would be 70 when that child is 18. Not sure how well that works.

Or turn it around 36 year old woman, half that is 18 plus seven equals 25. Young stud not so wise as to be a threat to older more experienced woman. Able to carry heavy bags and move furniture, shows respect, maybe can cook and be good "arm-candy" for parties/restaurants... and at bedtime: no fatigue or headaches.

Woman has child at age 38, so man is 45 when the child is 18, woman is 56. That works fine as the woman is near peak of her career and man is well on his way. QED.
Posted by Henry Cave Devine on November 30, 2007 7:32 PM
Report this comment

As quite usual, the question lacks an essential part - which makes the aforesaid question pointless!

What is the best age to have children? - we are asked.

Is this from the kids' point of view, or the parents' perspective? It makes one hell of a lot of difference, don't you think?
Posted by Roy Anderson on November 30, 2007 7:19 PM
Report this comment

In many instances, women are not always totally in control of when they have children. If you're not married in your late twenties, while it's not yet time to panic and do it on your own, it means that you're probably going to be in your 30's when you have your first child. My mother had three of us in her early twenties and says it's the best time as she was fitter. Given that I was at uni at the same age, she would have killed me if I'd taken her up on that advice!
Having myself had babies at 31, 34 and (oops) 41, I can safely say that I am a lot more knackered running round after this little one that I remember with the older two!
Posted by Toni Summers Hargis on November 30, 2007 6:36 PM
Report this comment

Sandra Brooks: changing your career, studying for your degree, giving your son all the attention he needs. Superwoman indeed.
Posted by jeg on November 30, 2007 6:04 PM
Report this comment

16 years, 3 months, 4 days at 12.15pm.
Posted by xxxCORRECTxxx on November 30, 2007 5:58 PM
Report this comment

people are always gonna make love and make babies and there is no way to control the flow of other people's actions, so what good does it do to express judgement of other people's lives? it doesn't do anyone any good to judge when and how other people have children. there are a million scenarios and not one statistic can capture every experience.
Posted by Sally Suu on November 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Report this comment

I am a forty year old mother who gave birth this year to my son who is now eight months old. While I agree that delaying motherhood is not always the best process I feel that at my age I can relax more and enjoy every moment with my son, at twenty something most of us are still searching for mr. right and being party animals I know I was. There are times when I wish that I had my son perhaps two years earlier as I would so love to have another child, but his father and I are seperated and I do not want to have another child by a different father so I will settle for the one that I am blessed with and enjoy each moment with him, I am now in the process of changing my career and studying for my degree, I own my home and will give my son all the attention he deserves.
Posted by Sandra Brooks on November 30, 2007 5:45 PM
Report this comment

Everybody talks about 'having babies' and the right age for that, but that is the easy part and does not last long. Does nobody think about when the child is 13-18? That's hard. Then there may be University after that. I was always astonished when people asked me what I would do when the children went to school, as if that was the end of it. The Thirties are almost too late, probably better in the mid to late twenties.
Also, why is all the help and concern and workplace flexibility issues only geared towards parents with young children? A child is for life, not just for Christmas!
Posted by jeg on November 30, 2007 5:37 PM
Report this comment

Babies are great at any age.

Teenagers are expensive and more tiring than babies. If you reproduce "late" in life. You face a very expensive, very tiring time in your sixties - when you will certainly not have the energy to cope - and you might also be trying to support all of this on your pension.

Babies grow up and need more attention as they grow.
You just get older and less competent.
Posted by sarajan on November 30, 2007 5:19 PM
Report this comment

Babies are great at any age.

Teenagers are expensive and more tiring than babies. If you reproduce "late" in life. You face a very expensive, very tiring time in your sixties - when you will certainly not have the energy to cope - and you might also be trying to support all of this on your pension.

Babies grow up and need more attention as they grow.
You just get older and less competent.
Posted by sarajan on November 30, 2007 5:19 PM
Report this comment

When they're old enough to leave home.
Posted by Perry on November 30, 2007 5:18 PM
Report this comment

Where did this inane expression "fell pregnant" come from? Fell ill? Fell for it? Fell out?
Posted by Steve on November 30, 2007 5:12 PM
Report this comment

Mid-20's through mid-30's for the woman, with man being early to late thirties, as men take longer to grow up (if they ever do). Having children in late-teens to early-20's can be tough all around; children in your 40's means that the parent(s) are in or near their 60's when the children are 18-21.

Truly wanting to be a parent is important. Children have no choice about being a child and cannot pick their parents. If we pick "us for them" are we making a good decision for an innocent party?

I am 55 and my daughters are 22, 20 and 15; their mother is 54 and re-married to a man 56 with two children of his own ages 24 and 22. My partner, Lady Catherine, had triplets, now 21, at age 35 with medical/fertility assistance. One of my 15 first cousins, 54, just had his second child by his second wife (age 33), his other two being 23 and 21 by his first wife, who has a 13 year old by her second husband. It all seems to work but adds up very quickly.

Posted by Henry Cave Devine on November 30, 2007 5:11 PM
Report this comment

The best time is when the parents are in a position to support their offspring without having to rely upon the taxpayer.
Posted by EX-BRAT on November 30, 2007 5:08 PM
Report this comment

An elderly Jewish gentleman walks in to a catholic church Sits in the confessional along side the priest. He says "father i am 80 years old my wife is 32 and we are expecting triplets". The priest says "that's nice, but your Jewish aren't you why are in my church you telling me"? The old Jewish guy replies "Father, I'm telling everyone" !
Posted by Manny Kind on November 30, 2007 5:08 PM
Report this comment

I think thirties are the best time to have a family as by this age you have:
* Had the fun of being single,
* Had time to build strong foundations in your chosen career,
* Had time to save some money,
* People in their 30's are generally settled in a long term relationship.
* Have the emotional maturity to be a parent.
* Are old enough to have lived yet will be young enough to still have a life once the kids are old enough.
Posted by Amanda Regan (madamspud169) on November 30, 2007 5:04 PM
Report this comment

There are of course advantages and disadvantages at any age. My Mum was 22 when I was born. When I was a teenager, she was still young and 'fun' (especially on shopping trips!) but as an older Mum myself, (with a degree and career - I was a student still at 22) I believe I have more wisdom and experience to share with my own daughter
What a shame so many people used this debate to say 'never'! At a university reunion of successful women recently we all agreed that our children were our best achievements and the most important - and rewarding - part of our lives. If we all stopped reproducing, who would pay for the pension and healthcare in our old age?
Posted by Louise on November 30, 2007 4:55 PM
Report this comment

As G.K.Chesterton (approximately) said, " a child should be 21 and an ordained curate of the Church of England, though a slight inclination to Latitudinarianism is acceptable".
Posted by D.W.Roberts on November 30, 2007 4:52 PM
Report this comment

Each to their own is my thoughts. My mother had me when she was young, the mariage wentwrong, mainly because the strain of both of may parents having to work and bring up a child, she wishes she was like me and beensensible enough to wait. I had my first at 37 and 2nd at 40. No problems, We have a good stable home life, with enough money to enable us to bring up the kids with no real stress, and I get to stay at home and bring them up properly and not farm them out to others. I find it bizarre that older parents say they are too tired to play with the kids. My eldest and I just had a great game of quidditch in the garden, We are both hot and sweaty, but had lots of laughs. We do this regularly, as well as going for walks, swimming, rugby anything that takes our fancy, and I am never too tired to play with my boys. I thoroughly recommend older motherhood, and look forward to having number 3 at age 42
Posted by Dee on November 30, 2007 4:46 PM
Report this comment

I had my first child (Amelia) at the age of 31 and my second (Felix) when I was 35. Amelia is now 14.

I think I chose the perfect time to have children: my marriage was stable, and above all, we had the time, the energy and the money to devote to our children.

I would never have started earlier because I believe that one must get to a certain stage (emotionally and physically) before one is ready make the committment of raising a family.

I just wish others would take this approach. Maybe then there would be fewer nuisance children in England.
Posted by Bree Harding on November 30, 2007 4:10 PM
Report this comment

35, 37, 40 & 42.5

Couldn't get pregnant before age 35; once it worked once, it worked three more times without trouble. Two thoughts about this situation -- first, if we had been able to start earlier, we might well have more than four children. As it worked out, most moms with children the same ages as mine don't realize I'm up to 18 years older than them! I also have discovered that in both my father's and mother's families, many women had children up to age 42 without any troubles or birth defects. Could be we're genetically designed that way?

I wasn't truly ready for children utnil I was 35, and some days it's quite a challenge but I wouldn't trade them for anything. (We aren't at the teen years yet though!)
Posted by rosabelle on November 30, 2007 4:04 PM
Report this comment

65. At least you'll be guaranteed help: healthcare, child benefit, free fruit etc. You might even get a council flat!

Posted by CannyGranny on November 30, 2007 3:56 PM
Report this comment

My wife and I had a child early on in life. It seems the best situation as now she's not interested in us anymore, just boys and friends, and is just about to leave education into the big wide world. We are still well under 40 and able to indulge ourselves a little now having devoted nearly 20 years to raising our daughter.

I wouldn't want to be hanging around a school playground at 55 if I decided to have more children in the future, I'd rather be relaxing a while knowing I'd spent my most active years with my daughter and enjoying all the activities they demand of you.
Posted by M.Cribbins on November 30, 2007 3:12 PM
Report this comment

Posting Exhausted Mum.At ten years old the meat is too tough,he is too big for chimney sweeping,I think it will have to be India,Carpet Weaving,just tell him you would like a takeaway Indian meal but would like it authentic,Oh how he will laugh we he hears he is stuck there till he is twenty.
Posted by Mr Barnett on November 30, 2007 2:13 PM
Report this comment

I LOVE Mr Barnett's sense of humour.

If a woman in her 50's can be asked to become a surrogate for her daughter; or grandparents can be asked to raise the children of offspring who have suddenly died, there is no 'correct' age at which to have children.

How many children are languishing in homes, destroyed for life because someone has decided that someone else is "too old" to have them? And how many teenage Mums absolutely adore their kids, take excellent care of them, grow with them and then go on to make model citizens?
Posted by MS on November 30, 2007 1:44 PM
Report this comment

Whatever works for you I guess. But it'll stop any
chance of getting to the following discussion.
Posted by Robert on November 30, 2007 1:27 PM
Report this comment

Surely it's best to have them at birth. Who'd have second-hand if they could have new?
Posted by Father Brian on November 30, 2007 1:13 PM
Report this comment

Have children when one can afford to have children as opposed to the state paying for the wrong sort of people to produce them in order for them to remain on state benefits and housing.
Fix this benefits incentive, and other things will stop getting worse including reduced crime, reduced immigration, reduced child poverty, reduced dependancy, reduced iliteracy, and increased respect due to those educated people trying to better themselves with work producing our next generation.
Posted by George on November 30, 2007 1:12 PM
Report this comment

Peter (10:10am). You disgust me and almost certainly anyone else who has ever lost a 'bad fruit', or even successfully had a 'good' one. You should be ashamed of your repulsive turn of phrase and I hope you never become a parent.
Posted by Ruth Darby on November 30, 2007 12:46 PM
Report this comment

16
Posted by me on November 30, 2007 12:36 PM
Report this comment

Thanks mr barnett after reading through some of this pious nonsense i was ready for a laugh!! but then i had a child as un unmarried mum when i was 20 so i guess my views won't be popular on this site!! know any good recipes for 10 year old boys??!
Posted by exhausted mum on November 30, 2007 12:28 PM
Report this comment

Clearly the best age to have children is at 16-19. That way the government will use the hard earned tax payers' money to fund you and put you up in a flat, so you never have to go to work or do anything responsible.

It's the society we live in now. Those who work hard can't afford to have children because everything is too expensive, and then when they can afford it, the biological clock has stopped ticking. Yet those who don't work can have as many kids as they like without worrying about financing them. We're breeding ourselves into a situation whereby, in three generations time, British people won't be motivated to work because it's too easy to get handouts.
Posted by Chris C on November 30, 2007 12:21 PM
Report this comment

Never!

Sorry, but the woman friendly rules that have grown up over the last 40 years mean never being a father is the only way to go.
I know someone who discovered his wife had found a lover, she threw him out - but he got to pay the mortgage and child support for three children for fifteen years. When the youngest child turned eighteen and got a job, the last of the child support ended and she promptly threw all three children out and sold the house - keeping the money and moving in with her lover of fourteen years. My friend has stopped living with his mother and can now look to buy a house - providing he can pay for it in fifteen years.

recently I overheard a conversation on the bus between two young mothers. The first was new to it all. The second explained that she lived apart from the father but he had to pay maintainance. She had a lover and "they" (benefits Agency) thought they were living together.
The conversation went something like -
"It's not right you know, I only see him Friday to Sunday"
"What about the kid?"
"Oh, his father's parents look after him"
"Are they OK about that?"
"If they don't I'll go to court saying he (the father) is abusing him and they won't get any access.

Those two are only a couple of examples amongst many but this is the basis of why I would not have children. The society is wrong, in more ways than one. Some of you will think it's a cop out but the truth is why bother? My wife and I are happy - whilst many of our friends end up in rows and divorce usually sparked by money problems (it costs about 50,000 to raise a kid).
Meanwhile, in an attempt to protect children, the government are turning children into untouchable little s**ts who, in some parts of the country seem happy to go around shooting and knifing each other.
Maybe I'm selfish but I'm Happy

Posted by TrinTragula on November 30, 2007 11:55 AM
Report this comment

Just setting a random number as being a "suitable" age to have children is pointless, but there are things that every parent should think about before starting a family:

Once a child is born its rights take precedence over yours. If you don't like that, don't have children.

Every child has the right to two committed, adult parents. Anyone denying a child this right deserves the strongest condemnation.

What you can't do if you have children when young, you won't want to do when they are old enough for you to start again (do you really want to be the sado in a club at 40?).

At the other extreme, do you want to take a day out from your care home to see your child graduate?, To see your first grandchild?

If you are ready to accept these, you are ready to have children, irrespective of how many years have passed since you happened to be born.
Posted by MarkE on November 30, 2007 11:54 AM
Report this comment

Married at 25
1st child at 27
2nd child at 29
Twins at 31
It was the right time for us.
I think to put off having children until your forties because of a career then expecting government funded IVF smacks a bit of selfishness.
Posted by Mum to four on November 30, 2007 11:51 AM
Report this comment

People talk about maturity and financial independence as being the most important factors in deciding to become parents but I'm not so sure - obviously you have to be able live within your means and have some commonsense but parenthood is a natural, adult state that probably shouldn't be over analysed.

Having had one child in our mid twenties and 2 in our late thirties, I can say that it was far less frustrating have one earlier. No one has any money then anyway and you are still young enough to have a few beers and face toddler hell with a hangover the next day. Once you get older, financial independence means that you could actually afford to be doing something else when you are stuck having yet another night in and that you are more likely to ration your own enjoyment because the stamina (and stupidity!)just isn't there anymore.
Posted by Katie on November 30, 2007 11:50 AM
Report this comment

There is no "correct" time to have a child, as long as you are prepared to give your all to bringing it up, but what is a shame is putting career first, chancing your own fertility and depriving the child of grandparents through having children late. What is a shame is not being able to play football with your son because you are too old or not living to see your daughter's wedding day. In many respects, the younger the better is the answer; we should not feel the need to earn "enough" cash to pay for fancy prams and cars first - there is more to life and children bring much more joy than money!
Posted by S Howard on November 30, 2007 11:39 AM
Report this comment

I am in my mid-30's and would not even entertain the idea of settling down with a Woman my age as I want to have Children. I will most likely end up with someone in their mid to late twenties that is not so obsessed with their career that they end up childless or relying on expensive Frankenstein procedures to beat biology.
Posted by Rob on November 30, 2007 11:39 AM
Report this comment

There is no ideal time to become a parent. Some people make admirable parents at 20 others will never become good parents.
My wife and I (how quaint is that !) started and completed our family between the ages of 30-35, which from other postings, seems to be the optimum age range.
My only observation is that my brother-in-law, on his second marriage, has three children under the age of 4. He is 45 years old and is already finding it all very exhausting, I should add his wife is only 34. Unfortunately my mother-in-law is finding three energetic children a little too much and can't be relied upon for free babysitting.
The financial costs of delaying starting a family into one's late thirties/early forties should be viewed in the context of funding their further education while you are entering your sixties, I hope he can stay in a job long enough to support them all.
Posted by Dave from Kent on November 30, 2007 11:35 AM
Report this comment

The best age is when one is relatively young as rearing children (even with the aid of nannies) requires a lot of energy.

The best WAY is within marriage.
Posted by Helena on November 30, 2007 11:35 AM
Report this comment

For those of us who could not have children or had difficulty in having children the pure delight of a healthy birth has been wondrous.

I am eternally grateful to God for his gifts in this way and would suggest that people stop whingeing about "when" ! The pain of childlessness for a loving couple is too awful to describe. It is equally as devastating as death.
Posted by Mikea on November 30, 2007 11:31 AM
Report this comment

In my opinion there is not a standard best time, it's different for everyone, I do have to say that I agree with the comment posted by Phil Kean, he seems to have the right idea, I just hope that for his sake and his wife that they get to enjoy having children before they reach their 40's
Posted by sandra d on November 30, 2007 11:31 AM
Report this comment

9 months after conception
Posted by Jonathan Card on November 30, 2007 11:29 AM
Report this comment

I like Mr Barnett's sense of humour
Posted by Liz (Germany) on November 30, 2007 11:27 AM
Report this comment

Since marriage is generally agreed to be the best framework for having children, one needs to be mature enough for that, first. I found marriage much more difficult, psychologically, than having children! Ideally I would say the best time to have children, if you are sufficiently mature, is ones early twenties, when you have the energy - you can then do everything you may have delayed when they are older and you are still relatively young.
I had three children over thirty - five and certainly don't regret it - but I would have had so much more energy in my twenties!
Posted by P. Harvey on November 30, 2007 11:02 AM
Report this comment

THE MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN (during her natural and easiest childbearing period) AGE.

Posted by Jim, now in the West Country on November 30, 2007 10:56 AM
Report this comment

the best age to have a child? perhaps when you have ceased to be a child yourself ... which of course varies from person to person ...
Posted by Anne Roy on November 30, 2007 10:37 AM
Report this comment

I should have had my second child earlier. He is a little angel, and I wouldn't swop him for anything but at fifty, I am starting to feel a slightly forboding sense of my own mortality.
Posted by Arnold Ward on November 30, 2007 10:30 AM
Report this comment

The best time is when both partners (mother/father or mother/mother or father/father) feel emotionally ready to commit to a child - all the tantrums, moments of anger, frustration and wonderful memories. Agree, usually ladies are better prepared emotionally for these things and it takes a hard reality check for a guy (as Chris from Manchester has pointed out). However, if it is a case of caring, loving and sharing couple, any slight immaturity (not intentional but natural) can be overlooked. On the other hand, I still feel (perhaps from old school) that a child should come into a family when both (or at least one in exceptional cases) are physically capable to run around and play with the child. I dread to think how kids will grow up in situations where they were born to old parents with little or no physical stimulation (intellectual stimulation does not compensate in entirety). Other than that, I suppose one should have some money in the pocket (unless one is happy to be a dole parent) to bear the increasing cost (more than a standard mortgage now-a-days) of bringing up a child.
Posted by pm on November 30, 2007 10:22 AM
Report this comment

I wanted kids in my late '20s, but my wife didn't
agree. Just as well perhaps, as she is now an ex-
wife!

I became a Dad in my mid-'40s, and while I love
my daughter to pieces, mature parenthood puts
great strain on future finances and delays
retirement possibilities.

On balance then (for me) late '20s to early '30s is
prime-time for Fatherhood.
Posted by David Jefferis on November 30, 2007 10:20 AM
Report this comment

About two years old is my preference,Take a large skillet and put a generouse amount of duck grease in it,place on high heat,prick baby all over with a fork and rub salt in,when grease is hot place baby in pan and seal on both sides for eight minutes both sides,then reduce heat and simmer till golden brown all over,transfer to oven gas mark four for six hours,turning and basting every hour,serve with fresh green salad and a good bottle of red, cheers.PS this recipe is ideal for people who are sick of the back of their seat being kicked on a plane.
Posted by Mr Barnett on November 30, 2007 10:19 AM
Report this comment

In my opinion it is never the right age to have children so don't bother.
Posted by Disallusioned Parent on November 30, 2007 10:18 AM
Report this comment

Depends, if you want the more traditional family unit, mum, dad, own house etc then forget it. You can't afford it and, even if you think you can at the moment, by the time you make 40 you will, in all likelyhood be made redundant only to find that there is no state help for the thrifty and honest.

If, however, you wish to raise carpet rats, paid for by "the state" then start as young as possible, 13 or 14 is quite popular round my way.
Then keep churning them out for the next 16 years until kid 1, in turn, presents you with your first grandchild by the time you are 30.

You can then look forward to free housing, medical care, dentistry, school meals etc etc and never need worry about little things like council tax or mortgages.


( Yes, I am a trifle bitter.)

Posted by AndrewG on November 30, 2007 10:14 AM
Report this comment

More Down and other abnormalities as Chang says. Best age for women is between 16 and 22, the body then aborts bad fruits itself. The older women get the less the body does this because it thinks 'this could be our last chance to reproduce'. A man of 40 who is stable provides a calm environment with a lot of money without stress with a woman of about 18 is the best natural combination. Immediately all old women will get angry of course..... We live in a very very very sick unnatural society. Feminism destroys us.
Posted by Peter on November 30, 2007 10:10 AM
Report this comment

There are two primary constraints. On one side is the need to establish a stable work and home life, something most people don't really manage until about 30. On the other side are the biological risk factors that start to significantly increase from around 35. Therefore, the ideal age to have kids is 30-35. Of course, you have to find the right partner first, which unfortunately doesn't always fit into this neat scheme...
Posted by Proud father (30-35) on November 30, 2007 10:08 AM
Report this comment

Best age? When you are ready. I had my first at 23 and second at 34. It was much easier in my twenties and more fun for the child with young parents.At 34 it was harder although very rewarding. I would not have wanted a baby at 40
Posted by Jane Salt on November 30, 2007 10:07 AM
Report this comment

NOT WHEN, BUT IF & WHERE

We have delayed having a child until we were financially secure enough to do so comfortably.
HOWEVER, now we'll further delay things until after the next election to see whether the UK will any longer be a fit place to raise a child.
We are already looking to the posibility of emigration to a NON EU country if we are forced to escape the on-coming repressive European Socialist Dictatorship.
It all depends whether the electorate finally come to their senses & remove the worst UK government in our history, LABOUR.
.
Posted by Phil Kean on November 30, 2007 10:02 AM
Report this comment

31, 33, 37, 40.
Posted by knackered on November 30, 2007 9:53 AM
Report this comment

Somewhat bucking the trend, I'm 28, with one small daughter, and I think it's a great age because you have more energy, and you're not yet wedded to a career and thus can make time for them.
Posted by Jeremy Bickerstaffe on November 30, 2007 9:42 AM
Report this comment

Still hoping...
Posted by Hamish, Glasgow on November 30, 2007 9:41 AM
Report this comment

I think that you should be able to have a baby whenever you want to if you in yourself feel you are mature enough then it should be up to you... No matter what anybody else says or does it is your choice and how you feel in yourself. If children are going to be at risk if you have your child later in life then, i think that you should have your baby at a younger age and you will also be able to look after your child more as the age gap isn't as big,you will understand them more as you haven't long been through what they will go through.
Posted by Kate on November 30, 2007 9:38 AM
Report this comment

We started having our 3 children in our early 20's while my husband was still studying. Once he had his degree, I started studying, and qualified when I was 31.

We thoroughly enjoyed our children's childhood, young enough to be in touch with their world. To this day we have a wonderful relationship with them, and they have become friends in the truest sense of the word.

They are now all well educated and independent in their 30's, and we are still in our mid-50's, able to enjoy this time of independence and increased spending power, and with the chance of retiring at our own pleasure.
Posted by Charmaine on November 30, 2007 9:31 AM
Report this comment

Why anyone would want to have children now is beyond me.I cannot see anything positive going on in the world that will give them happy and prosperous future life.
Expensive food and oil which we are seeing now will seem cheap as the world population increases to 9 billion by 2050. The population of the already congested UK headed towards 100 million plus by 2080 where will be the quality of life for these kids.
And just for those who believe in global warming every child breathes out carbon dioxide and most will want the freedom to drive a car.
Posted by Steve Byrne on November 30, 2007 9:24 AM
Report this comment

40 years ago, before political correctness and mess immigration destroyed the society.

Posted by jorgen on November 30, 2007 9:21 AM
Report this comment

I reckon for guys, the best age to have children is the day after they are born. As a guy, I think I only really became a man after my first son was born, when I was 41 and my wife 30. The next day, in the heat of Brazil's summer, I ran around buying nappies, food & medicine, cooked, got up every hour during the night to check my wife hadn't rolled onto the baby, made sure she ate and drank enough etc etc. It's been pretty much like that for the last 5 years, with me finally contributing something useful to this world. Women, with the odd exception, are always mature enough to have a baby.
Posted by chris manchester on November 30, 2007 9:03 AM
Report this comment

Before you've managed to get a job or bought a house generally. Then the great Socialist benefit-machine kicks in and you'll be cossetted until you're old and grey.
Posted by Piston Broke on November 30, 2007 8:59 AM
Report this comment

How about never?
Posted by Nutstrangler on November 30, 2007 8:57 AM
Report this comment

75, then die, saves all the agro.
Posted by A very happy expat on November 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Report this comment

I'm not so sure if there is an ideal to have children. Unfortunately for myself, I am unable to have children. I discovered that fact during my twenties, have accepted that fact and got on with my life. However, for many of my friends (including my brother and sister-in-law) who have children, circumstance ie whether they have met the right partner, maturity and finance have been a big factor for them. Some of them have had children in their twenties, some in their thirties and others in their early forties. They and their children all seem to be happy, which I think is the most important thing.

I'm in my forties and happily married. Personally, if I were able to have children, I believe I would have had them in my mid-thirties.
Posted by Liz on November 30, 2007 8:21 AM
Report this comment

What matter is the seriousness of the parents at any age, and the love they give. Arguably the young parents are often too absorbed in other matters to give the 100% required. I think the answer is: the best age is when the maturity required really is in place. And as we all know, that happens at different ages according to the person!!
Posted by Andrew Horsfield on November 30, 2007 7:38 AM
Report this comment

I agree. 30-35 is the best time; your husband/partner is there for the family, you are finally on the housing ladder, your career is probably stable, and though your fertility started to decline at age 27, chances are you'll be fine. Not to mention the maturity you have when dealing with your child and all the inevitable agencies you will now have to contact (schools, doctors, child benefit, etc.)
Posted by Christine on November 30, 2007 7:27 AM
Report this comment

I came to fatherhood late, at the age of 42, and know that it was definitely the right age for me.

Before that I don't believe that I was mature enough nor patient enough to deal with the stresses of work and being a fully-involved parent.

I love every aspect of parenthood and by the time I reach retirement age my daughter will be at university age - perfect..!!

Posted by South Coast Working Man on November 30, 2007 7:27 AM
Report this comment

There is a significant increase in foetal abnormalities e.g. Down's syndrome and birth complications as the mother's age exceeds 35. Hopefully by around age 30, prospective mothers will be financially secure and have developed their careers sufficiently in order to resume them once they have completed their families. Having kids between 30-35 would also mean that they will be independent and out of your hair before age 60 just in time for retirement.
Posted by Chang Park on November 30, 2007 6:07 AM
Report this comment

All this emphasis seems to be on mothers, but
there are also risks with late fatherhood, like
autism and schizophrenia and various genetic
problems. Plus younger men are often fitter for
running around playing with and disciplining
small children, and for handling double burdens
like work and family.

Then again, if either a man or a woman has a
child early just to resent it for elbowing in on
their fun, it's not much good either.
Posted by hubert on November 30, 2007 4:02 AM
Report this comment

Post a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material to telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.


Your name: *