When is it too old to have a baby?

rainbow kirby · 14-10-2016 12:33AM

We'd like to be completely done by 35. We want 2, have 1 little boy already and are both 32 now.

Each to their own though - we just don't want to leave it late and run unnecessary risks as a result.

seenitall · 14-10-2016 07:35AM

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past. It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

14-10-2016 08:22AM

After 20 years together, my wife and I had our first at the tender age of 40.

Obviously she's spoiled rotten. As is baby! As the youngest of 7 myself, with nieces and nephews in their 30s, she was a surprise for all!

Our experience was incredibly positive but, as obviously it's the only experience I know, I'd be slow to dole out advice on the whole young v old parents thing.

Wibbs · 14-10-2016 09:07AM

seenitall wrote: »

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

Which doesn't negate my previous position. Yes we are getting extra years at the end of life and the elderly population beyond 70 is growing but the major leap in overall longevity was the massive drop in childhood mortality. From the article itself: Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan[emphasis mine].

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past.

Ah here invoking rape as an argument is more than a little hysterical and deflective. And again doesn't negate those pesky facts. Nor does it negate my point seemingly ignored that as science and tech has advanced things change and we adapt(to some degree). As for it possibly being an "acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past", that's unlikely. In general terms anyway. In some rare scenarios it does become "acceptable", or at least blind eyes may be turned. IE in times of war, where invaders can turn to it. Whether it's a reproductive strategy or simply an animalistic extension of war itself is another debate. Even so throughout recorded history even in a human extreme like war it's more often proscribed for troops than not.

It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

Nope, there are things called facts, which I'm afraid is only a "cop out" if it suits your argument. Hypocrisy may tag along on the coattails of same, but the facts remain. The fact and something we haven't "moved on from" is that as an average man and barring illness I can successfully and naturally father children into my dotage, as an average woman you can't and are "on the clock" far earlier. QV sperm donation. The age limit for that has been revised upwards towards age 50. Good luck in finding any woman with harvestable eggs at 50. In egg donation sub 30 is the general limit and the average runs more like 20-25. As an average woman you are likely to live longer and more healthily and far less likely to die in an accident or by your own hand than the average man. These are also facts and I don't see them as cop puts, or hypocritical just because it doesn't suit me as a man.

The flying mouse · 14-10-2016 09:36AM

A Spanish doctor has shrugged off widespread national criticism and given birth to a healthy child at age 62.

The mother-of-three, from Lugo in north-west Spain, began the menopause 20 years ago but underwent fertility treatment to have more babies.

A series of gynecologists also said a successful pregnancy would be nigh on impossible and refused to help her.

Her healthy daughter weighed 5.2lbs.

“I’m the happiest person on the planet, everything went perfectly,” she said.

When she is 30, I’ll be 90. She’ll have been raised and life expectancy for women is growing all the time.

Ms Alvarez had her second child, Sam, at the age of 52 after her IVF treatment.

The world’s oldest person to give birth is thought to be Daljinder Kaur, from India, who believes she is around 70 years old, and who had her first child earlier this year

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYmMHd8dnPAhUIaRQKHbdoBOEQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fspanish-doctor-gives-birth-third-child-baby-62-ivf-a7358366.html&usg=AFQjCNGQzqRmL_f4OJ1ruEpk9lw9h8Jm8w

seenitall · 14-10-2016 09:37AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Which doesn't negate my previous position. Yes we are getting extra years at the end of life and the elderly population beyond 70 is growing but the major leap in overall longevity was the massive drop in childhood mortality. From the article itself: Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan[emphasis mine].

Ah here invoking rape as an argument is more than a little hysterical and deflective. And again doesn't negate those pesky facts. Nor does it negate my point seemingly ignored that as science and tech has advanced things change and we adapt(to some degree). As for it possibly being an "acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past", that's unlikely. In general terms anyway. In some rare scenarios it does become "acceptable", or at least blind eyes may be turned. IE in times of war, where invaders can turn to it. Whether it's a reproductive strategy or simply an animalistic extension of war itself is another debate. Even so throughout recorded history even in a human extreme like war it's more often proscribed for troops than not.

Nope, there are things called facts, which I'm afraid is only a "cop out" if it suits your argument. Hypocrisy may tag along on the coattails of same, but the facts remain. The fact and something we haven't "moved on from" is that as an average man and barring illness I can successfully and naturally father children into my dotage, as an average woman you can't and are "on the clock" far earlier. QV sperm donation. The age limit for that has been revised upwards towards age 50. Good luck in finding any woman with harvestable eggs at 50. In egg donation sub 30 is the general limit and the average runs more like 20-25. As an average woman you are likely to live longer and more healthily and far less likely to die in an accident or by your own hand than the average man. These are also facts and I don't see them as cop puts, or hypocritical just because it doesn't suit me as a man.

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with. Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society. Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me. It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 14-10-2016 09:41AM

But there is no arguing with how your body works. Women's bodies "age" much faster in that department. They're not on a level playing field with men. Nowhere near it.

seenitall · 14-10-2016 09:53AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But there is no arguing with how your body works. Women's bodies "age" much faster in that department. They're not on a level playing field with men. Nowhere near it.

I don't know if that is addressed to me, but as I said already, I have no bone to pick with biology.

suicide_circus · 14-10-2016 10:00AM

We'd like to have kids by now but modern society and economics are against us at every turn. We both need to work full time to pay rent while saving for a deposit, childcare costs would equal another rent/mortgage so one of us would be working purely to pay some stranger to raise our kids. I know back in the day things were backward or whatever but this really dosnt feel like progress to me.

silverharp · 14-10-2016 10:05AM

seenitall wrote: »

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with. Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society. Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me. It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

everyone gets judged, men need to "man up" if they don't want a wife or kids, they are "deadbeat" dads if they cant financially provide or loser men if they have low financial status.
I havnt read all the thread but I didn't pick up the tone that anyone was judging anyone for having a baby at "40" the decision is still to go for it and nobody will give you strange looks in the street.

seenitall · 14-10-2016 10:12AM

silverharp wrote: »

everyone gets judged, men need to "man up" if they don't want a wife or kids, they are "deadbeat" dads if they cant financially provide or loser men if they have low financial status.
I havnt read all the thread but I didn't pick up the tone that anyone was judging anyone for having a baby at "40" the decision is still to go for it and nobody will give you strange looks in the street.

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

PandaPoo · 14-10-2016 10:18AM

We have 2 at the moment, hoping to have another 3 before I'm 30. My husband is 10 years older than me but he says the age thing doesn't bother him, we both had older parents and both sets are still alive and going strong.
They weren't fun though, we never did anything and they never played with us so I like that I'm still young and fun!

Wibbs · 14-10-2016 10:23AM

seenitall wrote: »

Most babies born in 1900 didn't live past 50 means that most people born then didn't live past the age of 50; if it actually referenced childhood mortality as you seem to think it does, it would say most babies born in 1900 didn't survive infancy or similar. We are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. If you have some other way of interpreting the information in that text, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

I can't help if your understanding of population longevity is based on a commonly held belief rather than a more rounded grasp. The plain facts are - and any population statistician will agree with me - childhood mortality has up to this point had a larger effect on overall longevity of the human population than extension of life at old age. EG hunter gatherers have a raw data longevity of about 30. However if they make it to 20 their average longevity is over double that. Ancient Rome and classical Greece follows the same pattern. For fun and frolics look up the ages of some of the famous Greek scholars. Hell, Alexander the great was seen back then as an amazing man who accomplished much at such a young age. An image of a gilded youth in triumph who died 2 years beyond the average lifespan according to raw data. Plato made it to 80. Archimedes beyond 70. Pythagoras ditto. Aristotle in fairness only got to his mid 60's. Socrates got to 70, but was poisoned so… The Sermon on the Mount familiar to most westerners with even a passing sniff of the underlying Christian culture notes "the days of our years are three score and ten and by reason of strength they may be four score" and this was aimed at an audience of peasants and the wider classical world two thousand years ago. No commentator then or since questioned the veracity of the longevity measured out in that passage.

I am well aware of the facts, thank you. It is the attitudes I have a problem with.

The former tend to inform the latter. It's the way of things. It's by first acknowledging the whys that we may change the responses.

Women are judged more harshly on anything to do with reproduction. When there is no reason to do that as a society.

Of course there are reasons and I have outlined some of them. I can't help if you are taking the more emotive position regarding said reasons.

Evoking biological facts and evolution in relation to this issue is bizarre to me.

Oh heaven forfend that we bring in actual biological reality to bear on the matter.

It is unfair on the older mothers to judge them on their age or the number of children, or on how many men fathered those children, while older fathers get much more of a free pass in all these areas.

Life isn't fair. That's the reality. As a species we have tried to overcome unfairness, biological and other and we have done a damned fine job over time and as a general trend. And sure we are on that continuing road, but we can only truly make things fair by first examining and acknowledging the objective realities behind the lack of fairness. Not by polarising stamping of feet, just because it may strike a personal nerve.

The one thing we agree on that the attitudes seem to be changing, finally and happily, but slowly.

Currently and maybe down the line, but as history has shown attitudes can rebound too. And as night follows day if they do rebound they tend to do so as a reflection of underlying principles and underlying unfairness. If anything we are seeing some whiffs of that today, post the sexual revolution. We could just as easily go more towards "old fashioned" restrictive mores, or at least it's not beyond the bounds of imagining. EG look at how polarised the whole gender thing has become in some quarters in the US. China is seen as a culture on the rise and in that culture an unmarried and childless woman of 30 is seen as a "leftover woman". Now they may as a culture take on the mantle of western attitudes in such things, but they don't at the moment and it's just as likely they won't. India would have similar attitudes as would much of culture of the Middle East.

silverharp · 14-10-2016 10:33AM

seenitall wrote: »

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

oftentimes its women doing the judging

. I would take individual cut offs as being for them alone, all kinds of factors come into play so I don't see it as an issue to "take personally"

smeal · 14-10-2016 10:43AM

I think late 20s/early 30s is an ideal time to start a family and I would like to have my children around those ages however practically with women being more career focused than 30/40 years ago its realistically around the early 30s that women are comfortable to start a family.

For example, I'm 23 and I was young finishing my degree 2 years ago, however by the time I get all my professional qualifications in my career and start earning a decent income, I'll probably be 27 at which point (hopefully) it'll be time to think about a home and a mortgage. In a lot of women's situations, early 30s is probably the time that women are just about settled in their careers and in a position to start a family.

OldNotWIse · 14-10-2016 10:44AM

seenitall wrote: »

Well, my perception is that men don't get judged nearly half as much or on as many different fronts as women do, overall. I am a woman however, so I accept that my perception may have some bias. MAY have, mind you.

I'd say there are a good few examples on thread of people saying 38 or 40 is a cut off point in their eyes. Sometimes it is not very clear if they mean that in general terms or purely talking about themselves.

I agree with you. It's largely women who are obsessed with whether other women are procreating.

I set my "cut off" at 35, but it's looking like that might be pushed to 37 :P

My cutoff is for me only - its not my business if someone else wants to have a kid later. We can do more to help children who already need our help than tie ourselves in knots worrying about what will happen to the hypothetical children that will be born to parents who can't run around the park with them and then croak :P

seenitall · 14-10-2016 10:46AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I can't help if your understanding of population longevity is based on a commonly held belief rather than a more rounded grasp. The plain facts are - and any population statistician will agree with me - childhood mortality has up to this point had a larger effect on overall longevity of the human population than extension of life at old age. EG hunter gatherers have a raw data longevity of about 30. However if they make it to 20 their average longevity is over double that. Ancient Rome and classical Greece follows the same pattern. For fun and frolics look up the ages of some of the famous Greek scholars. Hell, Alexander the great was seen back then as an amazing man who accomplished much at such a young age. An image of a gilded youth in triumph who died 2 years beyond the average lifespan according to raw data. Plato made it to 80. Archimedes beyond 70. Pythagoras ditto. Aristotle in fairness only got to his mid 60's. Socrates got to 70, but was poisoned so… The Sermon on the Mount familiar to most westerners with even a passing sniff of the underlying Christian culture notes "the days of our years are three score and ten and by reason of strength they may be four score" and this was aimed at an audience of peasants and the wider classical world two thousand years ago. No commentator then or since questioned the veracity of the longevity measured out in that passage.

The former tend to inform the latter. It's the way of things. It's by first acknowledging the whys that we may change the responses. Of course there are reasons and I have outlined some of them. I can't help if you are taking the more emotive position regarding said reasons. Oh heaven forfend that we bring in actual biological reality to bear on the matter. Life isn't fair. That's the reality. As a species we have tried to overcome unfairness, biological and other and we have done a damned fine job over time and as a general trend. And sure we are on that continuing road, but we can only truly make things fair by first examining and acknowledging the objective realities behind the lack of fairness. Not by polarising stamping of feet, just because it may strike a personal nerve.

Lol. A personal nerve. When out of a good argument, make it personal. Going by the above, it seems that the topic is striking much more of a personal nerve with you, actually.

Life isn't fair but we as a society should be and should be striving towards it, not explaining away unfair or sexist attitudes with "it's only biology, you know". It means minimising them, letting them slide. We are meant to be rational brings, not let biology dictate our behaviours or attitudes to fellow human beings as a matter of unconsidered course.

As for childhood mortality, up to the twentieth century it had a huge bearing on the overall life expectancy. In the last century things changed for the better, so that now, it is just one of several factors to be considered.

OldNotWIse · 14-10-2016 10:51AM

I don't know where this argument about deference to biology is coming from. Many things we do defy (or at least rage against) biology. Not to trivialise the issue of childbearing, but simple antibiotics for example. The contraceptive pill. The morning after pill. Vaccinations. Every minute of every day of our lives we are defying biology on some level (or finding ways to use it to suit ourselves), and why not? It makes life better! People of "childbearing years" might need to use assisted reproduction to have a much longed for child - what's wrong with that? I've seen the joy that IVF babies have brought to close friends who yearned for children. Should they be slaves to biology too and say, "oh well, mother nature doesn't see babies in my life". To heck with that :P Biology might be the driving force behind our lives, but it doesn't mean we cant develop ways and means of outsmarting it for a time, to improve our lives.

seenitall · 14-10-2016 11:02AM

I'd be of the same view, ONW. Each to their own. Have a cut off point for yourself, or don't. Go with IVF, or don't. Just try and not judge other people on their choices.

Wibbs · 14-10-2016 11:26AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't know where this argument about deference to biology is coming from. Many things we do defy (or at least rage against) biology. Not to trivialise the issue of childbearing, but simple antibiotics for example. The contraceptive pill. The morning after pill. Vaccinations. Every minute of every day of our lives we are defying biology on some level (or finding ways to use it to suit ourselves), and why not? It makes life better! People of "childbearing years" might need to use assisted reproduction to have a much longed for child - what's wrong with that? I've seen the joy that IVF babies have brought to close friends who yearned for children. Should they be slaves to biology too and say, "oh well, mother nature doesn't see babies in my life". To heck with that :P Biology might be the driving force behind our lives, but it doesn't mean we cant develop ways and means of outsmarting it for a time, to improve our lives.

Oh I almost* entirely agree. I am merely pointing out some of the reasoning behind the naysayer positions and the double standards that can come into it. Hell, that stuff can get to daft proportions with some people refusing vaccines and antibiotics as "unnatural".

seenitall wrote: »

Lol. A personal nerve. When out of a good argument, make it personal. Going by the above, it seems that the topic is striking much more of a personal nerve with you, actually.

Your debate tactic isn't exactly snowy white. Cura te ipsum as it were. I find getting snippy, responding with a broad "you're wrong" rather than coming back with an actual rebuttal and finishing with the flourish of "No, you smell!!" are debate tactics best left in the schoolyard and far more indicative of axes grinding and personal nerves than relaying biological facts and why these may and usually do inform wider opinion.

Full disclosure; I've never wanted kids, nor want them now, so it's not something of much personal interest to me beyond the curiosity as an "outside observer". And as well as late fathers, many of the women in my family also had kids "late". My mum was well in her thirties and my paternal grandmother had her last at 41, my maternal grandmother had her last in her mid forties, all in the days before IVF with it. Geriatric mothers the lot of them.

If anything later life parenthood is what I grew up with and came to see as "natural".

*where I would be reticent to go in with unwavering support is in the grey areas of how these changes may affect society and any children born of such autumnal couplings. Mick Jagger or lately Janet Jackson having kids later in life is all very well. For them, as extremely wealthy individuals with all the assets, support and medical science at their disposal. It's a different kettle of fish for average Sean and Siobhan O'Citizen having kids at 50 plus. That's before the potential health of the kids involved and the risks with older eggs, sperm and wombs. Will we increase the burden on society because of the selfish, if completely understandable and heartfelt need to reproduce beyond the "ideal" years? That may turn out to be a red herring of course. Advances now and in the future with medical science will likely filter many of those potential issues out.

seenitall · 14-10-2016 11:35AM

Apologies if I got snippy with you, Wibbs

(I actually don't think I did and cannot recognise any of the other stuff you imply I did in the course of our exchange, but happy to leave it all to the judgment of anyone reading the thread!)

Personal disclosure: I am already late for the library duty at my daughter's school. Catch you later, Wibbs, debater!

charlie_says · 14-10-2016 12:47PM

Wibbs wrote: »

average Sean and Siobhan O'Citizen

Ha ha that's great. Totally using that in the future.

Shinbin223 · 14-10-2016 01:26PM

I'm late 20s and would always have hoped to be in the stage of life now where I'd have a partner and we'd be thinking about starting a family in the next few years but I couldn't be further away from that at the moment.
If I happened to meet someone in my early to mid 30s and the time was right to start a family with them I would definitely try. However I think there has to be a point where you have to think realistically and practically. Maybe anywhere after early 40s is verging on the side of being too old. My parents are in their 70s and I have noticed a decline in their general busyness and ability to go places in the last year or two. They aren't able for foreign holidays anymore or wouldn't drive long distances. I often think if I am lucky enough to have children I won't be able to rely on them for babysitting although that said, lack of grandparents to help with babysitting probably wouldn't be a significant factor for someone who really wanted kids.
I always felt growing up that my parents were older than everyone else and they would be quite old fashioned in their thinking and views which contradicts my opinions at times but I don't resent them in anyway for being older. But if someone has always wanted kids and meets someone in their 30s or early 40s its very hard to say you're too old to have a baby. If the desire is very strong in someone it's very hard for age to over-ride it. A loving home and family and secure environment is the most important thing to consider and if a couple have that and are reasonably fit and healthy, they will most likely make great parents, irrespective of age.

minikin · 14-10-2016 01:31PM

If the child comes out wearing a Victorian bonnet - you've left it too late.

ambro25 · 14-10-2016 01:34PM

dfeo wrote: »

I think in Ireland if a woman has a baby over 35, it's considered a geriatric pregnancy. Christ :P

It is (or at least was, in 2004) younger still in the UK.
Mrs ambro25 was officially classed a 'geriatric mother' at 33.

Olishi4 · 14-10-2016 01:59PM

One of my grannies was 42 on her last child which I knew but I only recently worked out that she had her first at 28 which means that she had 10 children in 14 years!

Not sure how old my granda was but he died when the youngest was about 20. She died at 72 but she was quite active up until that time. The youngest was 30 and he was fairly close to her but independent enough at that stage.

Elliott S · 17-10-2016 04:30PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Mick Jagger's soon to born latest kid with a woman in her 30's(a dancer IIRC so fit as fook) will have a dad in his 70's, but said dad is a fit as a butchers dog and with more cash than Croesus. Their kid has essentially won the life lottery.

Mick Jagger looks terrible! I wouldn't think by looking at him that he is healthy. Maybe he is, but his appearance wouldn't indicate that.

Elliott S · 17-10-2016 04:32PM

seamus wrote: »

That's the thing.

You can "offset" the stiffer joints and diminished fitness of a 45-year-old with maturity and wealth that a 20 year old doesn't have.

But there's no "offsetting" the age-related genetic risk factors. You could be in the shape of your life at 45, a marathon every month, but a 20-year-old fatso will still have a lower risk of foetal defects and FFAs than you will.

No amount of anecdotes or "but an older parent can..."'s, can change the simple statistics.

Yeah, agreed. Fitness doesn't change the fact the genetic errors are more likely to happen in an older body than a younger one. The likelihood of genetic errors increases with age no matter the health of the individual.

Sure, an obese 20 year old might struggle more with the physical strain of carrying a child than a lithe 40 year old. But that obese 20 year old would be an outlier. In general, a 20 year old will handle the pregnancy much better than the 40 year old. And I believe I read in a college textbook that a 20 something is more likely to miscarry than an older expectant mother because the younger body is possibly better at detecting defects in the growing foetus.

Fitness doesn't counteract that genetics becomes more error-prone as one ages. Which is why so many fit older people still get cancer.

Elliott S · 17-10-2016 05:14PM

seenitall wrote: »

It is no more or less right or ethical than men in their 50s or 60s having babies. Yet no one seems to care about that so much, do they ? The same way you often find Ulrika Jonsson or Sinead O'Connor being called 4-by-4s (well at least a friend of mind did, and he didn't lick it off a stone) but I have never heard or read of Rod Stewart or Mick Jagger being called 7-by-4 or 8-by-5 or whatever number they're on at this stage!

I think one reason why it's more frowned upon for women is because even today, children are usually with their mother most of time. If a mother has four children by four different fathers, that's four different babydaddies calling to the house to bring their kid off for the weekend of whatever. Must be quite confusing for children. Whereas if you have four children by four different mothers and the kids are more than likely living with the mother, you are going to four different households to see your kids. It's not a great reason why women are more judged in this situation but I think it goes some way to explaining why some people frown on it more in women.

seenitall wrote: »

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/publication/global-health-and-aging/living-longer

As for evoking evolution to justify double standards in society, haven't we moved on from that? I imagine rape, as another example, used to be a perfectly acceptable reproduction strategy some time in our past. It's a cop out IMO. Hypocrisy is unacceptable, or should be.

It doesn't necessarily follow that because people are living longer, their genes will follow suit and slow their tendancy to become more error-prone as the body ages.

MRnotlob606 · 17-10-2016 05:22PM

My mother left me before I was born

When is it too old to have a baby?

Comments