As half of a married couple who has no children, this is an interesting question to be asked.
From my completely unbiased standpoint, as I have absolutely no dog in this fight, the only advantages I can see to having a child after the age of 45 would be that:
1. You would (presumably) be in a much better financial situation for both it and you, giving it a higher quality of life throughout its formative years and into your retirement.
2. You would be much more experienced (in life, in career, etc) and be able to focus on the child rather than on your own personal growth.
The disadvantages, I’m afraid, are numerous.
1. You will be retirement age before it graduates high school (if you haven’t yet died, that is.)
2. If you weren’t planning on adoption or surrogacy and actually wanted to carry the thing yourself over 45, you run a very high risk of having a child with birth defects.
3. Having lived 45 years without any children, you would suddenly find your entire world has changed overnight. You are no longer free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. (You think pets tie you down? Think again.)
4. Children are exhausting. They have a lot of random needs at all hours of the day and night, and they don’t take off on weekends and holidays. As you get older, they need more of you. When you are 60 you’ll be the one expected to rally little league or drive them to soccer practice.
5. And, based on current average marriage age and average age of death, you likely won’t get to see them married, or have children, or see their families grow up. You will have them for a few years and that’s it.
Realistically, though, there is nothing that will convince someone not to have a child when they truly want one, and vice Versa.
Originally Posted: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-having-your-first-child-when-youre-45
Originally Posted On: 2016-01-31