When the risks to mother and/or the child are significant. How do you know when that is?

Well, I take a scientific approach and a personal approach to this answer. I know full well the risk of genetic defects in babies rises sharply after 30. You only need to review the risks of Downs Syndrome to know that having a baby at 35+ is a huge risk and I don't believe its a risk worth taking - the early scans that are used to detect this condition have I think helped many couples who have delayed pregnancy too long.

On a personal note I went to school with a girl whose parents were in their 60s when she was in high school. She was so embarrassed by their age she never invited friends over, they never helped her play sport or interact with other parents, they were like grandparents and she vowed to me she would have children young, it hurt her too much to put another generation through the same issues.

When I combine these two thoughts I get the feeling mothers should be young :) Having a baby after say 35-38 is risky, it could cause too many family issues and in the future the child may not even have a parent growing up. You might be dead before they really appreciate you as a person.....

I know many will disagree but I do believe the female body has limits - we are not meant to breed too late in life, that's why we're born with all our eggs. We don't make new ones. So those eggs that have been sitting in there for 40 years are old - old and possibly damaged.

Graph - Downs Syndrome verses Maternal Age

I think every woman has to decide that for herself. There are risks to having children late in life, and I'd have to wonder why any woman over 40 or so would choose to continue having children, or have their first one. Raising kids requires lots of physical and emotional energy, and by that age a woman can look forward to having grandchildren (assuming she already has children), which are a lot more fun beccause you can give them back to mom and dad when they have dirty diapers or start acting up. I was a grandma at 36, and although I wouldn't have wished to be a grandma at such a young age, I'm glad now that I was because it makes chasing after grandkids a lot easier!

i dont think there is an age. i think if the woman is still fertile, and the man and woman understand itll be more difficult than when they were younger, and both want the child, i see no reason why they cant. only if there is a high chance of death, do i think a woman should stop having children, as the woman has lived her life, hopefully as full as she can, so she deserves to be laid to rest peacfully.

I think it should be 40 years old.

That depends on the woman, whether she is willing to use donor eggs, and how healthy she is. Some women will live well into their nineties. Personally, I feel that tricking the body into coming out of menapause is walking a fine line. The max age that a woman should think of having a child with donor eggs is probably the early fifties. If genetic disorders are a concern, earlier than that. A person should think twice about using their own eggs after age 42, when there is a high incidence of Down's Syndrome.

I think menopause happens for a reason, and the women who use fertility techniques to extend childbearing to 60 or so are being selfish.

I think ideally having children if your late twenties or early thirties is ideal-- when you're old enough to have indulged yourself, and are stable enough to focus on your kids. That said, I have several friends who had children in their early forties who are wonderful mothers, with happy healthy children...so its really a personal decision. As a society however, if a woman has gone through menopause at a"normal" age (late forties or so, I am not in favor of health insurance paying for her to artifically recover her fertility to have a child.

You know how everyone "cites the woman that had a child when she was 60"??

Yeah, that was my MOTHER IN LAW!

Seriously. 60. Past menopause. By years. But brand-new husband, too much money, and a questionable sense of medical ethics....boom. My husband's youngest "brother" is now younger than my daughter.

And yes. It's too old. They can't carry the kid around. They can't play with him. And they will be 78 when he's a senior in high school.

So based on all this, I do think I kind of have a special perspective on the whole question of how old is too old, and I've done a LOT of thinking about this very question. Here's what I've come up with:

I personally think that a woman is too old to have kids when she goes through menopause. Period. If her body is no longer naturally fertile by virtue of age, that is nature's way of saying that reproduction should cease. Modern science may make it possible, but can't make it right. I say this not only out of concern for a mother's safety and capability, but also out of concern for the kid. What kind of life might they have with such an older parent?

If you are still naturally fertile and think you're up for the sleep deprivation, years of commitment, and can really put your heart into raising another kid, then you go girl!

40s? Fine.
50s? Maybe okay....if you're still fertile.

60s? No. Not okay in my book.

(my opinion, for what it's worth, having lived the family controversy and fighting)

I had a surprise the year of my fortieth birthday. We tried for 17 years to have a baby but it never happened. During a yearly checkup I was 'diagnosed' with pregnancy. Our daughter will soon be six years old. I can't imagine life without her. I don't know what I did before I had her.

Sometimes while I watch her sleep, I say a short prayer that I'll live long enough to raise her, so that she'll know she had a mom. I realize that being young is no guarantee of living to raise your children but I think it helps. I think 40 is the age to stop having children.

If I had my choice of when to have had my daughter, of course I would prefer to be younger but God had other ideas. I'm just grateful He didn't think I was too old.

I find it strange that only the woman is taken into account in this question, and in most answers. Where is the father in the equation? Sure, the woman has to give birth, with all risks involved, but hey, having a retired father at the age of ten is not very pleasant too!

For this, I refer to what my (Dutch) government has decided for international adoption. The age between the oldest parent and the to-be-adopted child can be no more than 40. This limit is not arbitrarily, even though I know The Netherlands is one of the few countries that enforces such a limit. But it makes perfect sense. When you have a child, you have to be able to take care of your child, at least until it is 18, accidents or special situations provided.

So, to answer your question: I think that as soon as ANY of the parents reaches 39, one should stop having children.

Woman should stop having children when she feels that it is impossible to take care of it. Usually 32 is the maximum age to have children. Because she need to take care of it atleast for 15 years that is 32 + 15 = 47. By 47 woman has passed almost 2/3 life. After 47 she should have time for own. Not for family. And its better to have children in age 22-28 medically.

It really depends on whether or not the woman is willing to spend the rest of her life raising children,

A child born before the woman reaches 29 will be grown before she reaches retirement. The woman giving birth to a child at 50 may not live to see her child graduate from college.

Nature meant for us to have our children before 35, when fertility drops off dramatically.

I believe women should have children before they reach 30 and should avoid pregnancy after they reach 40.childbir