As a 32-year-old with 3 kids, my parents are still in their mid-50s and can watch our kids for a week while we go on vacation. My father-in-law passed away last in his mid-70s (my mother-in-law is amazing and is a huge help, but she can't watch 3 kids alone for a week). There's a good chance my parents will be at my kids' weddings.

When you're 83 and your kid is my age, he'll probably wish there was anything he could do to make you 20 years younger.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have had a kid, or anything like that, but I don't know how you can suggest that it will never be a problem that you are a relatively old father (versus if you had kids in your 30s, other things being equal, which obviously they aren't).

It's nice that your parents are able to help with your kids. But, you know, it's rather common nowadays for people with kids to have parents (whatever their age) that live thousands of miles away...

I debated about whether to post this, because it’s rather emotive, even unsettling, but on the off chance it might actually sway someone, I will.

The average life expectancy for a male in the USA is 76. All other things being equal, a 51 year old father will die when their offspring is 25 years old. This is too early to lose a parent. Think about how this would have effected you, reader of this post. This is also assuming that the father does not experience any debilitating illnesses prior to dying, such as dementia, which would place an inordinate burden on a young person, who would have far fewer resources and life experience to draw on during such an ordeal.

These are not small potatoes. Think before you act, be responsible. You’re gambling with someone else’s life and wellbeing.

The life expectancy of a man who has already reached the age of 51 however, is 82, because that average no longer includes deaths of younger men. If you add things like good health, education and higher income, which are likely for someone that decides to have kids at 51 (and that manages to find a most likely younger partner willing to have kids with them), then one might lose their parent at the age of 35. It's still early but not uncommon.

That’s the best case scenario. Add in smoking, drinking, high blood pressure and obesity, all of which are common, and it’s as low as 62, from a starting age of 51.

Add in heroin addiction or a love of mountain climbing, and it can be pretty low at age 25!

If you happen to also have a time machine.

Oh? Would you like to tell when is a _good_ time for your father to die? He's going to die sometime, you know.

And maybe taking care of a parent with dementia is actually more of a problem when you're older and have kids of your own?

At my advanced age, I have the advantage of remembering things like the arguments you would hear back in the 1960's about why interracial marriage was a bad idea. Not because we're racist of course! But think of the practical difficulties. Like, the kids won't fit into either community! I'm sure you can think of more reasons too.

> Oh? Would you like to tell when is a _good_ time for your father to die?

The later the better.

> And maybe taking care of a parent with dementia is actually more of a problem when you're older and have kids of your own?

It would certainly be easier to deal with when you have more stability in your life and are more emotionally mature.

> At my advanced age, I have the advantage of remembering things like the arguments you would hear back in the 1960's about why interracial marriage was a bad idea. Not because we're racist of course! But think of the practical difficulties. Like, the kids won't fit into either community! I'm sure you can think of more reasons too.

Do you really think this is a reasonable comparison? Of course you’ll say that you do. It’s not.

Well, it may be that you're not ageist. You may instead be anti-natalist. If we were talking about a 20-year-old having a kid, you might go on about how they don't have the maturity necessary to take on such a responsibility. And of course it's obvious that you shouldn't have kids if you haven't achieved an upper-middle-class level of financial stability. Then there is the matter of genetics. Do you have ancestors who died of Alzheimer's disease, cancer, or heart disease? Those all have a genetic risk component. Do you want to pass on such genes to your kids?

The fact is that every kid comes into the world with some advantages and some disadvantages. Any disadvantages from having an older parent are at most on a par with the disadvantages from not having particularly wealthy parents, or not having parents with perfect genes, or having parents who were abused by their own parents, or having parents who aren't citizens of a first-world country, and so on and so on.

Would you like to assign me any more imaginary opinions? Your reply is an exercise in whatabouttery: ignore this harm because look at all those harms over there. Controlling the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control, and helps to alleviate obvious harm. Nothing you have said or can say will change that.

Your statement that "the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control" is just obviously false. Especially for men. But also for everyone, if you're trying to time things to mitigate other disadvantages.

In reality, you may be 51, and may be in a good position otherwise to have a kid, and the question is whether being 51 is a reason not to. And the answer is "no", it is not. Not unless you also think that other people with non-major reasons not to have a kid shouldn't. In other words, not unless you think nobody should have kids.

I am 26 and would definitely not have been ready for my father to die in the past year.

I don't wish to belittle the hardships and sadness having an elderly parent at a relatively young age may potentially bring, but the alternative you're suggesting is never being born, which surely is even less preferable.

No, I’m suggesting that you have your children earlier in life. It’s best to think of it like a certain number, the exact genetic identity of the kids is a toss-up anyway, and if you really want to argue that point you’d be arguing for being responsible for people not being born every day.

As long as you're suggesting not having one at 51, the point stands. But indeed, it is philosophically difficult.