ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

Home → Health

What is the ‘right’ age to have a child? Here’s what the science says

The science is clear: the “right” age to have a child according to your biological clock is under 35 for women and under 40 for men.

Contributing AuthorbyContributing Author
November 19, 2018 - Updated on November 27, 2021
in Health, News
A A
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterSubmit to Reddit
Credit: Pixabay.
Credit: Pixabay.

Over the past three decades, there has been a steady increase in the average age of parents. Advances in fertility science mean that people can, literally, put their eggs or sperm on ice and delay the start of parenthood. Many large companies, such as Apple, Facebook and Google, now offer egg freezing to employees as part of their healthcare package. Putting off having a baby has never been easier or more socially acceptable. But is it a good thing?

There are three things to consider. Will your child be healthy? Will you get pregnant? How much will it cost?

Parents have a moral obligation to give their child the best start in life. But children born to mothers over the age of 35 and fathers over the age of 45 are at greater risk of having genetic and neurodevelopmental disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, which arguably affects the child’s quality of life.

Also, older parents are more likely to need assisted reproduction, such as IVF, which is associated with babies being born early or with low birth weight. Babies born via IVF are also at higher risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease in later life.

If prospective parents freeze their eggs or sperm when they are younger, they can reduce some age-associated risks but not those due to IVF. The method of fertilisation in IVF with frozen eggs is intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where sperm is injected into the egg. ICSI can also increase the risk of birth defects in children. Using ICSI is also more common in older men where sperm motility is poor. Again, not the best start in life.

So you’ve decided to wait

If you want to wait to have children, you are not alone.

Most couples will fall pregnant after trying for a year. Although one in seven couples has trouble conceiving – and age is a big player in this. One in six women aged between 35 and 39 years of age will not conceive after one year. If their partner is over 40, this drops to more than one in four.

RelatedPosts

American mothers are weirdly starting to eat placentas — and that might be fatally dangerous for babies
This baby was born with a rare condition that deformed his skull
“Wave of maturation” prepares our brains for adolescence
Personality traits are “contagious among children” — especially good ones

IVF is seen by many as a fail-safe way of conceiving, but its success is also governed by age. For a woman using her own eggs, the success of IVF over 40 is less than 10%.

The risks of delaying parenthood have been simulated with computer modelling. If a 30-year-old woman delays trying for a baby from age 30 until 35, her chances of falling pregnant are reduced by 9%, but IVF will only compensate for 4%.

And if you want to freeze eggs, great. Except women produce fewer eggs (“oocytes”) as they get older, so older women may need more rounds of stimulation to store the eight to ten eggs needed for a reasonable chance of a successful birth – and this can be extremely expensive.

What will it cost you?

Although IVF is expensive, there are also other significant indirect costs of having a child.

The “motherhood wage penalty” is often cited in economic discussions about the effect of motherhood on women’s careers. It is the loss of earnings women are subjected to as they move into a non-paid job for a period of time. There is some evidence to suggest that women can earn more by delaying motherhood from their early twenties to early thirties.

But this wage penalty does not appear to be gender specific. A paternity quota of parental leave was introduced by the Norwegian government in 1993, and a study found a similar negative effect on the earnings of stay-at-home fathers.

The bottom line is, if you take time out to have a family there will be a drop in earnings.

When to start?

The scientific data is clear. The “right” age to have a child according to your biological clock is under 35 for women and under 40 for men.

More than 75% of young people underestimate the impact of age on male and female fertility – yet only 27% of doctors discuss this with patients aged 18-34 years who wish to delay childbearing for social reasons. There needs to be a greater awareness about the risks of delaying family planning, and family doctors should play a more proactive role in this.

So, ultimately, if you want to have a child, the right age may be sooner than you thought.

Charlotte Walker, DPhil Candidate in Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford and Suzannah Williams, Principal Investigator, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tags: babychildbirthchildren

ShareTweetShare
Contributing Author

Contributing Author

This article was authored by one of our readers or friends.

Related Posts

Health

Programs delivering fluoride varnish in schools significantly reduce cavities in children

byMihai Andrei
2 months ago
Health

Science Just Debunked the ‘Guns Don’t Kill People’ Argument Again. This Time, It’s Kids

byMihai Andrei
2 months ago
News

Scientists Tracked Countless Outcomes of Spanking Children and Found Zero Benefits. On the Contrary, There Is Only Harm

byTibi Puiu
3 months ago
Science

A third of the world’s youth is near-sighted. In parts of East Asia, it’s 90%

byMihai Andrei
11 months ago

Recent news

The UK Government Says You Should Delete Emails to Save Water. That’s Dumb — and Hypocritical

August 16, 2025

In Denmark, a Vaccine Is Eliminating a Type of Cervical Cancer

August 16, 2025
This Picture of the Week shows a stunning spiral galaxy known as NGC 4945. This little corner of space, near the constellation of Centaurus and over 12 million light-years away, may seem peaceful at first — but NGC 4945 is locked in a violent struggle. At the very centre of nearly every galaxy is a supermassive black hole. Some, like the one at the centre of our own Milky Way, aren’t particularly hungry. But NGC 4945’s supermassive black hole is ravenous, consuming huge amounts of matter — and the MUSE instrument at ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) has caught it playing with its food. This messy eater, contrary to a black hole’s typical all-consuming reputation, is blowing out powerful winds of material. This cone-shaped wind is shown in red in the inset, overlaid on a wider image captured with the MPG/ESO telescope at La Silla. In fact, this wind is moving so fast that it will end up escaping the galaxy altogether, lost to the void of intergalactic space. This is part of a new study that measured how winds move in several nearby galaxies. The MUSE observations show that these incredibly fast winds demonstrate a strange behaviour: they actually speed up far away from the central black hole, accelerating even more on their journey to the galactic outskirts. This process ejects potential star-forming material from a galaxy, suggesting that black holes control the fates of their host galaxies by dampening the stellar birth rate. It also shows that the more powerful black holes impede their own growth by removing the gas and dust they feed on, driving the whole system closer towards a sort of galactic equilibrium. Now, with these new results, we are one step closer to understanding the acceleration mechanism of the winds responsible for shaping the evolution of galaxies, and the history of the universe. Links  Research paper in Nature Astronomy by Marconcini et al. Close-up view of NGC 4945’s nucleus

Astronomers Find ‘Punctum,’ a Bizarre Space Object That Might be Unlike Anything in the Universe

August 15, 2025
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Editorial Policy
  • Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • How we review products
  • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Science News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Space
  • Future
  • Features
    • Natural Sciences
    • Physics
      • Matter and Energy
      • Quantum Mechanics
      • Thermodynamics
    • Chemistry
      • Periodic Table
      • Applied Chemistry
      • Materials
      • Physical Chemistry
    • Biology
      • Anatomy
      • Biochemistry
      • Ecology
      • Genetics
      • Microbiology
      • Plants and Fungi
    • Geology and Paleontology
      • Planet Earth
      • Earth Dynamics
      • Rocks and Minerals
      • Volcanoes
      • Dinosaurs
      • Fossils
    • Animals
      • Mammals
      • Birds
      • Fish
      • Amphibians
      • Reptiles
      • Invertebrates
      • Pets
      • Conservation
      • Animal facts
    • Climate and Weather
      • Climate change
      • Weather and atmosphere
    • Health
      • Drugs
      • Diseases and Conditions
      • Human Body
      • Mind and Brain
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Wellness
    • History and Humanities
      • Anthropology
      • Archaeology
      • History
      • Economics
      • People
      • Sociology
    • Space & Astronomy
      • The Solar System
      • Sun
      • The Moon
      • Planets
      • Asteroids, meteors & comets
      • Astronomy
      • Astrophysics
      • Cosmology
      • Exoplanets & Alien Life
      • Spaceflight and Exploration
    • Technology
      • Computer Science & IT
      • Engineering
      • Inventions
      • Sustainability
      • Renewable Energy
      • Green Living
    • Culture
    • Resources
  • Videos
  • Reviews
  • About Us
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Editorial policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.