Actually, there is an increased risk of probs with paternal age, as well. It turns out that a portion of the risks associated with maternal age are actually relevant to paternal age. Usually, the guy is older, and that increases the risks as the woman ages because her partner is aging and older than she. If the man is younger, what had been categorized as the woman’s risks of general genetic disorders in offspring are slightly lower than the average at the upper age brackets.
For the social/familial/structural issues, if there is an age difference between the parents, then the issue is somewhat moderated by that - one parent older, one younger bothers me less than both older. I have a friend (ex-boyfriend) who is … late 40’s I think. Yeah, almost 50. His wife is almost 30. They just had their first child. He struggled with the concept, worried that he’d be too old, concerned with the risks, etc. But honestly, I can’t imagine him NOT having kids, and he tried to get going on having kids long before 30 (previous wife didn’t want them, I think, and several relationship disasters in between then and now). He’s a great guy, and an utterly devoted daddy. Yeah, he’s going to run out of steam somewhat before his wife does. But he is still going to be a great dad for many years to come, and has enough energy at this point to seem pretty much like all the mid-30’s dads I know.
This strikes me as the same issue as the terminal disease one - if someone has a terminal disease that is likely to kill them in oh, 10-20 years, should they have kids? How about 2 years? How about 30 years with increasing levels of disability in the meantime? And how do you decide? You can only assess on an individual basis, IMHO.
I know of people who went out of their way to have kids even though there was a high risk of an illness in the father being terminal within 5 years. They felt that having kids together was important, regardless of whether he was terminal. They decided to go on living their lives, and deal with the issues as they came up. Some peopel disagree with the concept, but it is really a matter of what you find to be most important - using the time you have, or hedging against the time you don’t. And even with the hedging, it isn’t a guarantee - a new treatment, or this treatment being successful, and that dad could easily live decades (they already had two kids, BTW, just added one more after diagnosis). Putting off a critical choice like when/whether to have kids based on an unknown, even if there is a reasonable probability, isn’t necessarily ideal, either. It is a matter of where your priorities are - in living your life on a daily basis, or on planning for the unknowns. You certainly can’t plan for unknonws once you HAVE kids, though. Also, the decision is based one whether your goals are related to the child’s needs, or your needs as an individual, or even your collective needs as a (potential) family.
Overall, I don’t advise having kids if you don’t know you want them, though having them (regardless) often cures the lack of certainty, usually in a good way, sometimes not. But if you decide you want them, or think there’s a good probability of that, age in your partner and yourself is a factor to consider. I had a cutoff for health/genetics issues - we wanted three kids. So we counted back from my top age for conception (preference: 37), factored in some time for conception to occur (85% conceive w/in a year, but many take 6-9 months), and counted back based on general preference for age-between-kids. That meant trying at 29. Period. We planned, and didn’t have enough financial stability at 29. So I got pregnant the following year. Good thing we factored in the excess, and that it took me no time at all to get pregnant… Over planned? probably. But I felt it was unfair to both me and the child to push the risks too far up the ladder on my age (epeepunk is younger than I am, so that isn’t an issue).
An absolute age limit is unreasonable, IMHO. It has to be individual. For some people, 40 will be way too old. For others, 60 isn’t too old. Yeah, we could say that any age where you don’t expect to live at least 18 more years, is potentially selfish - though some would still disagree. But degree of interaction, energy, ability, health, etc., is too narrow a view, IMHO. Under that restriction, people with disabilities should never have kids, regardless of their ability level. Should people with MS not have kids? How about parapalegics? Can’t run about, catch a racing toddler, don’t have the energy to play baseball in the yard until dark, might not be able to make it to every school function… same applies to older fathers (or mothers).
The biggest issue here is probably the health of the child. But there’s always adoption. And no guarantee that she’ll even still be fertile at that age.
Good luck working it out. I don’t think you are technically too old, even on the long-range-plan. But holding out that long increases other risks, too. You may have to compromise if you want to take the relationship further. And by then, you as an individual may be too old, for your life and your situation. No telling from here, is there?
It’s a real learning experience.