How is having a baby when you're older?

[nane1104 146]

All right already. We get the fact that you are pi$ed off at what I had to say!

*shrugs*

I never insinuated children born to older parents would rather not have lived. I never dictated who can or cannot have children. You may be a mathematical genius, but your reading comprehension skills are poor indeed. Yes, I admit to talking about children growing up to be adults. Maybe you haven't met some of the dingy females I have known who have more babies because they like the way babies smell. Or because you should always have more than one child because what if you only have one and it dies - you need a spare you know. Or the woman nearing the end of her fertility trying to get pregnant in order to preserve her youth - kind of like a guy in mid life crisis who buys a convertible, but with bigger implications. There are lots of these types out there having babies every day, which is why we have truant officers, therapists, and DHHR.

You mentioned you had children in your 50's correct? I don't know if you had any when you were younger. Children that are grown now. If so, have you had acquaintance with their parents and families? If you don't know already, you'll find out soon that lots of kids have crack pot parents. Maybe these parents didn't think it through before they brought these children into the world? Who knows? I know without a doubt that your heart will break for these throw-away kids.

If you've given as much thought to having your children as you have with arguing at me, then you're probably a good Father. And Wilfred will probably make a good Dad too. All I am saying is anyone contemplating parenthood should look with their eyes wide open. If you choose to start a family in your later years, then you are foolish if you don't consider that fact. And I don't mean any of this with condescension. I am speaking from the experience of having raised my own son to adulthood. I saw neglected kids in in his class rooms, and in my home. Kids whose parents did not care where they were, or what time they got home. Kids of parents of all ages. Kids of parents who didn't think it through.

Peace.

You are making some good points here. I think the reason why some people are reacting the way they do to your posts is, because this thread was not about "should older people have kids?" but a specific question from Wilfred about experiences of people who had children at a later age. Obviously, Wilfred has been thinking and wondering about the "downsides" of becoming a father at his point in life, otherwise he wouldn't have posted the question.

Your statements have little to do with children of older parents. They might be good advice for any future parent to ask themselves of the motives of having kids, but they have nothing to do specifically with people of an older age.

I am in my 30s and I have seen and dealt with a lot of children of parents who I wished would have not had that child, who I wished they had asked themselves why they wanted that child in the first place. But guess what- none of them were older than 35.

[TBoneTX 43,022]

+20 to rlogan for his last two posts.

[DeeDee&Sam 68]

Tha arrogance of youth thinking they know more than their elders. When you've grown up you will understand a lot better how the elders you are insulting have far more maturity than you do.

The OP came here asking for input precisely because he was thinking not for the moment, but for the long run. Despite that demonstration, yes - we'll have people, especially the young and immature, that are too wrapped up in their self-image as wiser than their elders that they will make comments like these.

One major difference between your elder in the OP and you is that he's capable of listening to other people with experience whereas his junior thinks he already knows everything.

LOL you dont dare to call me imature and other ####### cause you dont know ####### about me and you have no right ok? first of all i didnt even read the posts from other members, i replied straight to the topic. second, my grandma was pregnant with my uncle when mom was pregnant with me, she was over 45, and hell she didnt have any problem with it, neither did other people. you dont call me arrogant cause there was no arrogance in what i said, it was friendly advice to do what he feels like he wants to do. now you go get a life because you collecting hearts insulting me will get you nowhere. if you dont have anyting better to say then insulting me without reason then you seriously have a mental problem. BAD one

[Sam & DeeDee 4]

Tha arrogance of youth thinking they know more than their elders. When you've grown up you will understand a lot better how the elders you are insulting have far more maturity than you do.

The OP came here asking for input precisely because he was thinking not for the moment, but for the long run. Despite that demonstration, yes - we'll have people, especially the young and immature, that are too wrapped up in their self-image as wiser than their elders that they will make comments like these.

One major difference between your elder in the OP and you is that he's capable of listening to other people with experience whereas his junior thinks he already knows everything.

(Off topic)Exactly, he was here asking for input... If that is what she has to say, then she has the right to say it. You insulting and assaulting her has nothing to do with this topic. Grow up and leave her alone.

(On topic) I say go for it, if you want a kid and you feel that you can handle having a new kid, then there is nothing to stop you. Age is just a number, because I know of a family that had a kid when they were almost 50, and the kid is a great person, who learned a lot of life lessons from his parents. He is a hard working man now, and has a lot more respect than almost any kid I've seen raised by younger parents. It's all in a mindset of how you decide to do it and if you are really willing to have the kid. Statistics mean nothing. They are just a number put out in life to say "oh you have this chance of living and dying day to day" to scare people. Live your life to the fullest, otherwise you're not living at all. Just my opinion.

[rlogan 2,036]

Someone's ego is too big to admit they are wrong about stating the OP is 75% likely to die, so we get manipulation instead of admission of error:

We get the fact that you are pi$$ed off at what I had to say!

*shrugs*

First, the pretense you are speaking for everyone by saying "we". Then trying to paint the person pointing out actuarial tables as an angry person. An ad hominem. Not that they've corrected your multiple wrong statements on life expectancy or anything... they're just a mad-dog crazy person boiling with anger.

Next, pretending it is no big deal to you, *shrugs*, not even worth a response - except for the ad hominems and other manipulative arguments. Anything but admit you were wrong, eh?

I never insinuated children born to older parents would rather not have lived. I never dictated who can or cannot have children.

Once those are pointed out, it of course has to be denied.

You may be a mathematical genius, but your reading comprehension skills are poor indeed.

This is an interesting tactic they put under the denial heading. The first part is almost masquerading as a compliment, except that it is stated with such exaggeration it is clearly contempt instead, and it is followed by the insult which is the actual intention - I can't even read.

Yes, I admit to talking about children growing up to be adults.

This one is a form of denial. Instead of admitting to what you did - which was state rather plainly that others didn't know children grew up - you "admit" to not doing that at all.

Maybe you haven't met some of the dingy females I have known who have more babies because they like the way babies smell. Or because you should always have more than one child because what if you only have one and it dies - you need a spare you know. Or the woman nearing the end of her fertility trying to get pregnant in order to preserve her youth - kind of like a guy in mid life crisis who buys a convertible, but with bigger implications. There are lots of these types out there having babies every day, which is why we have truant officers, therapists, and DHHR. You mentioned you had children in your 50's correct? I don't know if you had any when you were younger. Children that are grown now. If so, have you had acquaintance with their parents and families? If you don't know already, you'll find out soon that lots of kids have crack pot parents. Maybe these parents didn't think it through before they brought these children into the world? Who knows? I know without a doubt that your heart will break for these throw-away kids.

A big pile of Rationalization combined with diversion. None of such people are here. You directed your condescention to people here that said nothing of the kind. The OP is a 63 year old man who sounds very responsible. About the last person I would expect to be a crack addict throwing his kids away.

If you've given as much thought to having your children as you have with arguing at me,

The individual is directed to look in the mirror. This is another ad hominem that reeks with hypocrisy.

All I am saying is anyone contemplating parenthood should look with their eyes wide open. If you choose to start a family in your later years, then you are foolish if you don't consider that fact.

Which is exactly why all this derision is such nonsense. The topic of the thread is that very thing: to talk about people's experiences, like mine, of having kids later in life. So what is the point of repeatedly insisting we do what we are already doing? Rhetorical question.

And I don't mean any of this with condescension. I am speaking from the experience of having raised my own son to adulthood. I saw neglected kids in in his class rooms, and in my home. Kids whose parents did not care where they were, or what time they got home. Kids of parents of all ages. Kids of parents who didn't think it through.

So you are not even a person who had kids later in life and you have zero personal experience to relate on that specific topic. Just the derision, and as someone else has pointed out - a lot of things having nothing to do with it, eg. crack-head parents, people incapable of understanding kids grow up, etc.

You are merely a parent, which makes you no more qualified to speak than the other billions of parents.

Ending with "Peace" is an interesting cap to all this derision, insulting, and manipulative posting. One of the things I did not comment on was how you attacked T-Bone for the responsible point about life insurance. You turned that into an insult too, about how money does not replace a parent. Again, who doesn't know that? It's not only a sound point, but it deserves fuller discussion instead of insulting people who bring it up. How much insurance is appropriate, no matter whether you are 30 or 63 is an important topic. So why show such contempt for it?

You're in my manipulator tractor beam now, and once you're there the only way out is to stop doing it. Admitting you were wrong is something people can respect you for.

Edited August 31, 2011 by rlogan

[Dan and Judy 614]

Tha arrogance of youth thinking they know more than their elders. When you've grown up you will understand a lot better how the elders you are insulting have far more maturity than you do.

The OP came here asking for input precisely because he was thinking not for the moment, but for the long run. Despite that demonstration, yes - we'll have people, especially the young and immature, that are too wrapped up in their self-image as wiser than their elders that they will make comments like these.

One major difference between your elder in the OP and you is that he's capable of listening to other people with experience whereas his junior thinks he already knows everything.

We young people resent your remarks. Yes the OP is capable of listening but some older people prefer to just rant an rave at the young.

[TBoneTX 43,022]

+50 to rlogan's last post.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Someone's ego is too big to admit they are wrong about stating the OP is 75% likely to die, so we get manipulation instead of admission of error:

First, the pretense you are speaking for everyone by saying "we". Then trying to paint the person pointing out actuarial tables as an angry person. An ad hominem. Not that they've corrected your multiple wrong statements on life expectancy or anything... they're just a mad-dog crazy person boiling with anger.

Next, pretending it is no big deal to you, *shrugs*, not even worth a response - except for the ad hominems and other manipulative arguments. Anything but admit you were wrong, eh?

Once those are pointed out, it of course has to be denied.

This is an interesting tactic they put under the denial heading. The first part is almost masquerading as a compliment, except that it is stated with such exaggeration it is clearly contempt instead, and it is followed by the insult which is the actual intention - I can't even read.

This one is a form of denial. Instead of admitting to what you did - which was state rather plainly that others didn't know children grew up - you "admit" to not doing that at all.

A big pile of Rationalization combined with diversion. None of such people are here. You directed your condescention to people here that said nothing of the kind. The OP is a 63 year old man who sounds very responsible. About the last person I would expect to be a crack addict throwing his kids away.

The individual is directed to look in the mirror. This is another ad hominem that reeks with hypocrisy.

Which is exactly why all this derision is such nonsense. The topic of the thread is that very thing: to talk about people's experiences, like mine, of having kids later in life. So what is the point of repeatedly insisting we do what we are already doing? Rhetorical question.

So you are not even a person who had kids later in life and you have zero personal experience to relate on that specific topic. Just the derision, and as someone else has pointed out - a lot of things having nothing to do with it, eg. crack-head parents, people incapable of understanding kids grow up, etc.

You are merely a parent, which makes you no more qualified to speak than the other billions of parents.

Ending with "Peace" is an interesting cap to all this derision, insulting, and manipulative posting. One of the things I did not comment on was how you attacked T-Bone for the responsible point about life insurance. You turned that into an insult too, about how money does not replace a parent. Again, who doesn't know that? It's not only a sound point, but it deserves fuller discussion instead of insulting people who bring it up. How much insurance is appropriate, no matter whether you are 30 or 63 is an important topic. So why show such contempt for it?

You're in my manipulator tractor beam now, and once you're there the only way out is to stop doing it. Admitting you were wrong is something people can respect you for.

Having a different point of view than yours is not being "wrong". And since you are not the Forum God, I'm unconcerned about your "tractor beam". As Woody said to Buzz Lightyear, "What are you going to do, blink me to death".

[keysjangle 145]

If you are physically sound then I don't see why not. As long as you take care of yourself and your wife (before/throughout/after pregnancy) why would there be an issue? Of course the unforeseen is always lurking, but like others have said, it could happen at any age.

Personally, I have no kids (yet), but I do remember having a very good friend who had "the old dad". Prepare yourself for this when your child's friends see you picking him/her up from school. I don't particularly remember my friend being picked on for it, but I definitely know people talked about it, and knowing how kids are it's very possible it could happen to yours.

If you haven't been taking care of your body (i.e. limited physical activity, not eating well, not sleeping enough, etc) I would start now. That child will depend on you, so you need to make sure you're in the best form possible - especially on those wonderful sleepless nights.

Good luck

[rlogan 2,036]

This is my closing post here, ending on the comment that this thread is a perfect example of how being an older parent can be so beneficial to your children's lives.

Generally as you get older you learn from your mistakes and are wiser from it. Younger people are more prone to let their emotions get the best of them, to speak before they think, to plot revenge instead of how to avoid what got them into trouble, etc. Not always true of course as some people remain children for the rest of their lives.

One of the things we learn as we mature is that acknowledging our mistakes is such a trivial thing to do, and has such beneficial results. Here in the thread we have a person that would rather go to their coffin than admit this error:

Odds are probably about 75% that you won't see this child graduate from high school.

There is no issue more grave than life and death, so this isn't some trivial error. For example, the most important mistake people make in retirement planning is the one she made and continues to insist is unimportant: thinking that since life expectancy at birth is 75, that their life expectancy at age 65 is still 75. You don't need ten years of money to retire at 65. You need over 17 years on average - almost twice as long. Here's the Social Security Administration Actuarial table. I use ones from the Department of Labor that are much more detailed, by race and type of work, etc:

Social Security Actuarial Table

Our poster pretends to be thinking about the children, and here is a great example of where you become a burden on your children with her kind of thinking: never admit to an error. Always deny you are wrong. Change the subject instead of your thinking. Attack the messenger, etc. Then your kids have to live with this bitter, manipulative person for the last seven years of their life because your retirement planning was so wrong.

Her children will have been taught by her to never admit to an error. They will have been taught all of the manipulative tactics like this instead:

Having a different point of view than yours is not being "wrong".

We can be quite confident that this person's son says exactly the same thing when he makes an error this grave. Life expectancy is not an opinion. But she has trained her son by example to respond manipulatively like this instead of doing the right thing, which is admit we were wrong and change our plans. The fact she continued to hold the same wrong opinion even when told about actuarial tables means her son has been given an extemely powerful inculcation of denial and closed-mindedness to even matters as important as life and death.

Her son will also have learned to do this:

And since you are not the Forum God, I'm unconcerned about your "tractor beam". As Woody said to Buzz Lightyear, "What are you going to do, blink me to death".

Generally speaking manipulative people are doing the opposite of what they are saying. We are instructed to watch their actions instead of listening to their words. The words say she is unconcerned whereas the actions of responding to every post say the exact opposite. That is what she taught her children to do. The literature is pretty emphatic that manipulative, antisocial behavior is passed from parent to child. You can tell them they should admit to mistakes, but the more powerful teacher is your own actions. They know hypocrisy when they see it, and they stop listening to you at all - for good reason.

The other thing her children will learn from this kind of action, deployed repeatedly in the thread, is to push people's emotional buttons to get what you want. Try to make them angry, hurt, humiliated, etc. If it works, then you point to their anger and blame them for it.

The research says that none of these manipulative tactics takes any brains. Children utilize them because they have not been taught that being manipulative is not just ethically wrong, but leads to great difficulties for you in life. The authors talk about manipulative people not being smart, but instead having arrested emotional development and an impaired conscience. People get tired of dealing with them, and they are shunned socially. People do not say "oh, he's really smart..." they say things like the book titles written of them: "Nasty People", "Without Conscience", etc.

I had read none of these books/articles when I was young and see how much more important they are to children's futures than things I thought were important then, like protecting my ego. It is ironic that the person who demonstrates the least in terms of inculcating values into children is making the most noise about it. That's the way the manipulative literature says it's going to be though. The most likely thing is we have another adult now who spent their whole lives being trained in the manipulative arts, and it will be passed onto their children too until someone breaks this vicious cycle.

That is why the red herring about being alive when they are 20 is so silly. If you are still teaching them at 20 never to admit to mistakes then one might argue it is better if you had died when they were young. This is the kind of mistake that can ruin their lives.

A person with problems this substantial can, through counseling, become a better person and parent - which points yet again to the benefits of being an older parent. Even if we were a total dysfunctional antisocial jerk at 20, we can later in life blossom into the oppposite. It is never too late.

To the youngsters with the arrogance of youth - there isn't anything I can teach you, nor do I wish to try. There is an old joke that goes something like this: "When I was 18 my old man was incredibly stupid. When I became 30 it was amazing how much he had learned." I put that into a speech I had been invited to give when I was 18, but I gave the joke because I didn't feel that way at all. I didn't have that same arrogance and was eager to learn from my father. I didn't do the teen rebellion thing. So my only comment is that you don't speak for youth in general, but only for the component having no respect for the experience of your elders.

Apple & Wil - you are going to be a great parent to your new kids. The kinds of things I see in you are the kinds of things that will serve those kids for the rest of their lives, which is way more important than the length of yours.

Edited August 31, 2011 by rlogan

[Dan and Judy 614]

A more patronizing post would be hard to find. Children need parents that are not so full of themselves that they have fantasies about grown adults being little babies in comparison to themselves.

You are also dead wrong on this:

According to actuarial tables, a 63 year old male has an average life expectancy of 19 years. It matters a great deal what kind of diet, exercise, alcohol, smoking, etc. that you are doing so a person taking care of themselves has a life expectancy significantly longer whereas an alcoholic chain smoker is going to die in short order.

Do you teach your children to just make things up to support your prejudices? For example, if you don't like blacks then just make up a statistic about 75% of blacks being criminals. No sense in actually knowing what you are talking about, is there?

I believe ,using Riogans numbers, a 63 year old who starts now to make a baby now has about a 50% chance of living to see a child graduate at 18. That's a coin toss.

best wish to the OP.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Dan and Judy

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

This is my closing post here, ending on the comment that this thread is a perfect example of how being an older parent can be so beneficial to your children's lives.

Generally as you get older you learn from your mistakes and are wiser from it. Younger people are more prone to let their emotions get the best of them, to speak before they think, to plot revenge instead of how to avoid what got them into trouble, etc. Not always true of course as some people remain children for the rest of their lives.

One of the things we learn as we mature is that acknowledging our mistakes is such a trivial thing to do, and has such beneficial results. Here in the thread we have a person that would rather go to their coffin than admit this error:

There is no issue more grave than life and death, so this isn't some trivial error. For example, the most important mistake people make in retirement planning is the one she made and continues to insist is unimportant: thinking that since life expectancy at birth is 75, that their life expectancy at age 65 is still 75. You don't need ten years of money to retire at 65. You need over 17 years on average - almost twice as long. Here's the Social Security Administration Actuarial table. I use ones from the Department of Labor that are much more detailed, by race and type of work, etc:

Social Security Actuarial Table

Our poster pretends to be thinking about the children, and here is a great example of where you become a burden on your children with her kind of thinking: never admit to an error. Always deny you are wrong. Change the subject instead of your thinking. Attack the messenger, etc. Then your kids have to live with this bitter, manipulative person for the last seven years of their life because your retirement planning was so wrong.

Her children will have been taught by her to never admit to an error. They will have been taught all of the manipulative tactics like this instead:

We can be quite confident that this person's son says exactly the same thing when he makes an error this grave. Life expectancy is not an opinion. But she has trained her son by example to respond manipulatively like this instead of doing the right thing, which is admit we were wrong and change our plans. The fact she continued to hold the same wrong opinion even when told about actuarial tables means her son has been given an extemely powerful inculcation of denial and closed-mindedness to even matters as important as life and death.

Her son will also have learned to do this:

Generally speaking manipulative people are doing the opposite of what they are saying. We are instructed to watch their actions instead of listening to their words. The words say she is unconcerned whereas the actions of responding to every post say the exact opposite. That is what she taught her children to do. The literature is pretty emphatic that manipulative, antisocial behavior is passed from parent to child. You can tell them they should admit to mistakes, but the more powerful teacher is your own actions. They know hypocrisy when they see it, and they stop listening to you at all - for good reason.

The other thing her children will learn from this kind of action, deployed repeatedly in the thread, is to push people's emotional buttons to get what you want. Try to make them angry, hurt, humiliated, etc. If it works, then you point to their anger and blame them for it.

The research says that none of these manipulative tactics takes any brains. Children utilize them because they have not been taught that being manipulative is not just ethically wrong, but leads to great difficulties for you in life. The authors talk about manipulative people not being smart, but instead having arrested emotional development and an impaired conscience. People get tired of dealing with them, and they are shunned socially. People do not say "oh, he's really smart..." they say things like the book titles written of them: "Nasty People", "Without Conscience", etc.

I had read none of these books/articles when I was young and see how much more important they are to children's futures than things I thought were important then, like protecting my ego. It is ironic that the person who demonstrates the least in terms of inculcating values into children is making the most noise about it. That's the way the manipulative literature says it's going to be though. The most likely thing is we have another adult now who spent their whole lives being trained in the manipulative arts, and it will be passed onto their children too until someone breaks this vicious cycle.

That is why the red herring about being alive when they are 20 is so silly. If you are still teaching them at 20 never to admit to mistakes then one might argue it is better if you had died when they were young. This is the kind of mistake that can ruin their lives.

A person with problems this substantial can, through counseling, become a better person and parent - which points yet again to the benefits of being an older parent. Even if we were a total dysfunctional antisocial jerk at 20, we can later in life blossom into the oppposite. It is never too late.

To the youngsters with the arrogance of youth - there isn't anything I can teach you, nor do I wish to try. There is an old joke that goes something like this: "When I was 18 my old man was incredibly stupid. When I became 30 it was amazing how much he had learned." I put that into a speech I had been invited to give when I was 18, but I gave the joke because I didn't feel that way at all. I didn't have that same arrogance and was eager to learn from my father. I didn't do the teen rebellion thing. So my only comment is that you don't speak for youth in general, but only for the component having no respect for the experience of your elders.

Apple & Wil - you are going to be a great parent to your new kids. The kinds of things I see in you are the kinds of things that will serve those kids for the rest of their lives, which is way more important than the length of yours.

Wow. I guess I should be honored. That was an awfully lot of work.

I looked at your table. Specifically for a male, age 63. According to your table, the life expectancy is 18.66 years. Take off .75 years (gestation of a pregnancy) and we have 17.91 years.

Most children graduate from high school at age 18 plus a few months.

Am I manipulating this data?

[DeeDee&Sam 68]

Wow. I guess I should be honored. That was an awfully lot of work.

I looked at your table. Specifically for a male, age 63. According to your table, the life expectancy is 18.66 years. Take off .75 years (gestation of a pregnancy) and we have 17.91 years.

Most children graduate from high school at age 18 plus a few months.

Am I manipulating this data?

making a rule out of it is nonsense. i was raised by my grandparents since i was 2, saw me graduating, soon getting married and ill give them some awsome great grandchildren. them being a burden was never true. my grandma's 70 and she's the one doing everything around here plussssss she WORKS, goes shopping, learns how to use a computer. basically she started raising me when she was in her 50s, grandpa in his 60s, a general idea shouldnt be put in the mind of every individual

[Nina~ 431]

making a rule out of it is nonsense. i was raised by my grandparents since i was 2, saw me graduating, soon getting married and ill give them some awsome great grandchildren. them being a burden was never true. my grandma's 70 and she's the one doing everything around here plussssss she WORKS, goes shopping, learns how to use a computer. basically she started raising me when she was in her 50s, grandpa in his 60s, a general idea shouldnt be put in the mind of every individual

Your case might be an exception.

My friend in her early 30's who married a guy who in his late 60's. My friend is Chinese, and her husband is Scottish. She pestered him for a baby and he didn't want any because he already had grown up kids from his previous marriage. He finally gave in, and about a year after their daughter was born he was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. My friend is now juggling an 18 month old and a husband who is going through his second round of chemo. The prognosis is not good and it is more likely that their daughter wont remember her dad after he passes. It really is heartbreaking.

For every story like yours, there are way more stories like the above. And it doesn't hurt an older parent to consider this before deciding to have a kid. And imo, it is a stupid decision to have a kid to please your spouse.

[nane1104 146]

Your case might be an exception.

My friend in her early 30's who married a guy who in his late 60's. My friend is Chinese, and her husband is Scottish. She pestered him for a baby and he didn't want any because he already had grown up kids from his previous marriage. He finally gave in, and about a year after their daughter was born he was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. My friend is now juggling an 18 month old and a husband who is going through his second round of chemo. The prognosis is not good and it is more likely that their daughter wont remember her dad after he passes. It really is heartbreaking.

For every story like yours, there are way more stories like the above. And it doesn't hurt an older parent to consider this before deciding to have a kid. And imo, it is a stupid decision to have a kid to please your spouse.

If her case is an exception, then so is yours. Cancer is not an age specific illness or you'd have to say you shouldn't have kids in your 60s because you could get diagnosed with cancer!?. A friend of mine got diagnosed with lung cancer when she was in her early 30s and her kids were 4 and 1. She died not even 2 years later.

At the end of the day, nobody knows when they will die, so it's important to use the time you have wisely.

Very obviously, the OP is not taking this decision lightly and I think I can say, if him and his wife will have a baby, this child will have more from his dad than 1000 of children growing up without their dads period, either because they just took off, ended up in jail or just don't participate in the raising of their children.