For crying out loud! Stop having children! Stop feeding into the marketing machine that needs ever more bodies to sell toilet paper to! Children will NOT make you happier. Children do not help the environment. And, it's very likely that if you do have children they will die a torturous death as the earth runs out of oxygen, etc. So, if you really love these children you think you want, you won't subject them to this. The pressure to have children was first created by the need to build armies and is currently created by Madison Avenue. I'm in marketing, so I should know. Don't be a lemming! Open your eyes!

I'm totally cool with the late birth thing. A later start means a smaller family. This is fine. Most kids survive to have kids of their own, so the days of farm-sized families are behind us. The world's bursting with people.

What an odd set of replies to this article.

I never had kids and it's probably too late now. I'm a man and I feel regrets. Most women do to.

I'm 43 and I've never had kids, I don't know how my 'swimmers' are doing these days.

I'm still waiting for the whole species extinction, global warming, deforestation, desertification, overpopulation, environmental destruction, hell-in-a-handbasket thing to work itself out before I have kids. I just don't have the heart to explain the slowly unfolding Armageddon to my little ones, I'd hate to disappoint them like that.

I figure by the time I'm 80 or so it'll be obvious how things are going to turn out. Maybe I should freeze some now, just in case everything turns out peachy?

and don't listen to anyone else.

BTW, you folks should remember that when you get to the age where your parents are, these kids will be supporting your Social Security.

Something to think about, no?

I was 39 when I got married, and 42 when my son was born, after trying for 3 1/2 years. I flunked out of a major fertility program, and got very lucky not long afterwards. Waiting was a mistake, but it was the only alternative available to me, given that I was 37 when I met my husband. I do wish I'd spent the $50K we spent on fertility treatments in my 40s instead with a therapist in my 20s, trying to understand my unceasing career focus. Although I am sympathetic to their plight, if I meet one more single man in his late 40s or early 50s who is still harboring fantasies of having biological children, I will scream. They are the true narcissists.

Just a public service message -- women in the early 40s can and regularly do get pregnant the good old fashion way -- by accident. For those of us who do find themselves pregnant in our early 40s without any planning, the primary concern relates to our own health and potential genetic problems with the baby. My problem with the LA Times article was its suggestion that all womem who find themselves pregnant in their early 40s wanted to be pregnant or engaged in fertility treatments to become pregnant. Some attention should be devoted to the problems associated with finding oneself pregnant accidently, with no way to determine whether the fetus has genetic problems until well into the second trimester when abortion becomes much more ethically problematic for many.

My thirties snuck up on me.... My forties snuck up on me... and suddenly I'm a year from fifty, but I'm sure it will surprise me when it happens, even though I'm watching it with an eagle eye.

Anyone who wants to do so should have about enough children to replace himself or herself... If we all did that (on average), or held it to about 1.9 (slightly below replacement level of 2.1) the planet will be just fine on the population front. No one couple needs to feel guilty about having 3 children in America because someone else will be having one or none. There is no one right number to have so long as the average number is trending stable or slightly down.

I waited too long to have children, and had them in my late 30s and early 40s. I would (ultimately) urge my daughter (now 8) and my son (now 11) to marry early, have children early (hopefully, right out of college), and be done with active child rearing by their early 40s.

No pressure of course. It will be his life and her life to lead. I just think that the biological logic of having lots of energy for birthing and parenting (younger parents) is more persuasive than the social logic of higher income and greater maturity (older parents.)

I've been young and I've been middle aged, and I'd rather have been a young father than the middle aged one that I (happily) am. I'll be actively parenting through my fifties and into my early sixties. I like parenting, but I would have been better at it when I was 15 years younger. I was certainly emotionally ready to be a parent back then. If you raise your children well, they will be ready too... ready to parent, and ready to move back to advanced training or careers in their thirties and beyond active parenting when they are still in their early forties, with careers, educational opportunities and more all still before them.

Yes, early parenting has different implications for women and men, but I believe that a young mother who is well supported by her environment (so many are not) can have a richer and more fulfilled life if she gets down to the business of birthing and child rearing when her body is at a peak of fitness... and a young man can benefit from being a parent in his twenties too, if he is supported by his community, friends and family. Young parenting is a bad idea if people are on their own without adequate financial resources... but older parenting is a bad idea under those circumstances too.

Young parenting without social supports and resources can be a disaster. With them it is probably the optimal life path, if one is to be a parent.