Would you rather have a baby at 20 or 40?

[Anonymous]

My cousin was grandmother at 34. She preferred 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How out of shape are you people that you are tired in your 40s?? My lids energize me. I had my kids at 40 and 42 and am now early 50s. I love all the activity. I have never been a couch potato and your children are the best shot you have at staying active. We just walked to Baskin Robbins (1 mile) and back again for an after-dinner treat.

Sheesh. Have your kids at 40 and stay active!

Ha! My mom says the same thing - except obviously she’s a grandmother talking about taking her grandchildren to get ice cream or go swimming or hiking.

My mom is 55.

55 is really not that old. I'm 54 and still exercise every day. I swim, hike, bike, go bar hopping and plan to do some 5Ks for fun. Most of the 50 somethings that I know are about as active as they were in their 40's. Most of us still have kids at home, too - granted they are HS/college age not small children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG! 20 for sure! I had my oldest at 23. My youngest at 33. I’m 53 and they are all out of the house. I have two grand babies that I adore. No way would I want little kids at this stage. I’m loving the freedom having grown kids brings. I love being a young, healthy, active grandmother. To each his own. But for me, younger was perfect.

Omg, can’t imagine being a granny at 53....just no! Now when reach 70’s maybe.

My mom was 55 when I made her a grandmother and I'm grateful I started having kids when I did, given how actively helpful she was able to be for us, and especially since I lost my own grandparents in their early 70s. I'd still choose 40 over 20, but I would absolutely put the grandparent argument in the pro age 20 argument. Kids can have a longer relationship with younger and more physically active grandparents, and know them for longer before they pass away.

[Anonymous]

I do not want a newborn at 40 or 20 lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want a newborn at 40 or 20 lol

I agree. Don't like either of these choices!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20. My kids are amazing people and I wouldn’t want to miss out on so many years with them.

I had my first at 27, PP. I had two Ivy League degrees as well. Plenty of people start before 30.

If you had kids at 20 there would be no Ivy League degrees for you. You would be be dropping out of college in your sophomore year, then trying to figure out how to feed the kid and pay rent with a high school diploma

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not both?

Then, you have kids and grandkids the same age.

I had thought this would be so cool!!! Had 1st dc at 21 and (others) then last one at 43. In fact that dc was a month old at the oldest' wedding!

Alas, the couple is focusing on career building and putting off kids- my baby is 5 now, so will be several years older than any possible grandkids.

I'm greatly enjoying this kiddo though, they're currently building a magnatile 'hamster park' for their toy hamsters, here next to me.

[Anonymous]

40

More income, more settled/stable, plenty of time with spouse prior, don't sweat the small stuff/understand better what stuff to sweat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:40

Seems like several of the people answering 20 had their kids close to that age (early 20s). They have no idea what they missed out on. Having a life as a young adult free from the responsibility of being a parent is an amazing and formative time of life that can never be replicated.

Disagree. Most of us lived our 20s single, getting educated and climbing the corporate ladder. It was young, wild parties, travel and carefree sex. Now we are paying for it with fertility issues. Had I met my husband earlier, I would easily replace my 20s with less office time and more family time. I don’t look back fondly on those losers I dated then. Such wasted time and wasted youth. Stop looking back with rose colored glasses.

Hmm...I guess my 20s were both, getting my PhD but also traveling the world and having a lot of fun. Free to explore, be creative, have time alone. I had my kids in my 30s. Now I have seniority and can flex my schedule for school hours. It hasn’t all been a cakewalk but I love that I would never resent my kids or feel they held me back. I don’t look forward to an empty nest or traveling when I am old. Sure, it will be nice, but nothing beats wild backpacking all over Asia or seeing Europe with girlfriends when you are young... living in big cities when you have the energy. Now I am perfectly fine and content with a familiar bed and being there for my family.

[Anonymous]

20 no question. The one thing you can't buy is time. Everything else -- degrees, career -- if you want it badly enough, you make it happen and in the end, it doesn't really matter. What I wouldn't give for twenty more years with DC...to know that I'll (most likely) see them fully established with lives of their own -- that would be beyond wonderful. Alas, as fate would have it, I didn't end up having them until my late 30s (not by choice). It weighs heavily on my mind that I might go before they're properly launched, that I might never see them get married and have kids of their own...it is what it is, I suppose. (And big time +1 on the earlier poster, who mentioned that infertility and just plain bad luck can put a monkey wrench into your best-laid plans.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was only interested in adopting, and no agency will allow a woman to adopt at 20. So of course 40. Which I did.

With enough money you can adopt at 20.

[Anonymous]

20 But ONLY IF I could support the kid and myself. Like if the father was 27 and had a job and the relationship was good, I feel that we could make it work.

Honestly, I’d rather not have kids if my choices are drop out of college at 20 or wait until 40. Both options just seem terrible.

[Anonymous]

40 for sure. I was busy living my life through 35. I’m such a better parent with some perspective and life experiences under my belt.

[Anonymous]

I wish I had mine earlier. Didn't meet dh until after 30. But I'm 38 and with two little ones and it's rough with career and kids and I'm tired. My mom had me at 25 and by the time she hit her career stride at 35 she had a 10 hear old and I was a latchkey kid and she could do whatvwr and now she's a young and active grandma taking her granddaughter skating and skiing.

[Anonymous]

No surprise DCUM would lean towards 40. I feel like the more accurate comparison here would be 20 vs. 43 or even 45.

Honestly I think I'd still choose 43, though-- I had mine at 35 and if I'd had her even in my mid or late 20s, I would have been such a worse mom. I would have ended up divorced. (Funny enough I got married at 20! And we are still together-- now much more happily.)

I spent my entire 20s+ getting my mental health issues under control. I would have sucked under 30, and would have made myself miserable, too.

I mean, when you have a person who marries at 20 and doesn't have a baby for 15 years, and it's not a fertility issue, and it wasn't an oops baby either... That's obviously a person who didn't feel ready at anywhere close to 20.