Would you rather have a baby at 20 or 40?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yikes-- heteronormative. I should say a cis woman married to a cis man, which we are. Or I guess a trans man and a trans woman, depending.

Though we were married so long ago that when we did, marriage between two people whose birth certificates both had the same sex listed (whether gay/trans/etc.) was not even legal.

[Anonymous]

Neither, but I guess 40. I didn’t finish grad school till 25. Without grad school and post school work experience I would not have the lucrative career I have. On the flip side I had kids at 31 and 35 and am glad to be heading to retirement with college and wedding payments behind us. So 40 would be pushing that.

[Anonymous]

20. You'll be young enough to enjoy your 40s and 50s w out kids.

[Anonymous]

35 would have been the sweet spot for me. Ended up not happening until 37 but I'm ok with that. Absolutely did not want to have a child in my 20s.

[Anonymous]

This may be a good question in places where people don't go to college, but many people are sophomores or juniors in college at 20 years old. It's not a "younf parent v. older parent" question, it's older parent v. disrupting your life in dramatic ways, potentially depriving you (and your family) of your opportunity to finish your education, changing the entire course of your life, and your kids'. It's completely disproportionate consequences.

So, stupid question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather not have kids than have one at either 20 or 40.

I honestly don’t understand baby-crazy women who go to extreme lengths to have a baby.

? Many women at 40 are able to have babies without going to extreme lengths. Life happens; it's not perfect. Some women don't find a good person to marry until they are closer to 40. I would never advise a woman to have a child without a stable partner. Too dam* hard.

Both are extremes.

Neither is good.

Meeting a partner at age 40 is good reason to wait. However you’re in the same territory as the 20 year old who doesn’t want to terminate the pregnancy. Either option can work. Neither is ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

27, 28, 29 is different than 20. By 27, most people are working FT.

Exactly. Worlds away really. Would it have been possible to get those degrees with one or more kids in tow, the first one you would have sophomore/junior year of college? Maybe. Really fighting the odds though.

Would it have been possible to simply get out of her parents' basement with one or more small children to take care of.

2 years out of HS with no degree and little to no work experience is vastly different than a 27 year old with two college degrees and 5 or so years of full time work experience in a professional setting.

Read the thread if you’re going to respond. I’m referring to the PP right above me who said she didn’t know anyone who had a college degree who had kids before 30.

[Anonymous]

I think the right question if you want to understand whether people would rather have kids young or old would have been “would you rather have a baby at 23-25 or 40?”

Or “would you rather have a baby at 20 or 45?”

In the second question, both options are extremes and honestly I would hate both, but would not know which one to pick.
In the first question, both ages are on opposite ends, but neither is extreme.

In my case I would pick the younger range (I Had picked 40 In OP’s question)

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe, I had my kids in my mid-twenties and now in my mid-forties they are off in college and have that free from responsibility time and now with A LOT more money and resources than in our 20s. My husband and I can go out to each at all the latest restaurants, travel, see shows while our friends who had kids later are stuck in the exhausting toddler days and admit how envious they are of us. So, I guess its if you'd rather have that time when you are in your 20's or 40's. I personally think I make much better choices- and financially have many more options- as to what to do with my free time now than in my 20's. And I feel so fortunate that I get to know my kids for more of their life than if I had them later.

I sometimes thought about having one more kid at 40 because I loved parenting so much but we are just having too much fun right now, so we'll just wait for the (hopeful) grandkids and also enjoy being young grandparents. (Assuming our kids don't all wait until 40!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not both?

That's actually incredibly common in families where women marry young and don't use birth control. My mom's family is Mormon and her mother had her first at 18 and her last at 40.

[Anonymous]

Or Catholic. My patents' best friends had their first at 21 and last at 46. The mom was already a grandmother when she had her last baby.

[Anonymous]

Ugh both are bad. I really enjoyed my early 20s but being 40 now with 9 and 12 yo I am so glad I don’t have babies.

I guess 20 if it didn’t affect my career path.

[Anonymous]

I'm 41 with a 5yo and a 1yo, plus an intense career and I absolutely love it. But we are all very lucky to be healthy and get along with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both are bad, but I think 20 is worse. I think 25 would be fine. I had my three kids between 29 and 34 and I felt old at 34 (despite the fact that most of my friends were only getting married at tht point).

I agree. The difference in maturity between my 20-year-old self and my 25-year-old self was significant. I would have made a good parent at 25 but not at 20. I had kids in my mid 30s and wish I'd had them in early 30s.

[Anonymous]

Physically: 20

Intellectually, financially, spiritually and emotionally: 40