Would you rather have a baby at 20 or 40?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| It depends. Do I have a trust fund? |
Anonymous
| 20 if money doesn’t matter |
Anonymous
| Definitely 40 |
Anonymous
This. I was always mature and responsible so would have been great parent at 20, but financially it would have been tough. In any case, prefer 20 to 40. |
Anonymous
| Neither of these are ideal. If I had to choose, 40. But ideally, more like 25 prefered over 40. |
Anonymous
| 40 if I were living in DC. 20 if I were in my hometown. If I had babies at 40 in my hometown, all my friends’ kids would be in college. |
Anonymous
| Had my first at almost 20. Now having 2nd at 35. I choose 20! Wish I had more kids in my 20s. |
Anonymous
| 40. Financially I couldn’t have done 20. I was in college and would have had to drop out. Luckily I was engaged at 17 (!!!) and so I assume that’s who I would have married. He wasn’t a bad man but I wouldn’t have been happy. Instead I left him at 22, met Dh the next month and have been blissfully happy for 15 years. Had our kids at 30 and 32. |
Anonymous
| 20 no doubt. Especially knowing all that I know now, and having to deal with teenage BS. |
Anonymous
| 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). |
Anonymous
| 20 |
Anonymous
|
The real question is would you be a better parent at 20 or 40.
Definitely 40. |
Anonymous
| 40. In fact that is exactly what I did. |
Anonymous
| 40, because I’ve done the other things I wanted to do. |
Anonymous
| 40, because my 20s were super fun and I could not have done all the things I got to do with kids in tow. |