Would you rather have a baby at 20 or 40?

[Anonymous]

You're asking the question to a biased group of career focused women in an intensely competitive metropolitan area. The majority is going to say 40, because the majority waited until late to have kids and feel compelled to defend their own decisions.

Put the biases aside, and it's obviously better to have kids earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20.

I had my first at 24, second at 28 and third at 32.

My energy was tops at 24. I am much more tired at 34.

This. The only downside was none of my friends had kids, so I lost touch with a lot of them.

[Anonymous]

Given those options, 20.

It would have really sucked to miss out on my 20s, which were awesome, but I want to maximize the chances of having a long life with my kids & hopefully grandkids someday. I love the idea of still being young when my children are adults, and getting to enjoy a whole new chapter of my life with them, as well as freedom with my husband to enjoy our 40s and beyond together.

Of course, this is assuming that having kids at 20 didn't derail our careers so much that we didn't end up financially comfortable, which is a big assumption I know. But I think I could have bounced back by my late 20s and made up for lost time.

I feel really lucky that I got to have my kids when I wanted, which was 30 and 32, but in retrospect I might have even aimed for 2 or 3 years earlier.