Those in your 40s and 50s, if you had kids later in life, do you regret it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

uh, what? how does being financially secure NOT benefit kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

That’s entirely untrue. I had young parents. They were perpetually stressed about money, and had mediocre emotional regulation at best. They mellowed out a lot when they got older and matured. They should’ve waited 10 years and my sister and I might’ve had a better childhood.

That's interesting. So you would be OK with having your parents die ten years earlier for you if it meant a better childhood?

seems like a no brainer? childhood is more important.

Wouldn't that depend on the hypothetical degree of improvement? Like, a 20% better? 15% better? 40% better? How many years of your parents' life is that worth? What would that sound like? "I'd be OK losing my mother at 35 instead of 45 if it meant she'd yell less and bought me better shoes."? Like this? Or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The MAJOR risk with advanced maternal age (not so much advanced paternal age) is chromosomal defects, leading to such profiles as Down syndrome. Risks increase dramatically in your 30s, and even more dramatically in your 40s, and there's no way to sugarcoat that.

If you have a healthy child, then parenting isn't really very different. You might be less active, but more mature and wealthier. At some point you might find yourself sandwiched between elderly parents who need your help, and kids who need the same. But it's all fine. You can do it.

I have this and I had my first child at age 29 and second at 31.

[Anonymous]

A good friend was born to parents in their teens. She is 60 now. It is such a warped family and she was treated terribly because her parents were incredibly immature. Yes she still has her mother, who is only 77, but it's not like it is a good thing.

Having babies into your 40s has been going on forever. My mother, born in 1926, was the baby of the family and born when her mother was in her 40s. There were 7 children, one every few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

That’s entirely untrue. I had young parents. They were perpetually stressed about money, and had mediocre emotional regulation at best. They mellowed out a lot when they got older and matured. They should’ve waited 10 years and my sister and I might’ve had a better childhood.

That's interesting. So you would be OK with having your parents die ten years earlier for you if it meant a better childhood?

Do you wish your parents had had you at age 16? No? Why are you trading that extra 10 years with them? You heartless beast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this board so blithely say that people can have kids into their 40s. I mean, obviously they can. But it's so, so sad. None of the kids of such people have grandparents (or won't have them for long). And those people won't be involved with their grandchildren in turn. It's a crazy huge cultural shift that no one acknowledges.

It's more than just about grandparents, too. You're setting your children up to lose you so young. It's impossibly twisted and I wish people would think twice about having kids so late. But this board is all sunshine and roses, even for 45 yos (!!).

If that’s what you think is “impossibly twisted” — people conceiving loved and wanted kids past the age you find it seemly — then your values are impossibly twisted.

You are impossibly twisted to believe that a 45 year old should have a baby. Look at all the boards on here with women clawing at every desperate attempt to conceive in any way possible, even so far to go to defying science by getting an egg or surrogate that’s not biologically theirs but pretends it is.

Man, you have issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

That’s entirely untrue. I had young parents. They were perpetually stressed about money, and had mediocre emotional regulation at best. They mellowed out a lot when they got older and matured. They should’ve waited 10 years and my sister and I might’ve had a better childhood.

That's interesting. So you would be OK with having your parents die ten years earlier for you if it meant a better childhood?

seems like a no brainer? childhood is more important.

Wouldn't that depend on the hypothetical degree of improvement? Like, a 20% better? 15% better? 40% better? How many years of your parents' life is that worth? What would that sound like? "I'd be OK losing my mother at 35 instead of 45 if it meant she'd yell less and bought me better shoes."? Like this? Or something else?

Having children when you are broke and immature just so you can have grandparents young enough to babysit is twisted.

Most people in their 20s aren't great parents. Most marriages don't survive when they have kids that young.

Simple facts.

[Anonymous]

I don't get it with the expectations about grandparents. Nothing is guaranteed. My grandparents who were nearby died in their early 60s when I was a very small child. I had other grandparents far away, barely knew them. My parents could not have gotten it done earlier.

So, grandparents are not a big consideration for me although I love that my child enjoys one set of his, who are 70s and in decent health.

On a side of my family, there is a cousin who had a girl at 15, and then that girl had a girl at 15, making a 30yo grandmother. Then a 45 yo great grandmother. They are actually pretty good people, but you know there is dysfunction in there.

Maybe let's all just let other people live their lives, because you cannot design your life perfectly, with perfect people in it. You can't.

[Anonymous]

If you have a baby at 35, they’ll be done with college at 57, well before retirement age. I have a friend who had kids at 45 due to life circumstances out of her control. She wanted kids so it’s great she finally had them but I know to her it’s less than ideal age wise. Her kids will still be in college when most people are retiring. She and her partner will probably be much too old to enjoy grand parenting and probably have limited resources to travel or fully enjoy prime retirement years (due to still paying for college and dealing with launching young adult children).

35 is still okay age wise but I would not wait any longer.

[Anonymous]

In societies that don’t use birth control, I think the average age of last birth is 41. So it is super normal. That child would likely be the last in a long line of kids — not sure if that changes your thinking.

[Anonymous]

Perfect age for people to have kids I think is 29-35. Get them all done in that window. Old enough to be mature and provide financial stability while also having had enough fun and independence in your 20s. But young enough that you get to be done with child rearing early enough in life to enjoy the empty nester years while still young And healthy enough to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

All these mamas lucky enough to find someone to marry in their 20s. Do you REALLY think most of us WANTED to meet our husbands so late and have kids so late? Would you rather we not have kids at all? WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM BIZNOTCH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

uh, what? how does being financially secure NOT benefit kids?

Seriously, PP is so delusional and desperate in trying to justify her choices. I say this from personal experience as someone whose mom had myself and my brother mid 20’s as compared to my younger brother and sister during her mid to late 30’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you wait until you're old to have children will you be around and an active grandparent for any grandchildren? I wish I had a lot more time with my grandparents.

Oh please. Both of my parents were born to late teen/early 20s parents and had me and my siblings before they turned 30. All of my grandparent were dead before I turned 15. Oh, also, they lived in a different country and I met them each maybe 5 times. I turned out just fine. Kids don't need active grandparents. You're just a selfish person who wants to use your parents for free childcare. Admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

All these mamas lucky enough to find someone to marry in their 20s. Do you REALLY think most of us WANTED to meet our husbands so late and have kids so late? Would you rather we not have kids at all? WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM BIZNOTCH?

Well I wanted kids later in life and no issues with infertility. Sounds wretched personally to have to deal with grad school and kids. 4 before 30 means basically PP had no life, did not get to enjoy her youth, and missed out on a lot. As a result, she is trying to validate her choices and circumstances.