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

[Anonymous]

I think it's really bizarre that so many people's arguments for having kids early is because of grandparents. So you're doing this for free childcare? It really doesn't matter how old my parents are, we see them three times a year. The only people I know that live near grandparents are the ones who had kids in their 20s and couldn't handle it, so they stayed in their hometown and never left. How sad!!

[Anonymous]

Not reading this entire thread.

It seems to have gotten ugly.

But in the DC area 35 isn't considered old.

[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.

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.

My family actually did this experiment. My grandmother had my uncle and father at 29 and 25 and my aunt at 47 (oops!). There is no question that they were much better parents to my aunt who is in turn a much emotionally healthier person. It is far better to have emotionally regulated parents and a solid foundation in childhood but potentially lose them earlier than to suffer with disregulated parents. Older parents can definitely be better for children than immature parents. It would have been profoundly selfish for me to have my kids at a young age when I lacked the mental health to be a good parent.

[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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

[Anonymous]

My grandmother was married at 16. She had 6 children starting from when she was 18 to age 48. I guess she was also twisted and selfish. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a fact. It's your opinion.

[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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

Well, that’s pretty darn selfish of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

Well, that’s pretty darn selfish of you.

Why? They'd get more time with me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

Well, that’s pretty darn selfish of you.

Why? They'd get more time with me too.

Because you assume that time with you is more important than their getting to grow up and be their own people before becoming parents.

I can’t believe I have to explain this. You are scary.

[Anonymous]

Regret? Not at all. I had two kids: 1) 2.5 months before I turned 37, and 2) 1.5 months after I turned 39. Ideally I would have had them in my early 30's, so more like 31 and 33, but... I also wasn't intent on having kids (or even getting married) so the timing is what it is. I don't spend much time dwelling on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

Well, that’s pretty darn selfish of you.

Why? They'd get more time with me too.

Because you assume that time with you is more important than their getting to grow up and be their own people before becoming parents.

I can’t believe I have to explain this. You are scary.

They were fully grown up and their own people ten years before they had me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really bizarre that so many people's arguments for having kids early is because of grandparents. So you're doing this for free childcare? It really doesn't matter how old my parents are, we see them three times a year. The only people I know that live near grandparents are the ones who had kids in their 20s and couldn't handle it, so they stayed in their hometown and never left. How sad!!

My mother lives across the ocean. There is no question of using her for childcare. Yet she is one of the most important family relationships to my children, and it kills me that they would have so little time with a woman who loves them dearly and who they love so much. I want them to have more time with her. I just love watching them together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really bizarre that so many people's arguments for having kids early is because of grandparents. So you're doing this for free childcare? It really doesn't matter how old my parents are, we see them three times a year. The only people I know that live near grandparents are the ones who had kids in their 20s and couldn't handle it, so they stayed in their hometown and never left. How sad!!

It's interesting that free childcare is the only benefit of having grandparents that comes to your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Well, I'm not the one wishing my parents had me ten years later.

But yes, as a matter of fact, I do wish my parents had me earlier so I'd have more time with them.

Well, that’s pretty darn selfish of you.

Why? They'd get more time with me too.

Because you assume that time with you is more important than their getting to grow up and be their own people before becoming parents.

I can’t believe I have to explain this. You are scary.

PP just wants the free childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really bizarre that so many people's arguments for having kids early is because of grandparents. So you're doing this for free childcare? It really doesn't matter how old my parents are, we see them three times a year. The only people I know that live near grandparents are the ones who had kids in their 20s and couldn't handle it, so they stayed in their hometown and never left. How sad!!

It's interesting that free childcare is the only benefit of having grandparents that comes to your mind.

Yeah, it’s actually really sad. I realized when my parents died that family is everything. My mom cherished the time with her granddaughter — she was the light of her life. Husband’s parents love my kids just as much and really benefit from close relationships with their kids and grandkids. They help elderly people avoid loneliness later in life. There’s nothing like seeing your kids grow up alongside a loving extended family. You can’t replace that.