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

[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.

where the F$%K are you pulling this from?
Most parents in their 20's are FANTASTIC. I count my parents in this group, my cousins, my brother, my good friends.
I'm a physician and had a legion of medical school and residency classmates who had kids in their mid to late 20s.

I had my own kids in my later 30s but you sound like a complete moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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. 🙄

You are twisted to think that your grandmother’s generation with getting married at 16 correlates to the generation of today. If you want your 16 year old to get married, yes, you are twisted.

[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?

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.

where the F$%K are you pulling this from?
Most parents in their 20's are FANTASTIC. I count my parents in this group, my cousins, my brother, my good friends.
I'm a physician and had a legion of medical school and residency classmates who had kids in their mid to late 20s.

I had my own kids in my later 30s but you sound like a complete moron.

We all know you are not a physician.

[Anonymous]

I got married at 32, almost 33 and had my kids at 35 and 37. No regrets. I'd love to have had them at 31 and 33, but that was not in the cards. My body certainly did not rebound like a 25 year old's does and I imagine I was/am more tired than younger moms but it is what it is. I know myself well and am more comfortable in my own skin than a lot of younger moms. I do sometimes think that if they each have two kids at 35 and 37, I will 70-74 when my grandchildren are being born and that's pretty old, really. But again, kids earlier was not in the cards.

[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.

My grandmother would love a baby. Should she have one?

Sure. You realize that it is not at all unusual for people to be the same age and even older than their uncles, right? Especially in big families.

[Anonymous]

I was 35 when my son was born. I’ll never forget seeing the nurse write “advanced maternal age” on my chart. Lol. Part of me wishes we had children earlier in life. But, on the positive side, I’m a much more relaxed parent than I would have been in my 20s or early 30s. I was well established in my career when my son was born, and I was able to negotiate a part-time work schedule in a field that is not typically accommodating to part-time work. I have kept that part-time schedule for the past 11 years and it is critical to the well-being of our family. On the downside, DS is our only child due to some life circumstances that transpired when he was around 3. I have tried not to dwell on how life might be different if we had started our family earlier. But, when it does cross my mind, it makes me sad.

[Anonymous]

So can we all agree that the best age to have kids is the age that works best for each of us?

[Anonymous]

I had my last turning 37. No complaints except being called geriatric at my OB. I am more tired than with my first, but life is significantly more stressful and busy now so I wouldn't only attribute that to age.

[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.

Sorry your parents were immature. That doesn't mean all young parents are. I've seen older parents freak out over lots of child-related things as well. For most people, worry seems to increase with age, not lessen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over here kind of amused that so many people are “so, so sad” over some women’s choices to have kids in their 40s. I’m over here with my popcorn as a 42 year old thinking about trying for a third. Because I kinda feel like it, and my two toddlers are so cute. I know, I know. Twisted! Selfish!

I'm the poster who said I was sorry for another poster's young parents being "immature." I'm sorry that you are, too.

They're human beings, not puppies or kittens. You sound like you're ten years 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.

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

No one is advocating young parents with no financial future having babies. The problem with DCUM is that parents feel like a baby who doesn't get pushed around in a $2000 stroller or live in a 5000sf house in the suburbs or attend the top private school are deprived. I see a lot of younger families with a lot less than that raising great kids and having awesome lives. I absolutely one hundred percent think that DCUM's definition of "financial security" is warped and harmful for many children.

[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?

See, I applaud your honesty. The issue I have is with the older mothers who insist that it's the better course of action when it usually isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can we all agree that the best age to have kids is the age that works best for each of us?

Nope. We can agree that for wanna be mothers, it's better to have them late than never though.

[Anonymous]

In DC, it’s normal to be over 35 when kids come along. Half the mothers on my street had kids when they were 40+. The only thing is to watch out for saving for college and retirement at the same time. I regret a bit living here because the kids are so spoiled, but you do find some gems. Just be strict and don’t be a lax parent. Oh, and save for private school.

[Anonymous]

There are a million threads on this on this board.

I had my first at 39 and second at 42. I had very healthy pregnancies and it was “easy” for me to get pregnant (got pregnant right away with DC1, only 2 MCs between 1 & 2, only tried for a year for #2). It was still very stressful TTC and the worry about my age and the potential for complications was real.

Now, you said 35. 35 and 42 are very different. It’s not far off the norm and most on/gyn s wouldn’t bat an eye about it.

I’m now in my mid 40s with a 3 and 6 year old and I am tired. So tired. I’ve heard people say having kids when they were older keeps them young. Maybe that’s true but I can tel you I’ve aged a lot in the last 6 years. Maybe the young part comes later.

I wouldn’t trade my kids for the world, but I wish I could have had them a decade earlier.