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

[Anonymous]

Not at all. It's life, OP. You know what you know. You know only your experience. I'll be nearing 60 when our youngest graduates high school. But I had older parents myself. My parents were late 40s when I was born, so I never knew my parents as young people. I loved having older parents! They were much more relaxed and wise than my peers' parents, and that made a big difference for me to see. My parents were unflappable because they had so much more life experience. They understood innately what did not matter.

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound dumber than a box of rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve posted already, but I think one thing you should take into consideration is that you will have to adjust your expectations of grandparents and their relationships with you and their children. It’s simply harder on older grandparents, and I see it on here time and time again where people don’t understand that once people are hitting their 70s, travel and the like just becomes harder and less desirable *for them*, especially when it’s not pure pleasure travel like vegging out on a cruise ship or resort.

that is totally personality and health dependent. My in laws are super active and in their 60s and don't want to take vacations with our little kids b/c the kids slow them down. We take our trips separately. We are going o be "older" grandparents to our youngest child's kids if they have them and are planning on buying a vacation property so that they can come to us and veg out or leave the babies and go travel. My mother was older and she hired help partly so that she could easily watch my kids and give me a real break when I visited her. It made it much more attractive and restful. I'd advise having 2nd home or moving to a fun locale as grandparents so that if you cant travel together due to health concern, energy etc you still have something attractive to offer as an inducement to visit. Its not that parents of children don't want to see their own parents, its just that there is only so much leisure time.

[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.

Here she is! This boomer always wants to come and weigh in on this subject. The lady who had her 4 kids in her 20s and judges all of us that are having our babies past the ripe old age of 34.

Lady, why are you old and still so hung up on this? You're a grandma now - go enjoy your "thriving" family!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. It's life, OP. You know what you know. You know only your experience. I'll be nearing 60 when our youngest graduates high school. But I had older parents myself. My parents were late 40s when I was born, so I never knew my parents as young people. I loved having older parents! They were much more relaxed and wise than my peers' parents, and that made a big difference for me to see. My parents were unflappable because they had so much more life experience. They understood innately what did not matter.

It's so interesting. First you say "you know only your experience," then you go on to pontificate on the experience of your "peers'" younger parents, whose true experience you don't and can't know. So you're contradicting yourself.

[Anonymous]

My parents were older when they had me. One parent passed away before I got married. The other ones health declined after I got married and I was caught between babies/toddlers and caring for an aging parent. Thank goodness for siblings. My kids never had any sort of real grandparent experience with my parents. Luckily we found neighbors who fulfilled that roll. But it was sad to not have that.

[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?

you realize that in this hypothetical, you're not actually causing your parents to die younger, right?

anyway, having lost my mother when I was 12 despite her having had me when she was 25 ... I can say that I absolutely think it would have been better for her and her kids if she had had the opportunity to have a career, marry someone more suited to her, and had kids in her 30s.

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

LOL depends on how you define "the actual work of parenting." If you mean having kids in your 40s, then hiring nannies and being in a better position to pay them, then sure. But if you're talking about the actual work of parenting, well, sorry -- being younger and more spry is the order of the day.

[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.

Here she is! This boomer always wants to come and weigh in on this subject. The lady who had her 4 kids in her 20s and judges all of us that are having our babies past the ripe old age of 34.

Lady, why are you old and still so hung up on this? You're a grandma now - go enjoy your "thriving" family!

When all else fails, resort to insults.

Green doesn't look very pretty on you.

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

LOL depends on how you define "the actual work of parenting." If you mean having kids in your 40s, then hiring nannies and being in a better position to pay them, then sure. But if you're talking about the actual work of parenting, well, sorry -- being younger and more spry is the order of the day.

The actual work of parenting in this day and age is helping kids develop emotionally and developing good executive functioning and people skills. Knowledge work, and all that. And providing them with $$ for college and a down payment. That type of parenting is definitely easier to do if you are older.

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

LOL depends on how you define "the actual work of parenting." If you mean having kids in your 40s, then hiring nannies and being in a better position to pay them, then sure. But if you're talking about the actual work of parenting, well, sorry -- being younger and more spry is the order of the day.

Please. Plenty of "older" parents have the energy to chase toddlers and wipe noses and all that goes into parenting very young kids (which is much of the work at that age). When kids get older, the nature of the work changes. SO much of it is emotional. It's providing a secure base for your kids. It's managing your own emotions so you can help your kids learn to regulate theirs and navigate relationships as smoothly as possible. Most people in their 40s are far more emotionally mature than people in their 20s. Teenagers don't need parents who can run around after them on the playground, they need parents who help them set healthy boundaries and weather the challenges of adolescence.

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

LOL depends on how you define "the actual work of parenting." If you mean having kids in your 40s, then hiring nannies and being in a better position to pay them, then sure. But if you're talking about the actual work of parenting, well, sorry -- being younger and more spry is the order of the day.

The actual work of parenting in this day and age is helping kids develop emotionally and developing good executive functioning and people skills. Knowledge work, and all that. And providing them with $$ for college and a down payment. That type of parenting is definitely easier to do if you are older.

No parent in their 20s is paying for college or down payments yet. But professionals who have kids young more often than not will still be in a position to do these things when the kids are of age. It's not an either/or proposition. Easier? Maybe somewhat. But at what cost?

Also, the idea that providing a down payment is an integral part of "actual parenting" is ridiculous. Ask the many, many well parented adults out there without parents providing down payments if that's their definition of "actual parenting."

[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.

Here she is! This boomer always wants to come and weigh in on this subject. The lady who had her 4 kids in her 20s and judges all of us that are having our babies past the ripe old age of 34.

Lady, why are you old and still so hung up on this? You're a grandma now - go enjoy your "thriving" family!

When all else fails, resort to insults.

Green doesn't look very pretty on you.

Again, why aren't you taking your "thriving" grandchildren out for a day at the zoo? You are active in their lives right?

[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.

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.

DP, but there are many benefits to having kids when you're older than younger, mostly because adults are more stable (emotionally, financially, etc.). That's hard to get around. I know there are some benefits to having kids younger, but that's mostly around the ease of conceiving and remaining pregnant. That has little to do with the actual work of parenting.

LOL depends on how you define "the actual work of parenting." If you mean having kids in your 40s, then hiring nannies and being in a better position to pay them, then sure. But if you're talking about the actual work of parenting, well, sorry -- being younger and more spry is the order of the day.

Please. Plenty of "older" parents have the energy to chase toddlers and wipe noses and all that goes into parenting very young kids (which is much of the work at that age). When kids get older, the nature of the work changes. SO much of it is emotional. It's providing a secure base for your kids. It's managing your own emotions so you can help your kids learn to regulate theirs and navigate relationships as smoothly as possible. Most people in their 40s are far more emotionally mature than people in their 20s. Teenagers don't need parents who can run around after them on the playground, they need parents who help them set healthy boundaries and weather the challenges of adolescence.

"Please" as well. When kids born to parents in their 20s get older, guess what? So do their parents. You're talking like 25 years olds are raising 12 year olds. A 35 year old woman is a mature woman, especially one who has been a parent for a decade or more, and she's also a lot closer to grasping what a 10 or 12 year old is going through than a 50 or 55 year old woman is, because she's closer to her own experience at that age.

If anything, having teens in the house in your 50s is harder than when in your 30s because the generation gap is even wider.