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

[Anonymous]

Thank god I didn't have kids in my 20s! I was dating a total D!

I'm so grateful for my adorable kids that I had "late in life". I feel so lucky to have the family I have.

Also, I don't know what I would do with my time as a 45 year old empty nester. Strange to think about.

[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.

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?

Keeping trying to deflect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank god I didn't have kids in my 20s! I was dating a total D!

I'm so grateful for my adorable kids that I had "late in life". I feel so lucky to have the family I have.

Also, I don't know what I would do with my time as a 45 year old empty nester. Strange to think about.

What did you do with your time as an empty nester for the first 40 years of your life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank god I didn't have kids in my 20s! I was dating a total D!

I'm so grateful for my adorable kids that I had "late in life". I feel so lucky to have the family I have.

Also, I don't know what I would do with my time as a 45 year old empty nester. Strange to think about.

What did you do with your time as an empty nester for the first 40 years of your life?

let me break it down for you

0-18 grew up
18-25 college & grad school
25-30 dated the D
30-32 met, dated and married the love of my life
33 had baby #1
35 stillbirth
36-37 3 miscarriages
38 baby #2
40 baby #3

I/We have been through a lot but I still feel like we won the lottery with the kids we have. I would never recommend not having a child just because you are older and might die when the kid is 20.

[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.

I feel like posts like this are setting up false dilemmas where you're comparing teenagers with women who are 40+. Almost everywhere on the planet, a woman of, say, 25 is considered a fully formed adult, with her education complete, her health at the peak, and her emotional maturation complete, and certainly up to the challenges of parenting. It's not like adulthood begins at 40.

[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.

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."

I've had my children after 40 and I have no intention of setting them up with down payments. What nonsense.

[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.

I feel like posts like this are setting up false dilemmas where you're comparing teenagers with women who are 40+. Almost everywhere on the planet, a woman of, say, 25 is considered a fully formed adult, with her education complete, her health at the peak, and her emotional maturation complete, and certainly up to the challenges of parenting. It's not like adulthood begins at 40.

It’s crazy the way some people infantilize adults in their mid to late 20s and totally discount the fact that becoming a parent — and parenting — can cause you to mature faster than endless brunches and trips. I think a lot of this is just people justifying their own choices and not knowing what it would have been like had they had kids younger (which is fair).

[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.

I feel like posts like this are setting up false dilemmas where you're comparing teenagers with women who are 40+. Almost everywhere on the planet, a woman of, say, 25 is considered a fully formed adult, with her education complete, her health at the peak, and her emotional maturation complete, and certainly up to the challenges of parenting. It's not like adulthood begins at 40.

I’m not, actually. But I also think you raise a larger point, which is that the “younger is better” argument assumes that we’re talking about identical people having children at different points in life. Rather, people who have children when they’re in their early to mid 20s are on a different trajectory than people who have children in their mid to late 30s. In other words, the age at which people have their first child isn’t independent from variables such as educational attainment, financial stability, emotional maturity, etc.

The truth is that there are benefits to having kids younger and also benefits to having kids older. And there are drawbacks to either. But these assumptions that those of us who had kids older are out of touch, creaky adults who can neither connect emotionally nor keep up physically with our kids is laughable and more than a little pathetic.

[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.

I feel like posts like this are setting up false dilemmas where you're comparing teenagers with women who are 40+. Almost everywhere on the planet, a woman of, say, 25 is considered a fully formed adult, with her education complete, her health at the peak, and her emotional maturation complete, and certainly up to the challenges of parenting. It's not like adulthood begins at 40.

I’m not, actually. But I also think you raise a larger point, which is that the “younger is better” argument assumes that we’re talking about identical people having children at different points in life. Rather, people who have children when they’re in their early to mid 20s are on a different trajectory than people who have children in their mid to late 30s. In other words, the age at which people have their first child isn’t independent from variables such as educational attainment, financial stability, emotional maturity, etc.

The truth is that there are benefits to having kids younger and also benefits to having kids older. And there are drawbacks to either. But these assumptions that those of us who had kids older are out of touch, creaky adults who can neither connect emotionally nor keep up physically with our kids is laughable and more than a little pathetic.

I don't think the discussion centered around your last sentence, nor is anyone questioning that. From what I could see, the doubts are directed very much at the "younger" parents - are they stable enough, mature enough, solvent enough, etc. And I think that viewing a woman of, say, 25 to 28, as immature and poor just by virtue of her age, is seriously wrong.

Now, let's look at your statement "Rather, people who have children when they’re in their early to mid 20s are on a different trajectory than people who have children in their mid to late 30s. In other words, the age at which people have their first child isn’t independent from variables such as educational attainment, financial stability, emotional maturity, etc. "

If there is indeed a dependency there, then you ought to be able to say, confidently, "people who have children young are less/more educated, less/more stable, less/more emotionally mature", and have that statement be true throughout their life trajectory (because certainly educational attainment, emotional maturation or financial growth does not stop with the birth of your first child). Can you? Can you confidently say that?

[Anonymous]

My best friend had her first at 27, I had my last at 40 and we NEVER even discuss this. It doesn't matter. If you have heeathy kids, and you are healthy, count your lucky stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Funny enough, my husband and I often refer to the kids as “the kittens”.

I prefer “young at heart” but “ten years old” is fine too. You are starting to sound kind of gloomy, feeling sorry for all these strangers! I suggest not taking the lives of randoms on the internet so seriously. They don’t care and surely you know you aren’t making a difference in their lives by commenting on their reproductive choices. Deep breaths! Clearly this thread is bringing up all sorts of negative feelings in you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My MIL had my husband right before turning 25. She’s still quite healthy and in her late 60s. You know how often she helps us? That would be never. Ever. In any way. She lives her own life and occasionally visits. When she visits, she treats the house like a hotel and has never actually been alone with the kids. Not even once. I better remind her that family is everything.

[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.

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?

Keeping trying to deflect.

So I'll take that as a "No". Grannie is not very active in the lives of her thriving family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I may sound it to you, and that’s because you are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank god I didn't have kids in my 20s! I was dating a total D!

I'm so grateful for my adorable kids that I had "late in life". I feel so lucky to have the family I have.

Also, I don't know what I would do with my time as a 45 year old empty nester. Strange to think about.

What did you do with your time as an empty nester for the first 40 years of your life?

let me break it down for you

0-18 grew up
18-25 college & grad school
25-30 dated the D
30-32 met, dated and married the love of my life
33 had baby #1
35 stillbirth
36-37 3 miscarriages
38 baby #2
40 baby #3

I/We have been through a lot but I still feel like we won the lottery with the kids we have. I would never recommend not having a child just because you are older and might die when the kid is 20.

See, that's all well and good but it doesn't explain your bizarre comment that you wouldn't know what to do with yourself as a 45 year old empty nester. You had a life pre-kids; you have a life post-kids. End of story.