Would you rather have a baby at 20 or 40?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Your pregnancy likely triggered the health issue. Its actually a well studied fact. |
Anonymous
| I had my first at 25 and second at 35. I'd pick 22 for sure (post college). It didn't impede my career in any way. I was still able to save for a house and if I didn't have one at 35, I could retire early. Cards don't always work that way though! |
Anonymous
|
40. Many reasons.
Had I actually gotten pregnant at 20 I would have immediately panicked- I was not mother material at that age. My 20s were the best time of my life in many ways, and I did a lot of important growth that actually made me a good mother. I don’t think I would have been a good mother at 20. |
Anonymous
|
40. I was so young and stupid at 20. I couldn't take care of me much less a child. My friends were dumb, too, cause we were doing dumb shit together haha. My parents would have made my life a living hell if I had shown up pregnant and not married and I would have needed their help to feed and house a kid and myself.
At 40 I was a stable homeowner and wife with a promising career, solid income, savings, a village of friend and family to help raise and nurture a child. |
Anonymous
|
I had my kid when I was in a place to have my kid, that happened to be 40. I did not want to have a child when I was not married and financially stable. I didn't get married until I was 38.
I did not want a kid when I was 20, I was in college and not in a place to take care of a kid. Hell, I was a kid myself. I thought about kids when I hit 30 but I wasn't married. I had just finished Graduate School and was starting a new career. I wasn't even seriously dating. But I was financially in a place where I was thinking that I could have a kid and be comfortable with that decision. I didn't plan on having my child when I was 40 but that is how my life worked out. I love my son and am glad to be in a place where I can provide him with a degree of financial stability and emotional stability that I did not have at 20 or even 30. But I wold hav emade it work if I had a kid younger, just like a lot of people do. |
Anonymous
| 20 if we're only talking physical. |
Anonymous
|
If the question was 25 or 40 I would absolutely pick 25, no doubt.
At 20 though, I wouldn't have finished college, which gives me a lot of pause. That would have been a messy life with a lot of regrets or feeling like I missed out, mainly for education purposes. But having a newborn at age 40 just sounds exhausting and miserable! IRL I had my babies at 29 and 33 which was perfect. I would have skewed earlier over later if I had to do it again. |
Anonymous
|
40. I would have much more patience, financial security, and ability to devote myself to making informed choices around childrearing at 40 than I did at 20.
Plus any kid I had at 20 would not be raised in a 2-parent home. They'd likely have been raised in a chaotic "mom lives with Grandma and they're both stressed and yelling at each other all the time" home. |
Anonymous
| I'm 38 with a 1 and 2 year old. I can't imagine what I'd do with the next 40 years if I was basically done raising my kids now (I do work). I like have 10-15 year of fine to travel, indulge, spend time with friends, play a lot of sports etc - now I feel like I'm at a life phase where i'd be more of home body whether or not I had kids at home so I'm glad I do. And then at 60 it'll basically be like summer camp with hobbies and travel and everything is just fun. |
Anonymous
Omg, can’t imagine being a granny at 53....just no! Now when reach 70’s maybe. |
Anonymous
| I'm mixed on it. I had my first at 25 and my third at 37. I had a ton more energy and patience @ 25 and the pregnancy/birthing process/recovery was "easier". the baby at 37 was a great deal harder. I wish I would have traveled more before kids, moved around for jobs and such though so being older in that regard has benefits. |
Anonymous
|
40. I did everything in my power to avoid having one at 20. Or even 25, for that matter. Probably could have been ok with having one at 27 or 28.
Had my one child at 36 and it was fine. I would have considered having another at 40 if the circumstances were right. By that point, my career was in a decent place and I had friendships and hobbies and a house. I feel like 20 would have derailed everything and it would have been hard to get back on track. |
Anonymous
| I have a very accomplished friend who had her kids at 22 and 24. The 22 was a mistake, but she was already engaged so had the baby. Her kids are now both in college and she is 42! She has sooo much freedom and lots of money to travel the world. It's pretty cool even if those first few years were extremely tough. |
Anonymous
Another 53 year old and I'm the same way. I still have older teens at home and I will admit that I'm looking forward to that little stretch in life where the kids have flown the nest and are self supporting but have not started their own families, yet. Ideally I'll become a grandparent at some point during my mid 60's and up. We'll have to see what life brings. |
Anonymous
If she had waited until her 30's to have kids then she would have had her 20's to focus on herself, having fun, dating, getting established in life and she also would have been able to enjoy an empty nest in her 50's. The difference between 20 and 30 is huge. The difference between 40 and 50 not so much. Most 50 somethings can still enjoy most of the things that they did in their 40's. |