40, because my 20s were super fun and I could not have done all the things I got to do with kids in tow.

40, because I’ve done the other things I wanted to do.

40. In fact that is exactly what I did.

The real question is would you be a better parent at 20 or 40.

Definitely 40.

20

Both are bad, but I think 20 is worse. I think 25 would be fine. I had my three kids between 29 and 34 and I felt old at 34 (despite the fact that most of my friends were only getting married at tht point).

20 no doubt. Especially knowing all that I know now, and having to deal with teenage BS.

40. Financially I couldn’t have done 20. I was in college and would have had to drop out. Luckily I was engaged at 17 (!!!) and so I assume that’s who I would have married. He wasn’t a bad man but I wouldn’t have been happy. Instead I left him at 22, met Dh the next month and have been blissfully happy for 15 years. Had our kids at 30 and 32.

Had my first at almost 20. Now having 2nd at 35. I choose 20! Wish I had more kids in my 20s.

40 if I were living in DC. 20 if I were in my hometown. If I had babies at 40 in my hometown, all my friends’ kids would be in college.

Neither of these are ideal. If I had to choose, 40. But ideally, more like 25 prefered over 40.

Anonymous wrote:20 if money doesn’t matter

This. I was always mature and responsible so would have been great parent at 20, but financially it would have been tough. In any case, prefer 20 to 40.

Definitely 40

20 if money doesn’t matter

It depends. Do I have a trust fund?