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