I think having babies in your 40s sounds tough, but having teens in your 50s sounds tougher.

Just spent the weekend helping our recent college grad move into her first apartment. We are nearing sixty and we were sore from hauling boxes up and down the stairs in the heat!
The physical part of having kids goes on for a long time and can be hard on your back and your knees. It gets harder when you are older.

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.

My family actually did this experiment. My grandmother had my uncle and father at 29 and 25 and my aunt at 47 (oops!). There is no question that they were much better parents to my aunt who is in turn a much emotionally healthier person. It is far better to have emotionally regulated parents and a solid foundation in childhood but potentially lose them earlier than to suffer with disregulated parents. Older parents can definitely be better for children than immature parents. It would have been profoundly selfish for me to have my kids at a young age when I lacked the mental health to be a good parent.

Of course you are telling your anecdote. I’ll tell you mine. My parents were in their 40s when I was born. They were selfish, disinterested parents. My spouse’s parent were 18 & 19 when the oldest sibling was born and 21 and 22 when my spouse was born. My spouse, by far, is more emotionally stable than I am. Even though my parents had degrees, stable jobs, etc., that had lived for years only caring about themselves. I was inconvenient to them, even though they said they wanted me.

They could have been even worse parents on their twenties. Unless you have an 18 year older sibling you don’t know…

My point is that we are arguing a point in circles. People are not monolithic. Live your life and let live.

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 (!!).

My mother had me when she was 39. She lived to see me married at 35 and to see her grandchildren, ages 9 and 13, before she died.

I answered above saying I have no regrets having had my first at 47. But thinking about it OP is asking the wrong question. I have no regrets because it literally wasn’t possible for me to have a kid sooner. There was never a point in my life where I was deciding between having kids now and waiting. Only a point where I was deciding to have a kid or none at all.

Better question is to ask what I would advise my daughter and of course I would advise her to have children earlier even consider having them much much earlier. Personally I would rather help my daughter out with the costs of daycare if needed than IVF.

I was not emotionally healthy enough to be a good parent at younger ages (mostly due to the childhood trauma I experienced) but I hope I will be able to give my daughter a solid foundation and she will be healthier as a young adult than I was.

So no regrets, but I won’t be encouraging my daughter to follow in my footsteps and only start TTC at 44.

Anonymous wrote:There are three types of women who have kids later in life.

1. Those who for whatever reason couldn't find a suitable partner earlier.
2. Those with fertility problems.
3. Those who deliberately put having kids off until they felt "financially and professionally secure" or "mature."

I'm ok with (1) and (2). I think (3) is a mistake.

Just my opinion.

So in your opinion it's better to have kids young even if you're immature and cannot provide for them financially? Mkay.

I just regret waiting so long (38 at conception) because I couldn’t have a second. Spent almost 5 years between TTC (miscarriage after miscarriage), IVF, and adoption agency waiting pool for #2.

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.

My family actually did this experiment. My grandmother had my uncle and father at 29 and 25 and my aunt at 47 (oops!). There is no question that they were much better parents to my aunt who is in turn a much emotionally healthier person. It is far better to have emotionally regulated parents and a solid foundation in childhood but potentially lose them earlier than to suffer with disregulated parents. Older parents can definitely be better for children than immature parents. It would have been profoundly selfish for me to have my kids at a young age when I lacked the mental health to be a good parent.

Of course you are telling your anecdote. I’ll tell you mine. My parents were in their 40s when I was born. They were selfish, disinterested parents. My spouse’s parent were 18 & 19 when the oldest sibling was born and 21 and 22 when my spouse was born. My spouse, by far, is more emotionally stable than I am. Even though my parents had degrees, stable jobs, etc., that had lived for years only caring about themselves. I was inconvenient to them, even though they said they wanted me.

They could have been even worse parents on their twenties. Unless you have an 18 year older sibling you don’t know…

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.

My family actually did this experiment. My grandmother had my uncle and father at 29 and 25 and my aunt at 47 (oops!). There is no question that they were much better parents to my aunt who is in turn a much emotionally healthier person. It is far better to have emotionally regulated parents and a solid foundation in childhood but potentially lose them earlier than to suffer with disregulated parents. Older parents can definitely be better for children than immature parents. It would have been profoundly selfish for me to have my kids at a young age when I lacked the mental health to be a good parent.

Of course you are telling your anecdote. I’ll tell you mine. My parents were in their 40s when I was born. They were selfish, disinterested parents. My spouse’s parent were 18 & 19 when the oldest sibling was born and 21 and 22 when my spouse was born. My spouse, by far, is more emotionally stable than I am. Even though my parents had degrees, stable jobs, etc., that had lived for years only caring about themselves. I was inconvenient to them, even though they said they wanted me.

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.

uh, what? how does being financially secure NOT benefit kids?

No one is advocating young parents with no financial future having babies. The problem with DCUM is that parents feel like a baby who doesn't get pushed around in a $2000 stroller or live in a 5000sf house in the suburbs or attend the top private school are deprived. I see a lot of younger families with a lot less than that raising great kids and having awesome lives. I absolutely one hundred percent think that DCUM's definition of "financial security" is warped and harmful for many children.

Nope, never was into name brands and big houses although our net worth in 7 figures. But providing lots of enrichment (museums, theater, music, arts) in DC, traveling and experiencing different places and cultures, being exposed to variety of different foods, great family experiences and memories at the beach house so far at 7 years old are more important than the stuff. Being able to have alot of family time, be present for sports games, being involved in his school because of secure finances and flexibility with work in an already established career is priceless.

But even more important is starting that 529 at birth and putting in a lot in the younger years so that money is compounded tax free for college, grad/med/law school will be covered if interested. And money to help with down payment of 1st place, etc.. will give DS a very head start in life. Talk to the millennials today who are weighted down by student debt, etc….

No way would I be able to give DS any of the above experiences or head start having a child in my 20’s or early 30’s. That’s the game changer having financial security means to us.

There are three types of women who have kids later in life.

1. Those who for whatever reason couldn't find a suitable partner earlier.
2. Those with fertility problems.
3. Those who deliberately put having kids off until they felt "financially and professionally secure" or "mature."

I'm ok with (1) and (2). I think (3) is a mistake.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response speaks volumes. The poster never said a word about "helping." You turned everything into being about you -- not the grandparents or grandchildren.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You and your husband both sound a little nutty. Maybe that's why it took so long for you to find each other?

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.

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).

FIRST MENTION OF BRUNCHES!! could Brunch Granny be behind this thread? Signs point to yes!

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.

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.

What I find so interesting is that you are on here enough to think you know me. Which means that you, too, seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Pot meet kettle.