Nowdays more people are NOT having kids in their 20s anymore and waiting until their 30s or even 40s. I guess there is some advantages to waiting because you're more emotionally mature and settled in life, but when you have kids in your 30s and 40s, they're teens in your 50s. I don't know anybody in their 50s who's done raising kids that wants to go through that again. They say they're too old. If you have a baby at 21, they're gonna be grown by the time you're in your 40s and you can go back to doing you I guess. What's your take on this?

I say the kids will come when they come. 20's, 30's, 40's, each has challenges. So I'm more of a "they come when they come" type.

I think it depends totally on the person.

For me personally, I had my son young (23) and I love being the age I am now to still feel young and do a lot of active things with him. But, at the same time, having waited, I would have been way more financially ready and it would have all been easier.

There is no good reason to have any kids. The whole carry on my name bull is just that, bull. It's the ultimate vanity.

fetaby wrote:

There is no good reason to have any kids. The whole carry on my name bull is just that, bull. It's the ultimate vanity.

I disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to have kids.

You can never be prepared to have kids, but it's always better to wait until you're sure they're what you want and that you have enough room in your life to make them priority #1. I was 22 when my oldest daughter was born and yeah I had the energy to cope with the runaround, but I didn't have the security at all. Had only just graduated college and wasn't yet employed. So everything was this haste of "gotta get ready...gotta get ready..." My and my ex-wife's parents wound up stepping in A LOT during that period to help with money, insurance, apartment (my in laws rented one for us since neither of us were on our jobs long enough to be able to secure a lease) and baby paraphernalia. When my second daughter was born four years later, we were slightly more stable but still not on thick enough ice. My son was born when I was 30. Everything was smooth sailing with him. I was prepared for him mentally and financially.

Moral of the story, better to wait until you're in the right head space. If that means over 30, then so be it.

There is some value in having them young; at twenty years old I had the endurance to chase behind a toddler running through the house when it was bath or bed time. At the same time when you're still basically a kid yourself, and haven't had much of a chance to get to know yourself as an adult, then are suddenly thrust into the role of parent (when you don't have a steady job and are still depending on your own parents for survival) it can be more emotionally taxing to deal with than what an established 40 year old probably feels when he or she becomes a new parent. A forty-something with a pre-schooler is less likely to rebel against parenthood than a twenty-five year old (sort of like that story that was posted here last week about the mother who left her kids alone to go clubbing.) The older you are, the more patient and sensible you are -- which will have a bearing on how well you raise your kids, and how they behave.

My daughter was born when I was eighteen, and true, when she's eighteen I'll only be thirty-six; however, parenthood lasts forever. I'm not naive enough to think that when she becomes legal, she'll suddenly be able to fly on her own and I'll be able to get back any play time that I lost. It doesn't work like that. Even when they're twenty-one, twenty-two, etc., etc., you are still going to have to be a mom or dad.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Pretty much. I think 30 is the perfect age to start having children. Late twenties at the very least.

It is. 30 is the age when most people who had considered the idea of kids are ready to go forward with it. I had mine at 20 and for the rest of that decade was bent about making sure no more came. At 30, I'm now ready for more. 30somethings are better about making and handling the decision than 20somethings are.

My parents waited until their mid-30's to have me, and I think it made a big difference. We weren't rich or anything like that, but they were able to give me a good home and have some money floating around. Until they started fighting, got into drugs, divorced, etc....

My sister is 27 and has 3 kids and isn't well off at all. Things have gotten better, but then again, she only has one of her kids.

I think kids are better to have after 30, especially first time parents. I know a few over 30 people who already have 2 or 3 kids so they aren't trying to have more, but most who never had a kid seem more enthusiastic about the idea than people in their 20s usually are.

Chris wrote:

There is some value in having them young; at twenty years old I had the endurance to chase behind a toddler running through the house when it was bath or bed time. At the same time when you're still basically a kid yourself, and haven't had much of a chance to get to know yourself as an adult, then are suddenly thrust into the role of parent (when you don't have a steady job and are still depending on your own parents for survival) it can be more emotionally taxing to deal with than what an established 40 year old probably feels when he or she becomes a new parent. A forty-something with a pre-schooler is less likely to rebel against parenthood than a twenty-five year old (sort of like that story that was posted here last week about the mother who left her kids alone to go clubbing.) The older you are, the more patient and sensible you are -- which will have a bearing on how well you raise your kids, and how they behave.

My daughter was born when I was eighteen, and true, when she's eighteen I'll only be thirty-six; however, parenthood lasts forever. I'm not naive enough to think that when she becomes legal, she'll suddenly be able to fly on her own and I'll be able to get back any play time that I lost. It doesn't work like that. Even when they're twenty-one, twenty-two, etc., etc., you are still going to have to be a mom or dad.

And I'll be fifty when my second turns eighteen. Wow.

When I was in my 20s i was married and THOUGHT i was secure... wrong. Then in my late twenties/early 30s i traveled and accumulated everything i wanted thinking that i didnt want to resent a baby from keeping me from enjoying certain things in life. I know kids cause sacrifices, but i did not want to feel that i sacrificed everything and would have to wait until they grew up to enjoy things i wanted. Now im 37 and childless because of decisions/relationship choices I have made. But I was never a "I HAVE to have a baby" kinda of person. I hate change and all of my friends are divorced and fighting over custody and etc.... never wanted that

I'll admit to feeling quite maternal a few years ago. I dunno, something just made me feel like I absolutely should just have a baby right now. The feeling passed though. Consciously, I'll start thinking about having kids seriously in another two years, Lord spare.

Chris wrote:

And I'll be fifty when my second turns eighteen. Wow.

Take it from one who's been down that road. It ain't so bad.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I'll admit to feeling quite maternal a few years ago. I dunno, something just made me feel like I absolutely should just have a baby right now. The feeling passed though. Consciously, I'll start thinking about having kids seriously in another two years, Lord spare.

Everytime I started feeling maternal, I went to my sis' house with the screaming yelling kids... took them to the park/movies/mcD's and then dropped them back off. My house was nice and quiet and hers was in chaos! Feeling of loss passed quickly LOL

I think it really depends on the person. There are pros and cons both ways.

being 25 today is not the same as 25yrs old 20 yrs ago. My nephew is 25, his wife 27 and they are pregnant. They are both incredibly immature and can't even take care of a dog let alone a child. That is not to say that goes for ALL in that age bracket, but society is making people become more dependent on the parents for longer.

Financially it is more difficult to be under 26, due to the Federal govt's considering one dependent on the parents until that age---so most likely no financial aid for school or little because you must use your parents income tax returns. In NJ car insurance sky rockets for you until you are 26, especially for males... my bro was paying close to $4300 a year with no tickets/points... then when he turned 26 it dropped to $1500. Now health insurance is covering kids until 26, which is a good thing because many jobs are not carrying insurance, however, this group is becoming more and more dependent on their parents. and it IS NOT their fault.

Not to mention that when they go to start the family, they are already in debt to their eyeballs from the student loans that they ran up trying to get educated so that they could support the family they want.

I wouldnt want to be in my 20s again.... no way. Good luck guys/gals!

Gotta admit that now that i'm 26 & the first 1/2 of my 20s is over i'm starting to get nervous about not being a dad.