Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

which would you choose?

ok just out of curiosity i was wondering if you had to either have your children betweeen the ages of 15-20 or have your children between the ages of 30-40 whihc would you choose? im putting this out here cuz thes are two most critized age groups.. so if it was not possible to have you kids in your between 20-30 whihc would choose and why..

i personaly would choose to have my children younger not because i have anything against older moms ( my mom had my lil bro at 39) but because personally for me i would rather have them younger in life so i could relax in my older years and also not have to worry about all the complications that go alng with it.. but thats just me

so what would you choose?


Asked by JrsMommy07 at 1:33 PM on Feb. 3, 2009 in Just for Fun

Level 10 (419 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (22)
  • wow! you would think this question was just for me. my kids are 22 years apart ( farther apart than me and my oldest dd ). i had my first when i was 16. i had less health problems, my mother and sisters were able to help more since they were younger. i had more friends with kids to hang out with. me and my first dd were also very close, we went to concerts together and things like that that i will probably not do with my younger one. so, i had my 2nd dd a month before i turned 39 and it is like hell! lol. seriously, it's very difficult for me, i have bad health, she is like another only child and other mother's of kids her age are usually my dd's age. i am tired all the time and it's hard for me to have to get up early in the morning because i am a night person. and i am going to be around 57 when she graduates from high school. oh, so the answer is YOUNGER, DEFINITELY!!! ~blue

    Answer by momofapreemie at 1:46 PM on Feb. 4, 2009

  • I'd say 15-20. My mom had me at an older age and I never really had her around long enough. She died while my sister and I were teenagers.

    Answer by LaurenKaye29 at 1:36 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • 30-40 more finacial security and your body is more prefer

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:37 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • I would have them in my younger years, which I did. I had my first at 19, second at 20 and will have my 3rd when I'm 22. I want to be able to enjoy my grand-kids, too. I want to be able to ride bikes with them and things like that. I can understand the pros and cons of both age groups, though.

    Answer by renea20 at 1:37 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • Younger, that way I could keep up and be active with them, and then still have the time to get my body back in order. I definitly would change the age bracket to 18-20 though, lol.

    Answer by JenO1818 at 1:39 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • 30-40 for sure. I might be more physically fit in my teens and 20's but there are things about life and parenting that are super important to know. You are usually more calm, patient and financially secure. When you have a child in your late teens - 20, you are still a kid yourself and by the time they get to be a teenager, you are too far behind in maturity to keep up with them. I know this from experience. My teen and I have had to grow up together and its very difficult to stay "two steps ahead" of her all the time. Parenting isn't all about ME...its about my child and whats best for them. You are definitely a better parent in your 30's and 40's. (barring any major circumstance)

    Answer by momofsaee at 1:43 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • 30-40. I was closer to this age group when I had my kids. I think that not only are you usually more financially stable, but you've normally gotten past the urge to be wild and free by then. I have more than one friend of mine whose moms were teenagers when they were born and their moms always seemed to have a little bit of the attitude of "I never got to be young." I know not every young mother feels that way. The only problem I ever had with having my kids closer to 30 was that I was so used to my freedom that it was kind of a shock at first to not be able to just jump up and go whenever I wanted to.

    Answer by Silvertears1275 at 1:45 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • Older. I had my son at 30 and it has been wonderful for us.  In our 20s my husband and I got to travel the world a couple times over.  We worked hard and were able to save and play hard.  At 30 we settled down and had our child.  We had 9 years with just us it was wonderful.  We had a home and financial security a younger family typically won't have especially in this economy.  I am able to be home and not worry about money.  My husband is getting a 30k raise next month which will make life even easier. 


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:48 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • Cont.

    We will be in our early 50s when our children graduate college. We can afford to pay for our children's college fully which will help them in life. We will still be young enough to resume our travels alone. We travel several times a year around the world with our kids. Had we been young parents our children never would have gotten that experience. It is all about how you want to raise your kids.


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:48 PM on Feb. 3, 2009

  • Younger, that way I could keep up and be active with them, and then still have the time to get my body back in order. I definitly would change the age bracket to 18-20 though, lol.

    Sorry this is funny to me. When I take my kids to the park the younger moms usually all sit together and I the old mom (37) is the only one our running and playing with my kids and I run 10 miles a day and work out daily. Being young does not mean one has I was also back in my size 2 jeans within weeks of giving birth. My little sister is 18 and has two kids she had her last one over a year ago and her body has not snapped back. Sorry this made me laugh a bit. lol

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:51 PM on Feb. 3, 2009