Sister says my husband and I are selfish for wanting a child in our 40s

Don’t take criticism from someone you wouldn’t go to for advice OP!

I mean it's none of their business and you're not unreasonable to decide when you want children . But YABU to think you'd be able to just have a baby at 40 with ease and being surprised it hasn't turned out that way. You've also increased the chances of the baby having a disability. I guess it's a little selfish but it's not like you had a kid at 20 and dumped it becuase you'd rather go travelling.

No its fine. But get a move on.

It’s up to you when or if you have children…im sure you know that….as long as you have weighed up everything ….personally not for me….when I was 40 I had 3 teens ….and my life was my own not long after …,.but you likely did all your fun stuff the other way round….certainly no right or wrong

YANBU to have a baby in your 40s. That’s normal.

But… I can see why your family might raise an eyebrow at you complaining about fertility issues if you’ve been with your partner 18 years and just left it v late.

Saying that - I know several couples in very similar situations who kicked the can down the road until that point too!

Your body, your kids, your marriage, your choice.

Tell her to keep her nose out of your business!

Pretty much everyone who has a child does it for selfish reasons, to be fair.
But, OP, it's none of your sister's business, so her opinion is irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with being selfish and thinking of your own best interests. I assume you've weighed up all the pros and cons etc of being a slightly older parent. It's none of your sister's business. Do you get a vote on when she has a child etc.

I’m an only child of an older mother.

If what is important to you is giving your child a sibling, then yes you’ve left it a bit late and those reasons are selfish I guess.
Being an only child was/still is a bit rubbish for me but some people love it.
Also, as has been pointed out, my mum started suffering with her health (Alzheimer’s) and needing me to get involved with care when I was relatively young and had primary age children of my own causing immense stress and sadness.

You’re not doing anything wrong though and are not even that old but I just thought I’d offer a different perspective.

I had my DC at 37 and 40. Both planned, both by traditional methods! It sounds like you and your DH spent your 30s in a similar way to us @MyTaupeSwan. I wasn’t the oldest mother at the school gate either time. I didn’t ask my DSis’s opinion, but she got married young and had her first baby at 24, so you can see we have very different outlooks on this!
Just be prepared that you might well become emotionally (and financially) invested in this, and not end up with a healthy baby.

My one other word of older-mum experience. I’m 55. My peers are beginning to retire. I have a 14 yo and a 17 yo who both want to go to uni. No chance of early retirement!

Why wouldn't a second baby be a sibling for their son? A five year age gap is hardly outlandish and I can assure you it's as much a sibling relationship as any other, with many positives. This is a really weird take.

Though.i understand your thought process on it, surely you must have known that fertility severely decreases at 40. And also if you did get pregnant are you prepared for the fact that your age puts the baby at more risk of disabilities. I know lots of women have children in their 40's and they're absolutely fine but it's still a risk to be weighed up

Perfectly average age for children. This isn’t the 50s anymore where women married the first man they dated, had babies and didn’t live their lives first.

Ignore your sister and you do you.

It’s no one else’s business
I have a friend who didn’t meet her dh until she was in her late 30s. She had her first at 40 and second at 42.

Of course it would have been better to have had your kids 10 years or so ago. Ageing eggs and even more so, ageing sperm, is always a risk. You are not exactly ancient to have kids the age you are now but as you are struggling to conceive it might take a few more years and then you are reaching a point where it gets a little trickier to say it's fine. If it takes another 3-4 years then the risk of disabilities is even greater. You might not regret it now, but you might regret waiting if things don't go to plan.

I'm guessing your sister is saying you are selfish because you could have had your children when the risk to their health was smaller. Doesn't mean you should have had your kids in your 20s, nor does it mean that this won't work out perfectly fine. Advance maternal and paterrnal age is a risk, but most babies are both without disabilities after all.

I think being AI might be a bigger impediment than your age.

Hmmm. I'm torn on this op. You had your fun and gallivanting in your 20s and 30s before settling down to start a family at 36/38.

Assuming you fall on straight away, by the time your youngest gets to their mid-20s they're going to have parents aged 65/67. One of my parents was very robust at that age (and still is at 79) but the other had massive health issues that ended up requiring a LOT of support and headspace and significant resentment about expectations of provisions of care and management.

By the time they get to mid 30s they're going to have elderly parents with potentially significant health/care/headspace requirements.

I’m literally not far off your age and just had my second (and final). I absolutely wouldn’t wait much longer if I were you but no, you are not being unreasonably having one now. Madness. All my friends my age have young children like me and I wasn’t anywhere near the oldest in my NCT. I think you need to find more mum friends your own age and see it’s so, so common these days. Plus who gave your family a vote over your reproductive choices anyway?

There are no guarantees when having a child. They may be born disabled. May. You may die within the next few years. May. I had a baby at 40 and did it again at 45. They are currently in our front room chatting to each other about a game they like to play on Roblox. They are now 9 and 13. The are both healthy lively children and what they are guaranteed is that they are loved and wanted by both me and my dh, their father. We are both healthy and I’m 55 and dh is 51. We love each other deeply and our children get to see a healthy, respectful relationship. Life is a gamble.

God your family sound awful.

It's obviously your choice but I do think it is a bit selfish. The risk of having a disabled child is significantly higher and the risk of you and dh dying while your child is a younger age is higher which means there is a higher chance that your current child would have to become the carer for your youngest child. If I knew my chances of having a disabled child was higher I'd want to be around for aslong as possible to be able to take care of them myself which you are unlikely be able to do

I just got pregnant & had a baby. Didn’t ask anyone!

We were very similar to you albeit we only wanted 1 DC.

DH was 50 and I was 44 when DS was born. We had been together for 20 years before this and like you had travelled the world and had a great time.

We are of course older parents although by no means the exception at our DS’s school. There are at least 6 dads over 50 with Reception aged children and there are more mothers over 40 than under.

When people talk about being in your 60’s with an 18 year old they ignore the fact that you may well have retired a long time before that. You are also likely to be far more solvent during the child raising years than younger parents. It makes things a lot easier. No mortgage, high earnings, flexible jobs etc all make the school years far more comfortable than if you were younger parents.

It’s the best thing we ever did. I wouldn’t change it for the world.

It is a bit selfish because your children will be relatively young when you are elderly and need extra care from them. Your risk of dying before they are financially independent is much higher as well.

But it’s your life, everyone is selfish sometimes and that’s no bad thing. I’ve decided I will not be providing childcare for any future grandchildren for example. Is that selfish of me? A bit. But then I had my children young and so I want my freedom now.

We all only have one life to live and we have to be selfish if we are going to get to live any of it on our own terms.

I think early 40's is fine, and quite a few parents now have children later in life.
However I think if it takes a while to convince or you start looking at IVF, pushing you to mid 40's then I can begin to see their point and they are only giving you their honest opinion. I think you would need to consider the impact to your own health if you start IVF treatment (physically and mentally) as well the financial impact this would also have (to your existing child). I assume you would have to pay privately if you did go down this route and IVF is not cheap. You could spend thousands and still end up with no child, meaning less money and probably more stress and emotional turmoil. This would be more likely to have a negative impact on the child you already have.