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

No exaggeration.
Let’s do a bit of simple maths.
OP takes the average 3yrs to fall pregnant for a woman her age, she has junior at 45 or so

She will be 66 when he graduates University

Is a 21 year old financially independent these days? So few are from what I can see. Over a third are still living at home with mum and dad. Who in this case will be pensioners.

And would that adult child still not be considered a ‘young adult’ at 31 when OP is 76? Then if Junior has their children at the usual age of 35, will they not then be juggling toddlers while OP is pushing 80?

It’s a risk that is real and becoming more common. I’ve seen primary age children orphaned because their 50s parents dropped dead from heart attacks or cancer.

That’s not my assumption, love
Suggest you have a re-read

none of her business, i know nany women in 40s who had healthy babies

@Mysticmaiden Ive had the misfortune to have had several mcs in my life over the course of many years and I can confirm that medical professionals are much more likely to investigate a mc (and incur the cost of genetic testing) if they think it is less likely to have been simply caused by age. It makes complete sense that you would see more mcs from younger women because they are less likely to be told that their mc is just bad luck.

It’s odd, given your line of work, that you wouldn’t understand that. It’s just a fact that older women are more likely to miscarry - the risk is 10% at 25 and 53% at 45: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6425455/

Maternal age is the greatest factor for mc.

Im ttc at 39 so I’m not against it at all, but it’s unhelpful to pretend it’s not harder to conceive at an older age.

It's not cells or checks we get the actual miscarriage in a pot I.e. the foetus and all the blood. Its mostly from younger women in early 20s like i said. It's funny how people comment and theorise when they don't have a clue what it's about. Why would they do more checks on younger women if they were less likely to have miscarriages?? Do you even think about what you have written? They would do less checks if they were less likely to have miscarriages. Its clearly not less likely for younger women to have miscarriages and just to make that comment shows your not engaging your logic or researching before commenting.
Yes men also contribute to fertility issues but as I've said in my comment there are many women who have slated women over 40, so my reply was based on that to those women. In fact not a single comment was made about the man until you, so well done for that.

No is not, your life, your decision. I gave birth, first baby, at 44, 46 now I am pregnant. Follow your heart!

Why does your sister think you're selfish to have a baby in your 40s? Its such a bizarre thing the way people say stuff like this. People talk about age as if it's the only factor to health, lots of people in their 20s are unhealthy and lots of people in their 40s are healthy. Tomorrow isn't promised to any of us regardless of age so I say if you have the means and the love for another child then go for it. No matter what you do people will have an opinion. Motherhood seems to come with judgement no matter what decision we make so if you're doing the best for your family then their opinion really doesn't matter.
Good luck whatever you decide!

@Mysticmaiden is the reason you get those cells to check reasons for miscarriage, surely more checks will be done for younger women as less likely to have miscarriages

Hormone levels aren’t the only thing to consider though, quality of eggs is also important and potential dad’s age is also a factor

All the ageist comments on here. Firstly I work in a cellular pathology lab where we receive products of conception aka miscarriage specimens, I'd say 95% of them are from women in their early 20s, yes I was surprised at that myself but it's true.
Secondly a comment about a woman's fertility drops off the cliff after 35...don't make me laugh. I must be an alien because I'm 44 had comprehensive female hormone tests done due to having a few symptoms - poor sleep, anxiety and wanted to know if I was in peri-menopause, every single hormone (8 of them) was in the optimal range..this was done on day 2 of my cycle when some hormone levels can be lower. My GP said I'm definitely not in peri-menopause. My oestrogen levels were bang on middle of range! Let's not generalise and assume all women in their 40s are past it. The last few decades, people are a lot healthier and looking after themselves better, the proof is in life expectancy.
I'm not trying for a baby, but I don't see an issue with someone who is at any age as long as they have the finances, time and love to give to a child.
My parents were younger in their 20s, not much savings and spent most of their time arguing daily and neglecting us. Would've preferred them to be older with more maturity to bring up children.

Your experience with your mum didn’t put you off from having your own kids late in life, so bit weird that you think the OP should take it into account!

fwiw my gran had my dad at 42, also in 1957 - a surprise baby when her other 3 kids were teenagers - and he had a brilliant childhood, doted on by everyone. She died at 85 so he was 43. My mum’s mum had her at 23 (eldest) but had her last child at 39 in the 1960s (6 kids) - it was totally normal for women to have children into late 30s and 40s then, just that it was much less common for it to be their first/only child at that age.

My mother was 43 when she had me, an only child in 1957. I had my children aged 38 and 40. My mother was very old fashioned and it caused me some problems / bullying at school with what she made me wear. My father, same age as her, died when I was 9 years old. And re energy levels and my own kids, I certainly struggled with being up 3 times a night for feeds and later no energy to actively play with them much, though I hope they wouldn't call me old fashioned. Just a perspective on what can happen with older parents.

I had my second born at 40 and my third at 44. Perfectly healthy babies. So go with your heart and not other people's opinions. God bless the fruit of your womb.

Omg!! My entire NCT group started having babies at 40 then went on to have another early 40’s - you do you!! It’s literally no one’s business at all!!

I had my only child at 45, enjoyed being single until I was 41, we each owned our own home so sold up and combined assets and lived mortgage free on one income until our child started school. Like you, our child is the light of our lives, and there is no reason to be reticent about having a child at that age. Children benefit from the experiences mature adults bring to parenting.

What on earth! Your kid will leave home while you are still fit and active, and be a fully grown adult in the 30s or early 40s when you die. Meanwhile you are in a much better place to care for a kid than many younger parents. Your sister is an idiot and it's not her business.

Of course it's your decision but as you've asked, let's not forget what selfish means: "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure". So far, all the comments that I have read have all been about you and, at the risk of being criticised, there's another person in this equation - the child. I have seen teenagers at things like sports day, local sports clubs and so on who, at the age of 12/13/14 had parents who were mid-50s+ who were unable to join in. I would be lying if I said this didn't impact on the children concerned. I also recall the father-in-law of my late brother who waited for the day his son would want to kick a football around with him. He missed it because his son didn't want to because his dad was too old. Anyhow, absolutely your decision and assuming you've thought this through from the child''s perspective, you are not being selfish. But on the other hand .......

My mother was 40 when she had me ( first and only) my father was 58, both brilliant parents and I was lucky that dad lived until 97 and mum passed at 87. Do what’s right for you and stuff everyone else.

If you have been together 18 years I do think it is slightly odd that you didn’t have DC earlier in your 30s, and also leaving such a gap for trying with your second.

I had DC in late 30s but that was only because I met DH in my 30s. Would have had them earlier if I had met DH earlier

You also seem very blasé about adoption.

"if trying naturally doesn’t work, we’ll try a few rounds of IVF" pushes your age to 43-45 by the time the kid is born. That makes the age difference with your current child 8-10 - they won't be siblings who grow up together. I'm 45, perimenopausal, and there's nothing I would hate more right now than a newborn who needs me all day every day.

My Granny had her last Baby at 50 years I am sure he was happy to have been alive. He was 35 when she died. It is agest to dictate to others about their choices later in life. You have so much experience to offer your child ? children...

I don’t think you can generalise.
My mother had me when she had just turned 18 - I’ve spent the last 18 years visiting her in various supported living & nursing care facilities. She died a few weeks ago at 81.
When she became ill, I had a 7 yr old & a 3 year old.
People become ill at different ages.
My mother’s mother lived to 98 - my mother was ill herself before her own mother started to decline.
My grandmother, and mother’s, greatest joy was having grandchildren.
I know, as an older mother, I was a more capable mother, than my mother, who had me at 18.

That child will be under 10 when you are 50. They could effectively end up being a carer at 15. Illnesses start cropping up after 50,its just selfish to put this on a child.
And you REALLY needed 18 years to travel etc???

I had a baby at 48. I must be extremely selfish so, according to your family! 😂
I would ignore these small-minded, old fashioned people. You sound like great parents - going to counselling to intentionally break toxic cycles, living your lives first as you know the responsibility of having children - if only everyone did this before procreating, we’d have more well-adjusted and cared for children in this world.
And people are healthier and live longer nowadays so I don’t understand where age matters - there’s a good chance you’ll see your child into their forties.

Also there is a high percentage of 40+ year old parents nowadays so you are not alone in this.
best of luck with your journey.

I had both of mine in my early 40s. They are in their 20s now and I’m fine. You don’t need energy as such when they’re eighteen, you need it when they are toddlers and primary school age. (I’m in my 60s and am no different looks wise or energy wise to my mum friends who had their kids in their 30s).

The one thing that does play on my mind though is that they won’t get as long with me here as I would like. I probably won’t see any grandchildren reach adulthood

It’s actually really irresponsible to have a child before you turn 40. The first signs of diseases like MS and Huntingtons often don’t emerge until you’re 40, so you should wait until 40 before having kids so you know you don’t have a degenerative condition that will prevent them from having an energetic parent.

Oh wait, does that sound stupid? My bad. I guess we should have children when we can provide a loving home and not age-shame people.