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

[MyTaupeSwan]

I’m 40 this year and my husband is 42 We have a son who just turned 4 and started school in September, and now we feel ready for another child. We left things quite late in terms of having kids we’ve been together 18 years, and in that time we’ve had a lot of fun, traveled, and done everything we could while we had the chance and without too many worries.

Now that we’ve finally settled down, we got married 9 years ago. We were one of those couples that were engaged for a few years not because we didn’t want to get married or weren’t sure, but because we wanted to experience other things before having a wedding. We did couples counseling to make sure we were a good match, both for parenting and for marriage. I was worried about repeating my mum’s mistakes, so I did individual counselling as well.

We’ve always wanted children, but we wanted to have our freedom and experiences first, because having a child is such a big commitment. We’ve faced a lot of judgment, mainly from my family, but we feel ready now. I think we’re great parents even though it’s only been four years, the journey has just begun. Our son is the light of our lives, and we really enjoy being parents.

I’m glad we got to do all the things we wanted before having children, but I do feel judged sometimes. My mum thinks I was selfish for not having kids in my late 20s. I’ve told her that we’ve been trying recently and struggling, but she doesn’t really offer support just says I’m old and should have done it when I was “more fertile.”

My husband and I have had a lot of conversations about this. We’ve decided that if trying naturally doesn’t work, we’ll try a few rounds of IVF, and if that doesn’t succeed, we’ll continue living our lives. We’re lucky to have our son, and he is incredibly loved.

Is 40 too late and are we being selfish.
Seeing my brothers and sister with all their children and their children having siblings, I want that for our son. Maybe I should have spent my 20s having children and we wouldn’t have this issue

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.

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.

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 .......

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

@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

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!

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

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.

@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.

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

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

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.

The risk of a woman dying between 55 and 59 is 3.9 per 1000 so hardly a huge risk. And that will include those who have known underlying health risks that are either known or factored in when choosing whether to have children, or can be mitigated through lifestyle changes. We all know of people who've died at that age, but we do need to keep it in perspective.

Around 29,000 parents with minor children (under age 18) die every year in the UK. Having children later in life increases the risk of you dying while your children are still children or young adults.

To recap my initial comment, every life choice has risks and as we all only have one life to live it’s ok to be selfish and live at least some of it how we choose to please ourselves. We grow up living for our parents, not how we choose.

Some adults choose to be a bit selfish up front and have children later- but there are consequences

Some choose to be a bit selfish later, have children young but don’t provide free grandparent childcare- there are consequences to that as well.

Some choose to be childfree and that also has consequences later in life as well as a lower overall life expectancy.

I think a bit of selfishness during our life is our right.
Our lives are our own and not meant to be lived entirely in the service of others.

I say own it. No sense pretending you’re not being selfish when you are. Which is what some seem to be arguing, that they are not at all being selfish in any way. Bollocks.

Then no one should have a child because you can have cancer or a heart attack at any age.

Your exaggeration to make a point is not maths but trying to predict the future of people circumstances and lifespan.

To add to your examples - I have friends who have had primary kids and died in their 40’s. I have also had friends with ‘elderly’ parents who died in their mid 90’s. The elderly parents could financially support their children easily because they factored it in.

By your reasoning two thirds are financially Independant. So the majority.

Grandparents don’t have to juggle toddlers. Not
every grandparent is around to help/babysit/take car of grandkids so this doesn’t wash as a reason either.

Your points seem based on feelings rather than facts which is fine but it isn’t simple maths.

It’s pretty factual that the risk of illness and death increases as you age.

I do not work in a genetics lab, I work in a pathology lab. We receive all foetal parts from all miscarriages in the area, regardless of how or what caused it. It has nothing to do with genetics investigation, it's literally sent to us for histology and examination.
Some specimens are sent for genetic testing, only the placenta not the foetus because the foetus is not allowed to be dissected or touched, only measured and external examined.
Your comments are so off point and non relevant that I'm not even going to continue to explain further!

@Mysticmaiden you do not “receive all foetal parts from all miscarriages in the area” - that is absolutely ridiculous. What you mean is that you receive all foetal parts that are sent for testing, which is a VERY different thing.

The vast majority of women who miscarry will not send the products for testing. I have had 7 mcs myself and only one of them was tested. For quite a few of mine, the mc happened in such a way that I couldn’t collect the products, others were early so not much to collect, others the NHS said no point as likely bad luck/caused by my age.

There is a cost involved in testing and it is usually only incurred when there is a particular reason. In my case, the only one tested was because it was much later than all the others (10 weeks) and because I was on a full treatment protocol so it was unexpected, and testing was recommended to rule out genetic abnormalities to see whether the protocol needed to be changed.

It is scientific fact that older women have more miscarriages and it is precisely because of that, that younger women who mc are more likely to have investigations including testing. Please read this through carefully and if you still don’t understand it might be worth asking your colleagues about it.

I don't see anywhere in your post where you asked your sister for her approval. Tell her to keep her opinions to herself. Your life, your circus, live it the way you want to live it. Good luck