Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

[Anonymous]

My friend’s mom was 51 when he was born. This was rural Mexico 50 years ago. It can happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys Natalie will be fine. She’s incredibly successful in her acting, business and philanthropic ventures. I’m confident she has a nice circle of friends and I’m sure she can make more friends if need be.

Yes, we said this over the entire thread, but someone has to constantly push back ::hmmm::

It’s a discussion. Sorry push back is so hard for you.

[Anonymous]

Some of you guys are so weirdly invested in this. Why do you even care about when other women have babies? Mind your own business and worry about your own life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Rich people and celebs, the circles a big time A-lister like Natalie Portman runs in, have always had babies at 40+. And the actual statistics show that having a baby at 40+ is now more common than having a baby as a teen!

4.0% vs 4.1%. Nobody is recommending teen pregnancies, both are outliers. The majority of women in the US still have their first child in their 20s. Better access to birth control and more sex education drove down the teen birth rate. While biology naturally limits fertility—with roughly only 3% of eggs remaining by age 40—modern medicine has extended the childbearing window. Technologies such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and donor programs have made healthy pregnancies in the 40s and even 50s more common.

Just as many if not more women are actively choosing not to have more babies in their 40s. The tales of women having babies in their 40s decades ago has more to do with lack of birth control than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you guys are so weirdly invested in this. Why do you even care about when other women have babies? Mind your own business and worry about your own life.

Why are you here? Scolding randos seems like a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

You are wrong.
I go to a trad Catholic church where women do natural family planning. The ones who don’t have babies in their early to mid 40s are the *exception* not the rule. These are middle class women. It’s quite shocking actually. Some of them keep going til late 40s.

Yep. A lot of women who are already moms can get pregnant in their early 40s. I bet if most people in this thread look back a generation or two they’ll find a great grandma with 7-10 kids who had the last one in her 40s.

Growing up in the 70s, there were many families where the children of the oldest kids had aunts and uncles the same age or younger than them.

Yup. My maternal grandmother was the second-oldest of 12, and 30 years older than her youngest sibling who was born when my great-grandmother was 48. It was not uncommon for mothers and their daughters to be pregnant at the same time. My mom had 4 aunts and uncles in her age group. Several of my mom’s first cousins were my age or younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

Your ovaries are shooting out all your leftover eggs during perimenopause. It's not uncommon for women who have birthed other babies earlier in life to conceive before menopause. It used to happen all the time before chemical birth control effed with our natural body cycles.

Our poor daugters getting put on the pill or shots as soon as they begin menses. Their bodies will never have the chance to work properly, and they won't know the reason why when they are struggling with fertility in what should be the most fertile point un their lives

What are you suggesting for our poor daughters? Abstinence? Pull and pray? A birth control method they don’t want? Pregnancies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

I think the issue is conceiving your first when you are older in your 40s. Women need to start conceiving earlier if they want their bodies to work correctly.

No that is not the issue. It’s not that you need to exercise the muscle. Some women are genetically programmed to have slowly aging eggs. Others are genetically programmed to have eggs that age more quickly. If you wait until your 40s to start trying, without a way to know which camp you fall in, you may have an issue. There is research that shows that extended fertility gene is linked to longevity gene so if you have women in your family that lived to 100 and were having babies in their 40s, you’re more likely to be able to do so.

No.

This is totally incorrect.

Women are more fertile with healthier eggs in their late teens and 20s, with safer easier pregnancies and healthier newborns, because that is when nature wants humans to conceive and reproduce.

Old moms and young teens are much more likely to have dangerous pregnancies, and deliveries with more risk to their babies, lower birth rates, more developmental delays, more chromosomal disorders, etc, because nature did not design our bodies to have our first babies as 10 year olds or 45 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the worry about other Mom friends. One of my best friends just turned 40 exactly 3 weeks before I turned 50.

A lot of Natalie‘s cohorts in future preschool years are probably having their third in their late 30s and are around her same age or even their first in their early to mid 30s and will be within 7-10 years of her.

I’m not really worried about Natalie Portman making mom friends lol.

This is pretty funny. For one thing, one of my sons best friends is a girl who's mom was 44 when she was born. Even though I was 32 when he was born we have endless things to talk about.

Two -- this pp is clearly someone for whom "mom friends" makes up a huge portion of life. I get it. But Natalie Portman's life is enormous -- acting, her book club, etc etc etc. "mom friends" will not make a dent.

Sorry, no. I don't look for friends at my kids school but I'm forced to be around them and the youngest ones are annoying, cliquey, loud, and go nuts trying to socially engineer play groups with kids. Older, chill, mature moms are rarer. Whether or not you want to admit it a school is a community everyone is a part of whether or not you want to make friends with people or not. You're all in it together and you're not always going to like everyone.

Her nanny staff will be taking care of playdates, so thos won't be an issue for Natalie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women who actually CARE about other women's reproductive health and their choices need to care about the narrative of celebrity geriatric pregnancies.

You may think only "mouth breathers" think a woman can easily get pregnant at 44, but many women do, especially impressionable young women who were raised in the "you can have it all" generation that witnessed many, many celebrities having children in their 40s without sharing all the details of how they got that pregnancy.

No one needs to share how their babies were conceived

I agree that privacy should be honored, but also, there is a degree of harm when celebrities share the pregnancy but not the years of fertility treatments, purchased eggs, and other medical intervention needed to get pregnant. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of women who wait to have children until their 40s will be unable to do so without a tremendous amount of expensive and invasive medical intervention. We are creating a generation of women who think they are going to win the lottery.

Do you really think your fellow women are THAT stupid and so easily swayed by celebrities and tabloids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the worry about other Mom friends. One of my best friends just turned 40 exactly 3 weeks before I turned 50.

A lot of Natalie‘s cohorts in future preschool years are probably having their third in their late 30s and are around her same age or even their first in their early to mid 30s and will be within 7-10 years of her.

I’m not really worried about Natalie Portman making mom friends lol.

This is pretty funny. For one thing, one of my sons best friends is a girl who's mom was 44 when she was born. Even though I was 32 when he was born we have endless things to talk about.

Two -- this pp is clearly someone for whom "mom friends" makes up a huge portion of life. I get it. But Natalie Portman's life is enormous -- acting, her book club, etc etc etc. "mom friends" will not make a dent.

Sorry, no. I don't look for friends at my kids school but I'm forced to be around them and the youngest ones are annoying, cliquey, loud, and go nuts trying to socially engineer play groups with kids. Older, chill, mature moms are rarer. Whether or not you want to admit it a school is a community everyone is a part of whether or not you want to make friends with people or not. You're all in it together and you're not always going to like everyone.

This isn't a conversation that compares the "coolness" of young moms vs. old moms.

This is about women's reproductive health. Women need to understand the statistical realities around their fertility and that not only is having a child later less likely, the child AND the mother are at greater risk for complications at birth and beyond.

The statistics on AMA pregnancies are out there for everyone to read, and I suggest they DO, instead of People magazine.

Most women aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the worry about other Mom friends. One of my best friends just turned 40 exactly 3 weeks before I turned 50.

A lot of Natalie‘s cohorts in future preschool years are probably having their third in their late 30s and are around her same age or even their first in their early to mid 30s and will be within 7-10 years of her.

I’m not really worried about Natalie Portman making mom friends lol.

This is pretty funny. For one thing, one of my sons best friends is a girl who's mom was 44 when she was born. Even though I was 32 when he was born we have endless things to talk about.

Two -- this pp is clearly someone for whom "mom friends" makes up a huge portion of life. I get it. But Natalie Portman's life is enormous -- acting, her book club, etc etc etc. "mom friends" will not make a dent.

Sorry, no. I don't look for friends at my kids school but I'm forced to be around them and the youngest ones are annoying, cliquey, loud, and go nuts trying to socially engineer play groups with kids. Older, chill, mature moms are rarer. Whether or not you want to admit it a school is a community everyone is a part of whether or not you want to make friends with people or not. You're all in it together and you're not always going to like everyone.

Her nanny staff will be taking care of playdates, so thos won't be an issue for Natalie.

Glad to know that children are just accessories to some people..

[Anonymous]

Young women aren't basing their fertility choices on Natalie Portman. She is not relevant to anyone under 35.

I remember when I got married and my DH and I were discussing when to have kids, he mentioned something about a celebrity having kids in her mid or late 40s. I was only 29 at the time, but I quickly educated him on what it takes to have kids at that age (money, luck, and more money) and told him no way I wanted to wait until my 40s at all. Men might get the wrong idea from these stories because they don't live in female bodies and don't know how they work. But any woman who intentionally delayed her first pregnancy until her 40s just because she heard Natalie Portman had a baby at 44 is dumb and likely shouldn't be passing on her genes anyway.

Best wishes to Ms. Portman. Glad she has plenty of resources to help her through it, having an infant in your mid-40s sounds like both a blessing and a curse. Not for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young women aren't basing their fertility choices on Natalie Portman. She is not relevant to anyone under 35.

I remember when I got married and my DH and I were discussing when to have kids, he mentioned something about a celebrity having kids in her mid or late 40s. I was only 29 at the time, but I quickly educated him on what it takes to have kids at that age (money, luck, and more money) and told him no way I wanted to wait until my 40s at all. Men might get the wrong idea from these stories because they don't live in female bodies and don't know how they work. But any woman who intentionally delayed her first pregnancy until her 40s just because she heard Natalie Portman had a baby at 44 is dumb and likely shouldn't be passing on her genes anyway.

Best wishes to Ms. Portman. Glad she has plenty of resources to help her through it, having an infant in your mid-40s sounds like both a blessing and a curse. Not for me.

Which is it? Because many, many people are in here talking about how normal and common mid to late 40s pregnancies are. Why would you need to educate your husband when he seems to believe what so many others in here believe? We’ve had how many anecdotes about how ordinary this actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the worry about other Mom friends. One of my best friends just turned 40 exactly 3 weeks before I turned 50.

A lot of Natalie‘s cohorts in future preschool years are probably having their third in their late 30s and are around her same age or even their first in their early to mid 30s and will be within 7-10 years of her.

I’m not really worried about Natalie Portman making mom friends lol.

This is pretty funny. For one thing, one of my sons best friends is a girl who's mom was 44 when she was born. Even though I was 32 when he was born we have endless things to talk about.

Two -- this pp is clearly someone for whom "mom friends" makes up a huge portion of life. I get it. But Natalie Portman's life is enormous -- acting, her book club, etc etc etc. "mom friends" will not make a dent.

Sorry, no. I don't look for friends at my kids school but I'm forced to be around them and the youngest ones are annoying, cliquey, loud, and go nuts trying to socially engineer play groups with kids. Older, chill, mature moms are rarer. Whether or not you want to admit it a school is a community everyone is a part of whether or not you want to make friends with people or not. You're all in it together and you're not always going to like everyone.

This isn't a conversation that compares the "coolness" of young moms vs. old moms.

This is about women's reproductive health. Women need to understand the statistical realities around their fertility and that not only is having a child later less likely, the child AND the mother are at greater risk for complications at birth and beyond.

The statistics on AMA pregnancies are out there for everyone to read, and I suggest they DO, instead of People magazine.

Most women aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

I don't think women are stupid - but they are underserved and misserved information -by society and their medical providers. A lot of women, based on this website, don't have a firm grasp on reproductive health, risks, and realities. They just assume the fertility will be there when they want it - it may be and it may not be. Please note, there is a VERY ROBUST "infertility" section of this website, in part because women's medical providers make the same assumption you are making. There is a lot of data on this and it needs to be shared openly and honestly without judgement.