Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

[Anonymous]

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

She won't. No need to worry about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They don’t need data. Their grandma’s cousin had a baby naturally at 49 in the Philippines in 1962. So their fertility is locked in. They are all set!

[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.

+1

MYOFB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are some of you guys bitter because you waited too long and aren’t moms?

Not me. I was an older mom. It's not all it's cracked up to be and certainly not glamorous.

You might have felt the same way as a young mom. That's not all it's cracked up to be for some people. And let's face it, some people just don't like motherhood at any age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are some of you guys bitter because you waited too long and aren’t moms?

Not me. I was an older mom. It's not all it's cracked up to be and certainly not glamorous.

You might have felt the same way as a young mom. That's not all it's cracked up to be for some people. And let's face it, some people just don't like motherhood at any age.

Nope. I felt very different from my first to my last. If anything I should have started earlier, not ended later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

You can already get a fertility report from a specialist giving you your individual odds. This isn’t uncharted territory.

[Anonymous]

Michelle Williams welcomed a baby via surrogate last April at 44. This was her 4th. She has 3 children with her new husband (born in 2020, 2022, 2025). She had them at 39 and 42 and used a surrogate at 44.

Her first was with Heath Ledger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

You can already get a fertility report from a specialist giving you your individual odds. This isn’t uncharted territory.

The previous PP is correct. There is no correlation to number of children. The only thing they look at to predict fertility for women is age. Over 42? Less than 5% live birth rate with IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

You can already get a fertility report from a specialist giving you your individual odds. This isn’t uncharted territory.

The previous PP is correct. There is no correlation to number of children. The only thing they look at to predict fertility for women is age. Over 42? Less than 5% live birth rate with IVF.

The likely to struggle isn’t a giant mystery as that pp proclaims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most women don’t plan to start having babies in their 40s. And if they are as others have said, they’re too stupid to pass on their genes anyway.

Doesn’t sound like Natalie planned this. She actually had her first child at 30. things didn’t work out with our first husband. She’s dating another guy and it sounds like this is a miracle and a blessing. Natalie is smart and educated, it sounds like they were open to a baby and weren’t using birth control, and yeah, she is very fortunate to get pregnant at this age. People realize this.

If it didn’t work out, she’d probably be OK because she has two kids. And if she really really wanted a third kid, they could’ve used a donor egg which is very accessible if you have a lot of money.

No one is saying it is as common to have babies in your 40s as it it is when you are younger. But this idea that it is a total impossibility is not right either. some women remain fertile in their early to mid 40s. It just is what it is.

The main argument that everyone seems to agree on except for this one obstinate poster is that a 25-year-old is not reading this people magazine article and saying “sweet! I have 19 more years!” Most women know general information about fertility and that it gets harder as you get older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

All of this. My mom and MIL were both in their 40s when they had their last kids. So was my sister. I had my first at 40 and second at 42, conceived easily, healthy kids. I get that this is not universal, but it’s kind of funny to me that people may have assumed I used ART.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michelle Williams welcomed a baby via surrogate last April at 44. This was her 4th. She has 3 children with her new husband (born in 2020, 2022, 2025). She had them at 39 and 42 and used a surrogate at 44.

Her first was with Heath Ledger.

An older mom's surrogate baby from someone else's womb and possibly someone else's eggs is not at all the same thing as a woman having a baby in her 40s.

It is akin to adopting a baby. She did not have a baby in her 40s. She didn't have a baby. Someone else had that baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s. None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.
People seem to have such black and white thinking. Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s. That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so. Both things can be true. There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation. People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy. It really depends on your individual biology. Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue. I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.

You can already get a fertility report from a specialist giving you your individual odds. This isn’t uncharted territory.

The previous PP is correct. There is no correlation to number of children. The only thing they look at to predict fertility for women is age. Over 42? Less than 5% live birth rate with IVF.

The likely to struggle isn’t a giant mystery as that pp proclaims.

If you wait to have your first baby in your 40s, you are likely to have much more difficulty than a woman who started having babies in her late teens or 20s.. fact.

Women who start having children naturally when they are younger in peak fertility are more likely to conceive additional children later in life in their 40s than women who try to have their first baby in their 40s.

Why that is, who knows.

Personally, I think that it is because most women who delay having babies until middle age have been on uninterrupted chemical birth control for essentially their entire fetility window, and as a result have screwed up their system without realizing it, where women who start conceiving earlier have taken breaks throughtout from birth control to allow their bodies to heal and recover from the very unnatural nature of chemical birth control.

Let's face it, birth control such as the shot or pill while helpful in preventing pregnancy, is not natural or a normal biological process.