Brigitte Nielsen Is Pregnant at 54

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m 44 and surfing DCUM while traveling back from college visits with my oldest DC. When I am 54, my kids will be 24 and 26, and I’ll be 5-8 years away from federal retirement. And will be done raising kids, paying for kids colleges, etc. So mind blown at the thought of starting over with a new baby then.

But God Bless and to each her own. If this is what she wants and the baby was healthy, that’s what matters. It’s not what I would choose, but if it’s what she wants, congrats. The baby will have a younger father, younger siblings and presumably plenty of money in the household for childcare help.

BTW— I also think two 2 year olds and pregnant at 45 is more nuts than have a singleton in your 50s. I did a 2 year old and new born in my late 20s, and it was not for the faint of heart. I actually know 2 families who had twins (one naturally, one IVF) followed less than 2 years later by an oops baby. Both marriages had ended in very ugly divorced within 5 years. Likely would have ended sooner, but both parents were too exhausted to file. 3 under 2 or 3 under 3 is hard at any age— let along mid 40s.

There is actually a pretty big physical difference between 44 and 54. Brigitte Nielsen appears to be a relatively fit 54 year old but she has aged a fair amount over the past 10 years and she will probably age quite a bit more in just the next few years.

Obviously, she's an experienced mother who has been pregnant and given birth 4 times before this 5th pregnancy. At least she knew what she was getting into and could make this decision for herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Women only have kids as old ladies because they didn't have a partner or they prioritized their work over kids and then snapped out of it. Newsflash... it's not backwards thinking to have kids in your late 20's/early 30's.

NP. Or some of us spent years (and tens of thousands of $) trying to have our first...who arrived many years after we would have liked. You have no idea why someone had their kids when they did.

Nielsen already has *5* grown adult children. She apparently had no problem getting pregnant during her child bearing years.

She ran into troubles getting her menopausal, older body impregnated. That time comes for every woman.

It sounds as though she made it through the delivery and, as far as I'm aware, her baby is o.k. She is extremely lucky. No way would I want to go through pregnancy and childbirth in my 50's. I really think that's she's quite likely done some permanent damage to her own health with this pregnancy and that she has very likely lowered her own lifespan.

Where is your medical degree from?

You don't need a medical degree to state the obvious. Pregnancy is hard on a younger woman's body. I can't imagine what it would be like to be pregnant as an older, menopausal woman.

Clearly you are an authority for all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Women only have kids as old ladies because they didn't have a partner or they prioritized their work over kids and then snapped out of it. Newsflash... it's not backwards thinking to have kids in your late 20's/early 30's.

NP. Or some of us spent years (and tens of thousands of $) trying to have our first...who arrived many years after we would have liked. You have no idea why someone had their kids when they did.

Nielsen already has *5* grown adult children. She apparently had no problem getting pregnant during her child bearing years.

She ran into troubles getting her menopausal, older body impregnated. That time comes for every woman.

It sounds as though she made it through the delivery and, as far as I'm aware, her baby is o.k. She is extremely lucky. No way would I want to go through pregnancy and childbirth in my 50's. I really think that's she's quite likely done some permanent damage to her own health with this pregnancy and that she has very likely lowered her own lifespan.

Where is your medical degree from?

You don't need a medical degree to state the obvious. Pregnancy is hard on a younger woman's body. I can't imagine what it would be like to be pregnant as an older, menopausal woman.

Clearly you are an authority for all women.

Yeah, I'm sure there are lots of 50 somethings out there who will attest to how easy peasy their pregnancies and births were. Lots.

[Anonymous]

^And I am talking of course of 50 something women who have actually been pregnant and gave birth while in their 50's.

[Anonymous]

It looks like POTUS had his son Barron when he was 60. No one cares about that. Why the double standard for Bridgette? I needed IVF in my early 30s to have kids, so I'm not buying the "if you can't do it naturally you shouldn't" argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like POTUS had his son Barron when he was 60. No one cares about that. Why the double standard for Bridgette? I needed IVF in my early 30s to have kids, so I'm not buying the "if you can't do it naturally you shouldn't" argument.

You were a woman of natural child bearing age who could not get pregnant w/o medical intervention. That is different than a menopausal 50 something using major medical intervention to conceive and carry her 5th child.

Certainly you can see the difference between yourself and what Nielsen did. Next thing you know an 80 year old woman is going to decide she needs to have another baby. At what point do the doctors just say "NO!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like POTUS had his son Barron when he was 60. No one cares about that. Why the double standard for Bridgette? I needed IVF in my early 30s to have kids, so I'm not buying the "if you can't do it naturally you shouldn't" argument.

You think that men should be banned from having sex and impregnating women at "X" age? Dream on Alice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like POTUS had his son Barron when he was 60. No one cares about that. Why the double standard for Bridgette? I needed IVF in my early 30s to have kids, so I'm not buying the "if you can't do it naturally you shouldn't" argument.

You think that men should be banned from having sex and impregnating women at "X" age? Dream on Alice.

She doesn’t think that. Her post says why are people criticizing women but not men. An old woman has a kid with a young man is bad bc Mom will die, be old, etc However, nobody ever says that about an old man with a young woman. You usually don’t hear but the father will die when the kid is 25 and the kid will be embarrassed to have an old father when she’s in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like POTUS had his son Barron when he was 60. No one cares about that. Why the double standard for Bridgette? I needed IVF in my early 30s to have kids, so I'm not buying the "if you can't do it naturally you shouldn't" argument.

You think that men should be banned from having sex and impregnating women at "X" age? Dream on Alice.

She doesn’t think that. Her post says why are people criticizing women but not men. An old woman has a kid with a young man is bad bc Mom will die, be old, etc However, nobody ever says that about an old man with a young woman. You usually don’t hear but the father will die when the kid is 25 and the kid will be embarrassed to have an old father when she’s in high school.

I've seen other threads where an older male celebrity (ex: Alec Baldwin) is expecting yet another child and those men get criticized for fathering children that old.

Women tend to get more criticism because they are the ones who get pregnant and give birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^And I am talking of course of 50 something women who have actually been pregnant and gave birth while in their 50's.

Why are you so concerned with how others run their lives? Nothing going on in your own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m 44 and surfing DCUM while traveling back from college visits with my oldest DC. When I am 54, my kids will be 24 and 26, and I’ll be 5-8 years away from federal retirement. And will be done raising kids, paying for kids colleges, etc. So mind blown at the thought of starting over with a new baby then.

But God Bless and to each her own. If this is what she wants and the baby was healthy, that’s what matters. It’s not what I would choose, but if it’s what she wants, congrats. The baby will have a younger father, younger siblings and presumably plenty of money in the household for childcare help.

BTW— I also think two 2 year olds and pregnant at 45 is more nuts than have a singleton in your 50s. I did a 2 year old and new born in my late 20s, and it was not for the faint of heart. I actually know 2 families who had twins (one naturally, one IVF) followed less than 2 years later by an oops baby. Both marriages had ended in very ugly divorced within 5 years. Likely would have ended sooner, but both parents were too exhausted to file. 3 under 2 or 3 under 3 is hard at any age— let along mid 40s.

i had a 2 year old and a newborn at 41 and it was no biggie (and have recently added another baby to boot). some people are just more resourceful/cope better with small children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m 44 and surfing DCUM while traveling back from college visits with my oldest DC. When I am 54, my kids will be 24 and 26, and I’ll be 5-8 years away from federal retirement. And will be done raising kids, paying for kids colleges, etc. So mind blown at the thought of starting over with a new baby then.

But God Bless and to each her own. If this is what she wants and the baby was healthy, that’s what matters. It’s not what I would choose, but if it’s what she wants, congrats. The baby will have a younger father, younger siblings and presumably plenty of money in the household for childcare help.

BTW— I also think two 2 year olds and pregnant at 45 is more nuts than have a singleton in your 50s. I did a 2 year old and new born in my late 20s, and it was not for the faint of heart. I actually know 2 families who had twins (one naturally, one IVF) followed less than 2 years later by an oops baby. Both marriages had ended in very ugly divorced within 5 years. Likely would have ended sooner, but both parents were too exhausted to file. 3 under 2 or 3 under 3 is hard at any age— let along mid 40s.

i had a 2 year old and a newborn at 41 and it was no biggie (and have recently added another baby to boot). some people are just more resourceful/cope better with small children.

Not that PP but some people have easier babies. My own newborns were up every 2 hrs. They both had colic to some degree. And they were both extremely active toddlers - climbers too. I had 2 under 3 at the age of 36 and it was exhausting. A third would have done me in, lol.

Your kids were probably of the variety who slept through the night from the day they came home from the hospital and had to be woken up to feed. They were probably toddlers that were happy to sit playing with tablets and looking at board books and observing the world around them. I've seen content, laid back babies like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am talking of course of 50 something women who have actually been pregnant and gave birth while in their 50's.

Why are you so concerned with how others run their lives? Nothing going on in your own?

And, yet, here you are reading and commenting on the same thread that I am reading and commenting on? We're allowed to disagree with one another you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m 44 and surfing DCUM while traveling back from college visits with my oldest DC. When I am 54, my kids will be 24 and 26, and I’ll be 5-8 years away from federal retirement. And will be done raising kids, paying for kids colleges, etc. So mind blown at the thought of starting over with a new baby then.

But God Bless and to each her own. If this is what she wants and the baby was healthy, that’s what matters. It’s not what I would choose, but if it’s what she wants, congrats. The baby will have a younger father, younger siblings and presumably plenty of money in the household for childcare help.

BTW— I also think two 2 year olds and pregnant at 45 is more nuts than have a singleton in your 50s. I did a 2 year old and new born in my late 20s, and it was not for the faint of heart. I actually know 2 families who had twins (one naturally, one IVF) followed less than 2 years later by an oops baby. Both marriages had ended in very ugly divorced within 5 years. Likely would have ended sooner, but both parents were too exhausted to file. 3 under 2 or 3 under 3 is hard at any age— let along mid 40s.

i had a 2 year old and a newborn at 41 and it was no biggie (and have recently added another baby to boot). some people are just more resourceful/cope better with small children.

Not that PP but some people have easier babies. My own newborns were up every 2 hrs. They both had colic to some degree. And they were both extremely active toddlers - climbers too. I had 2 under 3 at the age of 36 and it was exhausting. A third would have done me in, lol.

Your kids were probably of the variety who slept through the night from the day they came home from the hospital and had to be woken up to feed. They were probably toddlers that were happy to sit playing with tablets and looking at board books and observing the world around them. I've seen content, laid back babies like that.

yes they were but regardless easiness had nothing to do with age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You don't need a medical degree to state the obvious. Pregnancy is hard on a younger woman's body. I can't imagine what it would be like to be pregnant as an older, menopausal woman.

Clearly you are an authority for all women.

Yeah, I'm sure there are lots of 50 somethings out there who will attest to how easy peasy their pregnancies and births were. Lots.

I was 48, does that count?