Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting because its global sperm count of men have declined 50% over the past several decades. But they haven’t seen a similar decline in female fertility.

I do think they have improved birth control options over the past several decades. When birth control pills were first developed it was a blunt object. But they have refined them and now pills have much lower doses and the the pill has actually fallen out of favor for more localized hormones, you can do the progesterone only implant or IUD. And the copper IUD with no hormones is also becoming more popular. They just put one on the market now that is smaller for younger women that can be used for up to three years.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/17742/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20CNN%20News%20article%2C%20a,than%2050%25%20over%20the%20past%2050%20years**[img]

[Anonymous]

It’s always someone with secondary infertility driving these PSAs.

Not to say that’s not an awful thing to experience…the stridency of needing to inform the public is too intense to not be based on a personal experience of infertility in some way.


Let people find their own way. All the information is easily found by the general population. No one is basing their family planning on celebrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s always someone with secondary infertility driving these PSAs.

Not to say that’s not an awful thing to experience…the stridency of needing to inform the public is too intense to not be based on a personal experience of infertility in some way.


Let people find their own way. All the information is easily found by the general population. No one is basing their family planning on celebrity.

This. No adult with two brain cells to rub together is doing this.

[Anonymous]

There is one troll who seems sure women are being fed some message that they can get pregnant forever and like, what? I got pregnant by accident in my early 30s. I heard my whole life how fertility declines especially after 30 and I stopped being so careful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is one troll who seems sure women are being fed some message that they can get pregnant forever and like, what? I got pregnant by accident in my early 30s. I heard my whole life how fertility declines especially after 30 and I stopped being so careful.

Yeah. Most women I know got pregnant once they were partnered/married - it wasn’t like they had an earlier opportunity. I also know a fair number of women who’d like to have kids, but aren’t partnered. I don’t know any women who are partnered, want kids and are waiting a gratuitously long time to have them based on some idea that you can delay it indefinitely.