Claire Danes expecting baby #3

[Anonymous]

Rare and somewhat more risky. Not “incredibly” unless you can cite some actual objective science-based info to support your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay I did some searching, but can someone PLEASE tell me the origin of Brunch Granny?

Dying....

I can't remember the exact original and there may not have been one thread -- I think there were a few and the same poster kept coming in and posting the exact same argument. Often in the relationship or fertility forums, but also in general parenting or really any thread where anyone talked about having kids past the age of 35, focusing on career in 20s, choosing to marry later, enjoying being single, etc.

Brunch Granny's main argument is that young women in their 20s and 30s spend too much time having brunch and drinking mimosas at trendy restaurants "in the city" and not enough time getting married and pumping out babies. That's really the whole gist. Brunch Granny is extremely triggered by the idea that any woman over the age of 22 might enjoy doing anything at all without first securing marriage and having at least one child before her fertility is lost forever to the ravages of time. She's very stressed about it!

Also, Brunch Granny likes to brag to people about how she had children in her 20s and then her children had kids in their 20s, so she got to be a Granny before 50 and spend lots of quality time with her grandchildren for whom, presumably, she is already matchmaking. Brunch Granny feels terrible for people who become grandparents in [GASP!] their 60s, when apparently they will be too old and decrepit to enjoy their grandchildren at all, and will instead spend their days lamenting all those mimosas chased by avocado toast they enjoyed in their 20s.

How would a 43 year old mother become a grandparent in their 60s? You're expecting your ivf baby to get knocked up fresh out of college? Why wouldn't her (ivf) baby also wait until 40 to have a baby? If that's the case, the 43 year old mum will likely be dead before she sees a hypothetical grandchild.

How would any of that be your business?

[Anonymous]

I am still on a regular cycle and I turned 50 in Nov!!! I have skipped a couple months starting last year but still. I have 2 friends who got pregnant naturally at ages 42/43 so it is 100% possible to have an accident - in fact I would think it's possible for me to get pregnant even though I do not want to with 2 kids over 10 now. The story is whether having kids 10 yrs apart is too exhausting. For me, no way would I want it. The sleepless nights would kill me although I will admit it would be comforting to know what to expect. Also if I had 2 sane gender kids I would be more likely to embrace a 3rd. I have friends that ended up that path and couldn't be happier as moms at 40 with newborns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am still on a regular cycle and I turned 50 in Nov!!! I have skipped a couple months starting last year but still. I have 2 friends who got pregnant naturally at ages 42/43 so it is 100% possible to have an accident - in fact I would think it's possible for me to get pregnant even though I do not want to with 2 kids over 10 now. The story is whether having kids 10 yrs apart is too exhausting. For me, no way would I want it. The sleepless nights would kill me although I will admit it would be comforting to know what to expect. Also if I had 2 sane gender kids I would be more likely to embrace a 3rd. I have friends that ended up that path and couldn't be happier as moms at 40 with newborns.

+1

51 and going strong. Several friends were oops babies when their parents were in their 40s. It’s common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to a simple “congratulations” when someone announces a pregnancy?

Because rich celebrities trafficking dis and misinformation about women's fertility and health is disgusting and should be called out.

Go away, misogynist.

Women can choose when they want to brunch. And when they want to procreate. And it’s not on your timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:43 is old for a new baby. I know this because I’m 43 and I’m too old for a baby. But I’m just a regular person.

This. I'm 43 and don't bother with BC because it is so unlikely to naturally get pregnant. I am happy for Danes but the likelihood of natural pregnancies at 43+ is nil. These types of stories without mentioning repro asst are misleading to general public.

And if you beat the odds…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has now straight-out said it's an 'oops' baby.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/pictures/golden-globes-2023-claire-danes-says-pregnancy-was-not-intentional/

There you have it ladies - don't blow off birth control if you don't want a baby in your 40s!

Oh, please. The data and science still shows likelihood of pregnancy is exceptionally low at 40. Whether she is telling the truth or not, I have no idea. Can women that are 42 get pregnant? Absolutely. Is it common? Absolutely not.
I get that women don't like aging and, for some, fertility is interwoven with desirability/self worth. This thread seems to be in denial about age and fertility realities but we really need to let this go. It is ok to recognize that aging and being in your 40s means certain changes. Fertility is in decline and pregnancies are less likely. The fact that a celebrity is pregnant at 43 does not negate that fact.

No one in this thread, or anywhere, has claimed it’s easy for most women to get pregnant in their 40s. No one advises young women to postpone kids until their 40s. No one!

You are angry about a thing that doesn’t exist.

You need to relax, lady. No one is angry. I am pointing out that this board is perpetually misleading and often misstates facts re fertility. There are dozens of anecdotal PPs above sharing how easy pregnancy is in 40s, which is purposefully misleading and doesn't reference context. My statements are on point.
I think this issue usually gets PPs upset because DC metro swings older pregnancy. I don't think that I've been any place that had as many advanced maternal age mothers as this area, which is why everyone is so defensive - and wrongly insisting that pregnancy in 40s is FINE.

You've never been to any other major city?

Pregnancy in the 40s is totally fine. WTAF?

It's really not. It's incredibly rare and incredibly dangerous to the mother and child. You're either trolling or some spinster in denial. It's also probably why so many of you on this forum worship Markle; holding out hope you bag a rich guy and pop out two kids. Sorry, life isn't a fairy tale.

It is absolutely fine to be pregnant in your 40s.

Is Brunch Granny also one of the racist Markle haters? 😱

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to a simple “congratulations” when someone announces a pregnancy?

Because rich celebrities trafficking dis and misinformation about women's fertility and health is disgusting and should be called out.

Go away, misogynist.

Women can choose when they want to brunch. And when they want to procreate. And it’s not on your timeline.

Actually we can't. It becomes nearly impossible to get pregnant naturally for most women after age 35.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to a simple “congratulations” when someone announces a pregnancy?

Because rich celebrities trafficking dis and misinformation about women's fertility and health is disgusting and should be called out.

Go away, misogynist.

Women can choose when they want to brunch. And when they want to procreate. And it’s not on your timeline.

Actually we can't. It becomes nearly impossible to get pregnant naturally for most women after age 35.

There is obviously a biological clock for women. But “nearly impossible” for “most”women is a bit much.

The real question is why is this anyone else’s business? I guess you all agree with SCOTUS that women shouldn’t be in charge or their own bodies? That you get to decide when a woman should have children?

[Anonymous]

Some of us studied this in college and have lived through it. Your defensive tone suggests you’re in clueless or in denial. Wish you well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of us studied this in college and have lived through it. Your defensive tone suggests you’re in clueless or in denial. Wish you well.

Studied what?

[Anonymous]

Half of women 40-45 who are actively trying to conceive will be pregnant within a year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712257/

[Anonymous]

Although not all the pregnancies are viable. Study excluded those with a history of infertility. Also the decline was more pronounced in those women without a previous pregnancy. Read the comments—very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to a simple “congratulations” when someone announces a pregnancy?

Because rich celebrities trafficking dis and misinformation about women's fertility and health is disgusting and should be called out.

Go away, misogynist.

Women can choose when they want to brunch. And when they want to procreate. And it’s not on your timeline.

Actually we can't. It becomes nearly impossible to get pregnant naturally for most women after age 35.

Who’s “we”? Are you talking of yourself in the royal sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to a simple “congratulations” when someone announces a pregnancy?

Because rich celebrities trafficking dis and misinformation about women's fertility and health is disgusting and should be called out.

Go away, misogynist.

Women can choose when they want to brunch. And when they want to procreate. And it’s not on your timeline.

Actually we can't. It becomes nearly impossible to get pregnant naturally for most women after age 35.

You are clueless AF.