Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t she get cheated on and left her husband. Who knocked her up?

Yeah, the husband who cheated on her cheated on his previous girlfriend to be with Portman. How you get them is how you lose them. New guy is another French artsy type.

He looks like a terrorist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:its sad that she chose to bring a new child into the world in a single parent unmarried household, very unresponsible

Irresponsible? Unresponsive? How are YOUR kids doing?

[Anonymous]

Kourtney Kardashian had her 4th at age 44.

[Anonymous]

She does have a thing for French artistes.

Hopefully this guy isn't like the previous one but she did get the husband by taking him from his fiancee.

She doesn't seem to need marriage from this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

No one needs to share how their babies were conceived

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

Most women who have kids in their 40s are not having their FIRST kid in their 40s. They aren't "waiting" until they're 40s to have children. They have a track record of good fertility, which makes it more likely that they can get pregnant in their 40s naturally without intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

No one needs to share how their babies were conceived

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

Most women who have kids in their 40s are not having their FIRST kid in their 40s. They aren't "waiting" until they're 40s to have children. They have a track record of good fertility, which makes it more likely that they can get pregnant in their 40s naturally without intervention.

+1 Before birth control, women typically had their last child in their early 40s, so there is nothing unnaturally lucky about having your last child in your early 40s.

[Anonymous]

Why are people working themselves up into a lather over Natalie Portman having a baby at 44? She’s a very wealthy woman and probably froze her eggs long ago, in the event that this is not a natural conception. She also has access to the very best ART.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

No matter how you spin it, her kid's friends moms will be significantly younger. Her kid will have friends even if she's a "movie star" and she will still have to navigate that world. You can cheer this on all you want, but I feel sorry for a kid with a geriatric mom.

That is just silly. Enough regular women have children at 44 for Portman to not be an exception.

And secondly, a very unfamous me had a third child at 45, who is already in grade school, and I honestly hardly know any of his classmates' mothers so the idea that I have to navigate "them" somehow is downright amusing.

[Anonymous]

Kids want young parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids want young parents.

Of course but this forum is full of projecting and deluded girl bosses brainwashed by feminism. Frozen eggs, surrogacy, buying a baby, or blowing a fortune to have some frail special needs baby at age 45 is TOTALLY normal. Totally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids want young parents.

Should she terminate then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want young parents.

Should she terminate then?

This already child exists in utero and is not in a space whether it would discuss preferring a young mum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want young parents.

Should she terminate then?

She shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place. It’s not fair to the child. At 26 her mother will be 70.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations to her. 44 is way too old to be having a baby. I say that as a 45-year-old.

No, it’s not. Both she and Giselle (and many other older moms) look and prob feel 10 years younger because they’re good at taking care of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids want young parents.

Not mine. They love having a stay at home mom who isn’t chasing career heights but instead can spend time with them. They also like the financial security we provide, and our ability to pay for excellent education and their expensive hobbies. None of that would’ve been possible in my 20s & 30s.