Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

[Anonymous]

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.

Lady, it is pretty clear you know nothing about what young women do or do not know. You sound bitter about your own poor decisions and life choices and are projecting. You clearly have a big stick up your a$$.

But let Natalie Portman live rent free in your head all weekend. Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

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.

Young women don't care about Natalie Portman! They barely know who she is. It's only us middle aged folk who care about this because she's our contemporary.

I do not need her to "share all the details" of how she got pregnant. It's not my business.

Most young women are not being told "you can have it all." That's what my generation was told and we discovered it was incorrect so we are teaching our own daughters they most choose wisely in life, that windows of opportunity close, that nothing is forever. Many young women today don't want to have kids at all because they saw how hard it was for their moms and they are current parents struggling to make it work. Plus so many young men are simply not worth having kids with.

If you are worried about family planning as a general issue, Natalie Portman is not the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

You are wrong.
I go to a trad Catholic church where women do natural family planning. The ones who don’t have babies in their early to mid 40s are the *exception* not the rule. These are middle class women. It’s quite shocking actually. Some of them keep going til late 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

Well then let me blow your mind and tell you about my "regular" single friend who had a kid at 48.

[Anonymous]

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

It's way too old for too old YOU.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

I am 46 and definitely glad I don't have a 2 year old. However, if I was Natalie Portman-level rich and privileged, I'd have been thrilled to have a baby at 44.

I'd get a postpartum doula and a night nurse for the first weeks/months. I'd get a nanny (or two) but still take a long maternity leave where I prioritized bonding with the baby and my existing kids but also taking great care of myself and my relationship. I'd take little trips that first year to the beach and resorts and other places where it's easy to have an infant but hard to have a toddler, so my family could make fun memories together. I'd have lots of household staff to help with stuff like cleaning the house and meal prep so I never had to do the drudgery. If I had PPD I'd get the best possible therapist. I'd due postpartum physical therapy no matter what to address any pelvic floor or related issues no matter level of severity.

If I had the resources to create a whole village of people around us to help and all I had to do was care for the baby and my other kids and myself, I'd be fine. With enough help you can skip the sleepless nights, and when you are older and already a parent you have better perspective on what matters and what doesn't and know how to head off problems before they start.

It's not for me, I don't have her resources. But if I did? I'd have done it no question, and I think my DH would have been on board as well. We definitely had that convo at 42 and 43, like "are we really done?" We made the smart choice for us and said yes, but if we had lots of money and didn't have to work full time, we'd have had one more because we definitely wanted one.

Plus having a lot of money really mitigates worry that your kids will have to take care of you later. One reason we didn't have another is that we wanted to put more money towards retirement, end of life care, and be able to leave some to our kids. Another kid makes that harder, especially because it extends how long you are paying for college. But if we were as wealthy as I'm sure Portman is, I don't think this would have been an issue.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

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

There will be lots of parents in their 60s at my kid's high school graduation. Moms and dads. Also I imagine Natalie Portman will look better at 60 than most of us do at 40, so I'm not sure it will really register as "oldest mom" so much as "oh yeah there's that famous actress whose kid goes here, she still looks amazing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

You are wrong.
I go to a trad Catholic church where women do natural family planning. The ones who don’t have babies in their early to mid 40s are the *exception* not the rule. These are middle class women. It’s quite shocking actually. Some of them keep going til late 40s.

Yep. A lot of women who are already moms can get pregnant in their early 40s. I bet if most people in this thread look back a generation or two they’ll find a great grandma with 7-10 kids who had the last one in her 40s.

[Anonymous]

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

Why?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

She called it a privilege and miracle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s up with all these mid to late 40s Celebs having 3rd babies with new partners. A lot of them younger. Natalie Portman, sienna miller, Gisele, Jennifer Meyer, Kourtney kardashian…

Sticking it to their exes.

[Anonymous]

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.