Ten signs you may be too old to have another baby - Zsa Zsa Gabor

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:zsa zsa's husband is a blatant racist too.

Didn't he throw his hat into the ring as the possible father of Anna Nicole Smith's kid? Seriously.

Maybe this is just some psychological disorder of his. Or, at 67, simply dementia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

PP,

Doesn't Alabama have its own version of DCUM?

Aren't you nice?! Let me guess . . . you're someone who prides yourself on your tolerance towards others and lack of closed-mindedness, but it's absolutely fine to "slam" southerners in your little analogy. Why don't you take a good, hard look at yourself?

NP. I'm from Alabama. and I thought this joke was kind of funny. Then again, I'm used to Alabama jokes.My grandmother had her two children when she was 40 and 44, in the 1940s. She wanted to have a career before getting married, having children. She lived to be 92. She was still mowing her own lawn, walking 2 miles to the grocery store, and giving out her many opinions well into her 80s. My mom was in her 50s when she died. I was in my 20s.

Maybe an old adage applies here: You are only as old as you feel.

Thanks for clarifying, and let me just say that, despite some obvious reasons for some of the generalized opinions about Alabama, some of the loveliest and kindest people I've ever known live there. Your statement about being used to the jokes supports my comments. Certain states continually get used as the butt of jokes when there are northern and western states with all kinds of issues that get a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

Women in their 40s get pregnant all the time -- and that is nothing new. The only thing that's new is women having their first child in their 40s. So nothing biologically wrong with it or unnatural about having a child in your 40s. Seems like it would be a huge blessing. Too bad you are so shriveled up and bitter no matter what age you actually are, PP.

Sorry that is not even new. My mom had her first child in 1957, age 40, second child, age 41.
More women are having children later, but it is not a new phenomenon. My fathers's mother got married at at 39 and had 3 children and her third child was born in 1911. I think that is 100 years ago.

I'm not talking about individual examples. I think we can all agree that women in general are giving birth later in life now than they were 100 years ago, right? The statistics show that the number of women giving birth in their 40s has not changed; only the number of women giving birth for the first time in their 40s has changed.

Because of this change, it's surprising when some DCUM posters question why we see more special needs children today. The age factor, along with IVF and advanced NICU care that improves survival odds, is significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

Women in their 40s get pregnant all the time -- and that is nothing new. The only thing that's new is women having their first child in their 40s. So nothing biologically wrong with it or unnatural about having a child in your 40s. Seems like it would be a huge blessing. Too bad you are so shriveled up and bitter no matter what age you actually are, PP.

Sorry that is not even new. My mom had her first child in 1957, age 40, second child, age 41.
More women are having children later, but it is not a new phenomenon. My fathers's mother got married at at 39 and had 3 children and her third child was born in 1911. I think that is 100 years ago.

I'm not talking about individual examples. I think we can all agree that women in general are giving birth later in life now than they were 100 years ago, right? The statistics show that the number of women giving birth in their 40s has not changed; only the number of women giving birth for the first time in their 40s has changed .

Because of this change, it's surprising when some DCUM posters question why we see more special needs children today. The age factor, along with IVF and advanced NICU care that improves survival odds, is significant.

I really hate the "reading comprehension" comments on DCUM, but seriously PP, you are not getting the point -- which is that women always have been and still are having babies in their 40s. That is not new. Despite what people like you think that has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that more babies being born to women in their 40s are their first children. So that would not affect the rate of special needs babies being born. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

Have you adopted, PP? Adoption is not as easy as people assume it to be. Adoption agencies have numerous rules and can be very picky.

I'm an adoptive parent, and while I agree it's not "easy", it might be slightly "easier" than pregnancy at 97!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

Women in their 40s get pregnant all the time -- and that is nothing new. The only thing that's new is women having their first child in their 40s. So nothing biologically wrong with it or unnatural about having a child in your 40s. Seems like it would be a huge blessing. Too bad you are so shriveled up and bitter no matter what age you actually are, PP.

Sorry that is not even new. My mom had her first child in 1957, age 40, second child, age 41.
More women are having children later, but it is not a new phenomenon. My fathers's mother got married at at 39 and had 3 children and her third child was born in 1911. I think that is 100 years ago.

I'm not talking about individual examples. I think we can all agree that women in general are giving birth later in life now than they were 100 years ago, right? The statistics show that the number of women giving birth in their 40s has not changed; only the number of women giving birth for the first time in their 40s has changed .

Because of this change, it's surprising when some DCUM posters question why we see more special needs children today. The age factor, along with IVF and advanced NICU care that improves survival odds, is significant.

I really hate the "reading comprehension" comments on DCUM, but seriously PP, you are not getting the point -- which is that women always have been and still are having babies in their 40s. That is not new. Despite what people like you think that has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that more babies being born to women in their 40s are their first children. So that would not affect the rate of special needs babies being born. At all.

Thanks, but I'm comprehending just fine. I've also been in the special education field for years. Yes, there have been moms having babies in their 40's for years, including both my grandmothers. I simply added a point that you may not like. You may not agree, but if you attended the many medical and neuropysch conferences that are a part of my job, you'd "comprehend" that yes, there is much research linking IFV (which the older moms of yesteryear did not have) for older moms, twins, preemies, low birth weights, and improved survival with NICU care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kinda funny. Gross and sad is to see women in their 40's doing the same thing.

They should go ahead and adopt an older child instead of trying to put their bodies through something nature didn't intend to them.

Women in their 40s get pregnant all the time -- and that is nothing new. The only thing that's new is women having their first child in their 40s. So nothing biologically wrong with it or unnatural about having a child in your 40s. Seems like it would be a huge blessing. Too bad you are so shriveled up and bitter no matter what age you actually are, PP.

Sorry that is not even new. My mom had her first child in 1957, age 40, second child, age 41.
More women are having children later, but it is not a new phenomenon. My fathers's mother got married at at 39 and had 3 children and her third child was born in 1911. I think that is 100 years ago.

I'm not talking about individual examples. I think we can all agree that women in general are giving birth later in life now than they were 100 years ago, right? The statistics show that the number of women giving birth in their 40s has not changed; only the number of women giving birth for the first time in their 40s has changed .

Because of this change, it's surprising when some DCUM posters question why we see more special needs children today. The age factor, along with IVF and advanced NICU care that improves survival odds, is significant.

I really hate the "reading comprehension" comments on DCUM, but seriously PP, you are not getting the point -- which is that women always have been and still are having babies in their 40s. That is not new. Despite what people like you think that has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that more babies being born to women in their 40s are their first children. So that would not affect the rate of special needs babies being born. At all.

Thanks, but I'm comprehending just fine. I've also been in the special education field for years. Yes, there have been moms having babies in their 40's for years, including both my grandmothers. I simply added a point that you may not like. You may not agree, but if you attended the many medical and neuropysch conferences that are a part of my job, you'd "comprehend" that yes, there is much research linking IFV (which the older moms of yesteryear did not have) for older moms, twins, preemies, low birth weights, and improved survival with NICU care.

oops--sorry for the typo--neuropsych

[Anonymous]

Are twins, preemies, low birth weights and improved survival with NICU care linked to special needs children? Because you said the age and IVF available, coupled with increased survival odds, was what was contributing to the rising amount of special needs children we see today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are twins, preemies, low birth weights and improved survival with NICU care linked to special needs children? Because you said the age and IVF available, coupled with increased survival odds, was what was contributing to the rising amount of special needs children we see today.

Yes--primarily because of the link to immature/not fully developed central nervous systems. Many children from these groups enter kindergarten with low muscle tone, attention/concentration concerns, fine-motor problems, language/communication weaknesses, and other neurodevelopmental issues that can be linked to autism spectrum disorders, as well as ADHD and learning disabilities, including dyslexia.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but what's the point here folks? That women in their 40s shouldn't have children? That people shouldn't have IVF? People have IVF in all age groups, including their 20s and 30s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but what's the point here folks? That women in their 40s shouldn't have children? That people shouldn't have IVF? People have IVF in all age groups, including their 20s and 30s.

The point is that these issues are something to think about, and many moms and dads don't realize the connection and possible outcomes (obvious even here on the DCUM forum). Not every family is prepared financially or emotionally to parent children with significant special needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but what's the point here folks? That women in their 40s shouldn't have children? That people shouldn't have IVF? People have IVF in all age groups, including their 20s and 30s.

The point is that these issues are something to think about, and many moms and dads don't realize the connection and possible outcomes (obvious even here on the DCUM forum). Not every family is prepared financially or emotionally to parent children with significant special needs.

People of all ages and circumstances can have a special needs child, whether that child is conceived the old-fashioned way or through assisted reproduction, so this is something any prospective parent should be prepared for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but what's the point here folks? That women in their 40s shouldn't have children? That people shouldn't have IVF? People have IVF in all age groups, including their 20s and 30s.

The point is that these issues are something to think about, and many moms and dads don't realize the connection and possible outcomes (obvious even here on the DCUM forum). Not every family is prepared financially or emotionally to parent children with significant special needs.

People of all ages and circumstances can have a special needs child, whether that child is conceived the old-fashioned way or through assisted reproduction, so this is something any prospective parent should be prepared for.

Yes they can, but some groups more than others. Many time on this forum, posters have asked why there are so many more special needs children, or children in special ed, or children with autism, etc. As stated in this thread, there are reasons backed by research and statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when idiots ask me if I ever considered adoption. No, I went through the fun and expense of IVF because I just DIDN't want to give a home to an existing child.

1). Domestic adoptions are mostly open, couples have to be chosen, and you run the risk and heartbreak of a last-minute change of heart. (It has happened to two friends who had already endured a lot in their effort to be mothers). We had two knocks against us -- my husband was in his 40s when we started all this (couples in their 30s were preferred) and we already had one child.

2) There are millions of children worldwide who need families. They are not available for international adoption for reasons that are specific to each country. Believe me, I tried. I was willing to adopt a child up to 4 with medical needs from any country that would have me. You have to choose one country at a time (and give up being on a domestic wait-list), go through what can be 2-3 years of hurdles, and then have adotions from that country frozen -- it happened for us with Guatemala, Russia, and Ethopia. 3) After years of expense and disappointment and paying adoption agencies who NEVER gave me the true story, a social worker took pity on me. By that time, my husband had hit age 50. The woman said "you aren't going to adopt unless you go through the foster child program." And, of course, a foster parent bonds with that child not knowing whether or not they'll eventually be able to adopt.

For all these reasons, it is really wrong to make assumptioins and judge a women who chooses fertility treatments. Just be glad it isn't you.

Ethiopia is not closed. It has never closed its IA program. It has slowed down due to more oversight. But, it is not and has never closed. Also, Ethiopia does not have an age limit for parents, nor does it have a limit on how many children you can have in the home. There have been famiies who have adopted multiple times from Ethiopia with three and four bio kids in the home. PP, I think you chose unwisely when you selected your AA.

[Anonymous]

Yes--primarily because of the link to immature/not fully developed central nervous systems. Many children from these groups enter kindergarten with low muscle tone, attention/concentration concerns, fine-motor problems, language/communication weaknesses, and other neurodevelopmental issues that can be linked to autism spectrum disorders, as well as ADHD and learning disabilities, including dyslexia.

older child (conceived at 33) has nearly all of these issues. Younger child (conceived at 39, no fertility treatment) none. I do think research into parental age and increase in ADD/ADHD should be undertaken, but I am really not convinced off the bat. The parents of s/n children we know range in age tremendously.

I appreciate the adoption poster telling us a little bit about the travails of the process. From conversations with my friends its often not simple, and can be as expensive and difficult as fertility treatments, with probably similar levels of successful outcomes (by which I mean successfully adopting a child/having a baby).