IVF at 46 with own eggs frozen at 38

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can get pregnant at 46 with prior frozen eggs/embryos. Your uterus does not shrivel between 42 and 46. Come on.

Exactly

And if you want to, it’s noone else’s business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe they’re closer to the stats of a 38 year old than a 46 year old. If you’ve already had a live birth from those eggs it’s even better.

+1
It’s the quality of the eggs (age when you froze them), not your age now or how fertile/healthy or not healthy you are now at 46. Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes but your donor pool is larger and the process is faster. As for having a kid at 47 it’s not wise. I had a second at 46 and now spend a lot of time worrying about launching my kid in case of health problems.

Not OP, but I'm in a better place emotionally, financially, and physically now at 45 than I was at 35. Spouse is also in their 30s. I'm not really freaking out about possibly having a baby this late, and they will certainly have a better foundation than I did.

it's not just about having a baby...it's about raising a kid. Having a high school senior when you are like 62, etc. Think long term

[Anonymous]

I am 62. My eldest is a college freshman; his siblings are twins in high school. I went through many years of infertility after first trying to get pg around 35. it happens. I am not too old. My kids are fantastic. Best decisions I ever made were to keep going and do whatever it took to have them. (I was donor egg)

I would now counsel women in their late 20s or early thirties to freeze their eggs, if they can afford it.

[Anonymous]

above should say "It was donor egg"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes but your donor pool is larger and the process is faster. As for having a kid at 47 it’s not wise. I had a second at 46 and now spend a lot of time worrying about launching my kid in case of health problems.

Not OP, but I'm in a better place emotionally, financially, and physically now at 45 than I was at 35. Spouse is also in their 30s. I'm not really freaking out about possibly having a baby this late, and they will certainly have a better foundation than I did.

it's not just about having a baby...it's about raising a kid. Having a high school senior when you are like 62, etc. Think long term

What's wrong with having a high school senior at age 62? Serious question. My mentor (male) is older than that and has a kid in high school - doesn't seem to be an issue for him. My aunts also adopted a small girl in their 50s so they had a high school senior in their early 70s. I think they are happy and proud parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes but your donor pool is larger and the process is faster. As for having a kid at 47 it’s not wise. I had a second at 46 and now spend a lot of time worrying about launching my kid in case of health problems.

Not OP, but I'm in a better place emotionally, financially, and physically now at 45 than I was at 35. Spouse is also in their 30s. I'm not really freaking out about possibly having a baby this late, and they will certainly have a better foundation than I did.

it's not just about having a baby...it's about raising a kid. Having a high school senior when you are like 62, etc. Think long term

What's wrong with having a high school senior at age 62? Serious question. My mentor (male) is older than that and has a kid in high school - doesn't seem to be an issue for him. My aunts also adopted a small girl in their 50s so they had a high school senior in their early 70s. I think they are happy and proud parents.

Nothing wrong per se but an older parent is just less likely to be available for their kids. My husband was 20 (?) when his dad died at 62.

[Anonymous]

Sure, parents can die or be disabled at 62 (though the odds are actually still exceedingly low.) They can also die at 32. Or live to be 100. Everyone knows plenty of 30-somethings who are in awful shape and plenty of 40-somethings who aren't - and I'm not sure how there's some huge difference between having a 62-year-old mom when you graduate high school, vs, say a 57-year-old one.

Sure, there's a point where age gets to be a factor, but technically, there are some women out there...granted, not many, but some...who can still ovulate and conceive healthy pregnancies naturally at 45 - which often means giving birth at 46 - so I'm not sure why it's so shocking to give birth at that age via IVF. In this day and age, pre-menopause, I'm not sure age is (or should be) some huge issue beyond the conception challenges and very, very slightly higher potential for a few pregnancy complications that can also hit much younger women too.