Claire Danes expecting baby #3

[Anonymous]

43 is old for a first baby but not a third. Every doctor will tell you that. It has something to do with your body being more receptive to pregnancy.

Congrats to her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some women get pregnant naturally and easily at 43.
Other women are completely infertile at that age.
Most are in between.

There are about 400K IVF cycles each year in the US and about 10% or 40K are donor egg.
Most people tell no-one about donor egg--not their mother, sister, best friend, etc.

I'm an IVF nurse.
For all the people saying "so and so conceived this way, at that time":
Unless you were in the room when it happened you really have no idea regardless of what the couple is (or isn't) saying.
Couples lie all.the.time for their own protection.

This.

No, not this. Sure IVF is common and a lot of middle class folks can afford it with insurance coverage. Not so donor eggs - most folks aren't going to go down that road because of cost.

I don't know why there is a contingent of women on DCUM who can't fathom that some women are fertile. My friend had 2 boys easily in her late 30s. At 42 they wanted to go for a third and yes they were hoping for a girl. After a few months of trying they did do IVF and she had her girl at 44.

No donor eggs, couldn't afford them and couldn't justify it for a 3rd baby, but because of her history of fertility she was a good candidate for IVF in her 40s. It doesn't work for everyone but if you are fertile it can work.

Okay. Let’s take your one anecdote over an IVF nurse’s experience…you aren’t adding to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a horribly selfish woman.

Genuinely confused by your remark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE used to get so upset about this type of thing. Said they either use donor eggs or have frozen embryos from when they were younger.

This is an RE's bread and butter and what they get paid big bucks to do (initiating pregnancy with DE or frozen).

Why would they get upset? Makes no sense. I don't believe your RE said this.

Got upset that they weren't truthful about their pregnancies thus making regular women believe that they can put off having kids until their 40s which for most women will not work.

Give women some credit. What 30 year old sees a People headline about Danes being pregnant at 43 and thinks, cool, I was going to go off BC and start trying but I guess I'll wait 10 years.

No one.

Also, this is her 3rd. She has a history of probably easy conceptions....so she's not the general population - she has shown she is fertile later on given she has a 4 year old. it's not a heavy lift to think this might be natural, and it's not a heavy lift to think they did IVF. Either way, no one is basing their own fertility decisions on this news.

Why do you think she “has a history of probably easy conceptions?” The age gaps between her children suggest otherwise.

Did you not know she was producing and starring in Homeland, which required a lot of overseas shoots and a ton of physical work? She has said in interviews she and her husband learned the hard way after they had their son that they couldn't be apart for a long time and both working. I'm guessing they had struggles for a few years while they were working apart. In the last season, her husband was part of the Homeland cast. So yea, that is the reason for the age gap.

Since you’re privy to Claire Danes’s conception journey and decision making, please explain why a tv show that wrapped almost 3 years ago is the reason why there will be a 4 1/2 - 5 year age gap between child #2 and child #3, and why she felt that conceiving at 43 was a better plan than conceiving at 41, after she was finished with Homeland. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read menopause threads, it hits at a wide range of ages. I am almost 48 and still have periods like clockwork and no signs of perimenopause. I recently had my hormone levels tested and while that isn't anything definitive, they were still the same as they were fifteen years ago. While I have no idea if a pregnancy would be viable at this point, I have no doubt I am still fertile.

43 is young!

43 is young for many things, but not birthing babies. Come on, now.

43 is iffy for a first time baby, but if you are able to have children just before 43 (her next oldest is 4 years old), 43 is not impossible. Or maybe she used minor intervention. That's just as possible at that age as having major intervention.

This. It’s like, what a 40% chance a year for a woman in her mid fourties’ who has already had kids. Just because you had issues does not mean it’s the norm, and that’s not an attack. The world population is huge. You’re not the only one out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some women get pregnant naturally and easily at 43.
Other women are completely infertile at that age.
Most are in between.

There are about 400K IVF cycles each year in the US and about 10% or 40K are donor egg.
Most people tell no-one about donor egg--not their mother, sister, best friend, etc.

I'm an IVF nurse.
For all the people saying "so and so conceived this way, at that time":
Unless you were in the room when it happened you really have no idea regardless of what the couple is (or isn't) saying.
Couples lie all.the.time for their own protection.

This.

No, not this. Sure IVF is common and a lot of middle class folks can afford it with insurance coverage. Not so donor eggs - most folks aren't going to go down that road because of cost.

I don't know why there is a contingent of women on DCUM who can't fathom that some women are fertile. My friend had 2 boys easily in her late 30s. At 42 they wanted to go for a third and yes they were hoping for a girl. After a few months of trying they did do IVF and she had her girl at 44.

No donor eggs, couldn't afford them and couldn't justify it for a 3rd baby, but because of her history of fertility she was a good candidate for IVF in her 40s. It doesn't work for everyone but if you are fertile it can work.

Everyone knows that *some* women can conceive effortlessly at 42+ and have a successful pregnancy, but realists who know a thing or two about fertility know that that is not the case with all the pregnant middle aged celebrities who can afford every fertility option.

[Anonymous]

The stats for IVF success are not relevant for natural conceptions. Very different cohorts.

“In your forties” is not meaningful. Fertility declines each year. 42 and 46 are dramatically different in terms of fertility.

[Anonymous]

Why all of the negativity about her being pregnant at 43? It's not like she's 63 and deciding to have a 3rd child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some women get pregnant naturally and easily at 43.
Other women are completely infertile at that age.
Most are in between.

There are about 400K IVF cycles each year in the US and about 10% or 40K are donor egg.
Most people tell no-one about donor egg--not their mother, sister, best friend, etc.

I'm an IVF nurse.
For all the people saying "so and so conceived this way, at that time":
Unless you were in the room when it happened you really have no idea regardless of what the couple is (or isn't) saying.
Couples lie all.the.time for their own protection.

This.

No, not this. Sure IVF is common and a lot of middle class folks can afford it with insurance coverage. Not so donor eggs - most folks aren't going to go down that road because of cost.

I don't know why there is a contingent of women on DCUM who can't fathom that some women are fertile. My friend had 2 boys easily in her late 30s. At 42 they wanted to go for a third and yes they were hoping for a girl. After a few months of trying they did do IVF and she had her girl at 44.

No donor eggs, couldn't afford them and couldn't justify it for a 3rd baby, but because of her history of fertility she was a good candidate for IVF in her 40s. It doesn't work for everyone but if you are fertile it can work.

Everyone knows that *some* women can conceive effortlessly at 42+ and have a successful pregnancy, but realists who know a thing or two about fertility know that that is not the case with all the pregnant middle aged celebrities who can afford every fertility option.

Infertility is not as common as those that seem to always jump on these threads seem to think, natural decline in fertility notwithstanding. It's why any doctor worth their salt will tell a woman still having periods that she can get pregnant and should use birth control if she doesn't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read menopause threads, it hits at a wide range of ages. I am almost 48 and still have periods like clockwork and no signs of perimenopause. I recently had my hormone levels tested and while that isn't anything definitive, they were still the same as they were fifteen years ago. While I have no idea if a pregnancy would be viable at this point, I have no doubt I am still fertile.

43 is young!

43 is young for many things, but not birthing babies. Come on, now.

43 is iffy for a first time baby, but if you are able to have children just before 43 (her next oldest is 4 years old), 43 is not impossible. Or maybe she used minor intervention. That's just as possible at that age as having major intervention.

This. People will cite these statistics for natural conception in your 40s but group everyone together. A huge percent of women trying to conceive in their 40s have a history of infertility. Either they delayed pregnancy altogether and this is their first try, or they struggled to conceive earlier children, or they've been trying to conceive for years. Their experiences are different from those of women who already have kids and have no history of infertility, especially if they conceived naturally in their late 30s.

I'd be curious to see statistics for natural conception at 40+ limited to just women who conceived successful pregnancies between 35 and 40. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's closer to 50%. By no means guaranteed, but not the total long shot you think it is when you look at overall fertility of all women trying to conceive in their 40s. The numbers are significantly impacted by the many women with a history of infertility trying to conceive at this age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:43 is old for a first baby but not a third. Every doctor will tell you that. It has something to do with your body being more receptive to pregnancy.

Congrats to her!

It’s old as hell and dangerous as hell for any baby. Stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read menopause threads, it hits at a wide range of ages. I am almost 48 and still have periods like clockwork and no signs of perimenopause. I recently had my hormone levels tested and while that isn't anything definitive, they were still the same as they were fifteen years ago. While I have no idea if a pregnancy would be viable at this point, I have no doubt I am still fertile.

43 is young!

43 is young for many things, but not birthing babies. Come on, now.

+1. Getting pregnant at this age is less than 5% per cycle. It might work for some women but the "oh, it happened to so and so" is just ridiculous. I know that women want to hear that they can have kids whenever they want, but it's just not true. We're doing ourselves a disservice by continuing this lie. The truth should be - If you wait until you are 40+, you will most likely not reproductive assistance. It will be difficult to get pregnant for most women. There is a slight chance that you get pregnant naturally but you shouldn't bank on it.

Is that so hard?

This forum is full of lonely aging women who lie to themselves that they’ll still find mister right and have kids. It’s gross.

[Anonymous]

I’m 43. Had children naturally at 36 and 41. My MFM (who actually works with high risk and AMA every day) was clear that I could easily get pregnant but there’s a good chance of pregnancy loss and/or chromosomal issues. She wasn’t worried about preterm, pre-e etc because of my history.

I think many of us are in the confusing situation where we would like another kid, believe we’re too old but still need to use birth control or have a tubal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some women get pregnant naturally and easily at 43.
Other women are completely infertile at that age.
Most are in between.

There are about 400K IVF cycles each year in the US and about 10% or 40K are donor egg.
Most people tell no-one about donor egg--not their mother, sister, best friend, etc.

I'm an IVF nurse.
For all the people saying "so and so conceived this way, at that time":
Unless you were in the room when it happened you really have no idea regardless of what the couple is (or isn't) saying.
Couples lie all.the.time for their own protection.

This.

No, not this. Sure IVF is common and a lot of middle class folks can afford it with insurance coverage. Not so donor eggs - most folks aren't going to go down that road because of cost.

I don't know why there is a contingent of women on DCUM who can't fathom that some women are fertile. My friend had 2 boys easily in her late 30s. At 42 they wanted to go for a third and yes they were hoping for a girl. After a few months of trying they did do IVF and she had her girl at 44.

No donor eggs, couldn't afford them and couldn't justify it for a 3rd baby, but because of her history of fertility she was a good candidate for IVF in her 40s. It doesn't work for everyone but if you are fertile it can work.

Everyone knows that *some* women can conceive effortlessly at 42+ and have a successful pregnancy, but realists who know a thing or two about fertility know that that is not the case with all the pregnant middle aged celebrities who can afford every fertility option.

Infertility is not as common as those that seem to always jump on these threads seem to think, natural decline in fertility notwithstanding. It's why any doctor worth their salt will tell a woman still having periods that she can get pregnant and should use birth control if she doesn't want to.

Yes, because while all women’s fertility declines throughout their 40s, all women aren’t starting off with the same level of fertility at age 40, all women don’t go through peri menopause at the same age, all women don’t have the same uterine quality, all women are not having sex with the same frequency and timing, and all women don’t have perfectly fertile male sexual partners. Some women are very fertile at 43, but even that doesn’t mean that they have exactly the same odds of naturally conceiving and birthing a healthy baby in the next year that they had at age 25.

Some celebrities get knocked up the old fashioned way at 42+ and some use ART. Either way, they don’t owe the public any details — but people will speculate.

[Anonymous]

43 is too damned old to have a baby. Period.