Reply to Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Natalie Portman is pregnant with baby #3!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Young women aren't basing their fertility choices on Natalie Portman. She is not relevant to anyone under 35.

I remember when I got married and my DH and I were discussing when to have kids, he mentioned something about a celebrity having kids in her mid or late 40s. I was only 29 at the time, but I quickly educated him on what it takes to have kids at that age (money, luck, and more money) and told him no way I wanted to wait until my 40s at all. Men might get the wrong idea from these stories because they don't live in female bodies and don't know how they work. But any woman who intentionally delayed her first pregnancy until her 40s just because she heard Natalie Portman had a baby at 44 is dumb and likely shouldn't be passing on her genes anyway.

Best wishes to Ms. Portman. Glad she has plenty of resources to help her through it, having an infant in your mid-40s sounds like both a blessing and a curse. Not for me.[/quote]

Which is it? Because many, many people are in here talking about how normal and common mid to late 40s pregnancies are. Why would you need to educate your husband when he seems to believe what so many others in here believe? We’ve had how many anecdotes about how ordinary this actually is.[/quote]

You didn't read or comprehend.

Multiple posters said when you start having babies earlier, what used to be the normal time to start families in your late teens and 20s, it is not at all uncommon for your body to remain fertile through your 40s into perimenopause.

In contrast, if you wait to start in your late 40s, odds are strong that you will stuggle to conceive.

Many, many of us have moms and grandmoms who had multiple babies from their early 20s-late 40s, where the moms and daughters were pregnant around the same time, and grandkids were the same age or even older than their aunts and uncles

If you follow natural fertility timelines and start conceiving as a younger woman, you are more likely to conceive in your 40s naturally, versus a woman who tries to start a family in her 40s who is likely to struggle and need medical help conceiving.

And PS, Natalie Portman is an old middle aged mom to the women in their teens and 20s.  None of them are planning their reproduction timelines around Natalie Portman.[/quote]

This idea that your fertility in your 40s is linked to how many babies you have in your 20s has zero medical support and makes no sense.  
People seem to have such black and white thinking.   Let’s say 30-40% of women can conceive naturally in a year worth of trying in their 40s.  That means it is not uncommon for women to get pregnant naturally in their 40s, but also not uncommon for women to struggle to do so.  Both things can be true.  There are thousands of people on this site so it makes sense that there would be hundreds on each side of this equation.  People who act like it’s near impossible to get pregnant in your 40s are just as wrong as people who act like it’s super easy.  It really depends on your individual biology.  Your close female relatives are the best guide to that but of course aren’t gojng to be conclusive — the same way you can have two parents with brown eyes and you somehow end up with blue.  I’d guess in another decade or so they’ll be much better at predicting for women whether they are likely to struggle, or not.
[/quote]

You can already get a fertility report from a specialist giving you your individual odds. This isn’t uncharted territory.[/quote]

The previous PP is correct. There is no correlation to number of children. The only thing they look at to predict fertility for women is age. Over 42? Less than 5% live birth rate with IVF.[/quote]

The likely to struggle isn’t a giant mystery as that pp proclaims.[/quote]

If you wait to have your first baby in your 40s, you are likely to have much more difficulty than a woman who started having babies in her late teens or 20s..  fact.

Women who start having  children naturally when they are younger in peak fertility are more likely to conceive additional children later in life in their 40s than women who try to have their first baby in their 40s.

Why that is, who knows.

Personally, I think that it is because most women who delay having babies until middle age have been on uninterrupted chemical birth control for essentially their entire fetility window, and as a result have screwed up their system without realizing it, where women who start conceiving earlier have taken breaks throughtout from birth control to allow their bodies to heal and recover from the very unnatural nature of chemical birth control.

Let's face it, birth control such as the shot or pill while helpful in preventing pregnancy, is not natural or a normal biological process.  [/quote]

Interesting because its global sperm count of men have declined 50% over the past several decades. But they haven’t seen a similar decline in female fertility.

I do think they have improved birth control options over the past several decades. When birth control pills were first developed it was a blunt object. But they have refined them and now pills have much lower doses and the the pill has actually fallen out of favor for more localized hormones, you can do the progesterone only implant or IUD. And the copper IUD with no hormones is also becoming more popular. They just put one on the market now that is smaller for younger women that can be used for up to three years.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/17742/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20CNN%20News%20article%2C%20a,than%2050%25%20over%20the%20past%2050%20years**[img][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics