These stories are why I share that I had my first at 43 and twins at 46 After seven years of infertility and $$$$. And donor egg. Younger women have to know the real stories

Anonymous wrote:Why would they get upset??? Because the celebrity lies about it and creates the impression that it happened naturally (read: J Lo and others). Like anyone else, REs want CREDIT where credit is due!!!

It's not lying when these celebs just announce they are pregnant and excited about their new baby. And there are women who get pregnant with interventions at 43, as a PP mentioned. It's okay for prominent women to maintain some level of medical privacy and they are not obligated to disclose exactly how they conceived if they don't want to.

What the RE is actually upset about is that people come into her office expecting it to be no problem at all to get pregnant in their 40s because, after all, what about [long list of celebrity women who have had successful pregnancies well into their 40s and even 50s]. But then it's the RE's job to explain that (1) everyone's reproductive experience is different and it's not really that useful to compare yourself to others, especially others with vastly different resources, and (2) we generally don't know how these women conceived, nor do we know how long it took or how many things they tried.

It's totally reasonable for a woman, even a famous woman, to not feel like disclosing that she's using donor eggs, or that she froze her eggs at 29 (egg freezing is incredibly common in Hollywood because they don't worry about the expense even in their 20s and there are so many reasons that an actress might want to have maximum control over when she has her kids, like what if she winds up on a long-running sitcom or what if her biggest career opportunities occur during her peak fertility years), or that she went through 7 rounds of IVF over several years before getting a successful pregnancy. It's also reasonable for any reproductive specialist to dismiss the pregnancies of famous women as indicative of what will happen in your reproductive life because we lack context.

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.

Congrats to her!

A friend of mine had her first and only at 42 with no fertility treatments. I think it’s quite common.

Why would they get upset??? Because the celebrity lies about it and creates the impression that it happened naturally (read: J Lo and others). Like anyone else, REs want CREDIT where credit is due!!!

Anonymous wrote:43 is old for a new baby. I know this because I’m 43 and I’m too old for a baby. But I’m just a regular person.

This. I'm 43 and don't bother with BC because it is so unlikely to naturally get pregnant. I am happy for Danes but the likelihood of natural pregnancies at 43+ is nil. These types of stories without mentioning repro asst are misleading to general public.

Anonymous wrote:43 is old for a new baby. I know this because I’m 43 and I’m too old for a baby. But I’m just a regular person.

True, she's incredibly fit and will have all the nanny support etc. she needs. I did it at age 41 with no problems, can only imagine how much better it will be for her.

43 is old for a new baby. I know this because I’m 43 and I’m too old for a baby. But I’m just a regular person.

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.

Anonymous wrote:43 isn't that old. A lot of people still are fertile-myrtles with regular textbook periods/ovulation, etc and can sustain a healthy pregnancy despite the probability of things going wrong.

It's not like it's impossible.

Re: age gaps...eh, there are pros and cons to every age gap

+1 A friend got married at 40 and proceeded to have 3 kids by 45, no interventions. I wouldn't assume anything before age 45.

43 isn't that old. A lot of people still are fertile-myrtles with regular textbook periods/ovulation, etc and can sustain a healthy pregnancy despite the probability of things going wrong.

It's not like it's impossible.

Re: age gaps...eh, there are pros and cons to every age gap

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.

43 isn't THAT old when you have plenty of money to do IVF endlessly.

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.

Whatever happened to “congratulations”? What a random response to a post. You must be fun at parties.

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.

She’s 43. She has two boys, ages 10 & 4. Good for her!