Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).
no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.
She would have a great chance with IVF with DE. She hasn’t mentioned finances.
um, she didn't mention DE either. where did that come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).
no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.
She would have a great chance with IVF with DE. She hasn’t mentioned finances.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).
no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).
Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.
Anonymous wrote:the problem is that most of the embryos will be chromosomally abnormal. so if you do get pregnant w/o intervention and don't miscarry, your first chance to do genetic testing is at 10-13 weeks gestation, and there is a 1/800 chance of miscarriage associated with CVS. and then you'd possibly have to decide if you were ok with termination for medical reasons.
with IVF you can at least test the embryos beforehand...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I would absolutely not have a 3rd. You already have two healthy kids. It just seems unnecessary given all the health concerns when you not only have 1 but have the sibling experience as well.
So unnecessary. Noone asked your opinion on adding another child.
Um, actually the OP did. She literally started a threat to ask. Dumb much?