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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So much misinformation in this post. My son’s first grade class had 3 moms turn 50 that year. All “normal” pregnancies (and all the third & last child in the family).

those 50 YO women likely misrepresent their pregnancies. Or, do not reveal what their pregnancy journey was for privacy reason, which is understandable. WE need to start normalizing the fact that most women in their 40s are not getting pregnant easily. Stop the lies

There are not lies (DP, for the record).

Some women do struggle to conceive in their 40s. Probably the majority of women who are trying to get pregnant in their 40s have fertility issues. Everyone knows this. EVERYONE. Sure, people will say things like "but it seems like a lot of women get pregnant in their 40s." They say this to be encouraging to women who are struggling, or as a counter to someone who says "I can't have kids because I'm x age." It's meant to point out that it is of course possible to have kids in your 40s, women have been doing it for ages, since long before fertility treatments were even available. You don't know that you can't have kids in your 40s unless you try, so if you want kids in your 40s, you might as well try. That's why people say this.

And also, yes, some women get pregnant easily in their 40s. I know that can be hard to hear for someone who is struggling with infertility. But it's not a personal attack, it's just true. My mom conceived easily in her 40s. I conceived easily at 37 and 39, two healthy kids no issues at all. I know a number of women who have had surprise pregnancies in their 40s that they definitely didn't use donor eggs or fertility treatments for -- two of them terminated because they didn't want another kid and it was a very unwelcome surprise. It happens. Is it the way most pregnancies happen? No.

But you can't just assume that every pregnant 40+ woman used fertility treatments and is "lying" if she doesn't announce this to you. Many likely did, but it is honestly their business, not yours. And some didn't, and they can't "normalize" something that isn't even true for them. Some women get pregnant easily in their 40s. You can't bet on it and I'd advise anyone who really wanted kids to not leave it to that hope if at all possible. But I would also tell a woman in her late 30s with no history of infertility who was finally in a position to have kids and was worried -- you never know, it might happen easily. Don't assume it will be difficult until you try and see what happens. But because I don't believe in borrowing trouble and for me, personally, conceiving my kids at an advanced age was not an issue.

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.

You clearly aren’t reading the posts.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So much misinformation in this post. My son’s first grade class had 3 moms turn 50 that year. All “normal” pregnancies (and all the third & last child in the family).

those 50 YO women likely misrepresent their pregnancies. Or, do not reveal what their pregnancy journey was for privacy reason, which is understandable. WE need to start normalizing the fact that most women in their 40s are not getting pregnant easily. Stop the lies

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!

Anonymous wrote:Everyone in my orbit who had a child at this age had health issues themselves or the child does. This is incredibly selfish and dangerous.

Get a bigger orbit. I have a kid with serious sN I had in my early 30s. Perfectly healthy one later

Everyone in my orbit who had a child at this age had health issues themselves or the child does. This is incredibly selfish and dangerous.

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.

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.

The age gaps make perfect sense for someone who has worked consistently since she was a teenager, in a field that is unfriendly to pregnancy, including a stint on a long running television show that she starred in. Filming hour long dramas is notoriously hard on actors -- just very grueling hours and then there is pressure to work on films and other projects during their hiatus in order to make hay when their careers are at a high point. I don't view gaps between kids to be evidence of anything accept success in that situation.

This is pure conjecture, just like the posts saying she likely used donor eggs or her own previously frozen eggs or embryos. No one on this thread knows anything about Claire Danes’s fertility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is RE?

+1

Anyone?

Reproductive Endocrinologist, i.e., doctor who specializes in treatment of infertility.

Anonymous wrote:What is RE?

+1

Anyone?