Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Making sweeping generalizations is never a good idea.
Both of my grandmothers had children after 45 (and this was back in the 1920s before anyone even HEARD of IVF). It's apparent that their eggs were just fine and dandy.
I have also PERSONALLY known two women who got pregnant in their 50s and had normal, healthy children.
Every human being on earth is different and for a doctor to be able to "predict" when a womans eggs go sour is preposterous. Like everything else having to do with conventional medicine - they are just guessing.
Speaking to the issue of having a child at 47. I suppose people do whatever makes them happy, but personally, I'd rather cut off an arm.
20yrsinBranson
Just because your grandmothers had kids after 45 doesn't mean that is the general case..it is an unusual exception. You pass it off like it is something normal. The generalizations are made by doctors and scientists not by me, I was merely quoting their text. The statement that a woman in her mid 40s having a child with her own eggs being extremely unusual is made by a doctor.. it is based on statistical research. Are you claiming to be more qualified than a doctor?
Just because your grandmothers had kids after 45 doesn't mean that is the general case..it is an unusual exception. You pass it off like it is something normal.
I wouldn't say it's the "general case" but I do think it's more common than you realize, it's more than an "unusual exception". You make it sound like it's practically unheard of. As I've already pointed out, there are many women in my family tree who were over 40 when they had their last child and several who were over 45.
In fact, I can give you some numbers: more than half of my direct ancestors on my mom's side (not as much data on my dad's side but I can gather it too if you want) gave birth after 40 (19 out of 35 or about 54%). That means MOST women in my tree can and did have children into their 40s. And roughly a third of those 35 gave birth over 45 years of age (11 out of 35 or about 31%). NONE of these women had any kind of medical intervention since all of them existed long before that was possible. And since they also existed long before reliable modern birth control was available or acceptable, it gives a more accurate representation of how common it is for women to be capable of having kids well into their 40s or after 45 (because modern statistics won't take into consideration the fact that women today have the choice to not continue having kids until they physically no longer can).
No, it's not the norm to have kids after 45, it's obviously not in the majority. But at the same time, I would not call 31% of women in my tree an "unusual exception". So are you saying that my entire family tree is an unusual exception? I think that's stretching it... I'll bet many other people who have researched their family history have found similar results.
When I started researching my tree, I was concerned my dates were wrong when I first noticed some of the women gave birth in their 40s, especially after 45, because like you, I thought it was unusual. But now I realize it was just more common than I thought.
You are right, what I thought would be a nice thread about Kelly Preston being pregnant is not. Yes she is 47 and pregnant, and yes she is an older parent and could die when the child is young. On the other hand she is very fit and healthy and you can be a 20 year old parent and die. Her and her husband John just had a horrible tragedy losing their son. No baby can make up for that loss, but her being pregnant shines some light into a world that has been very dark since their sons death. I am personally very happy for them.
You are right, what I thought would be a nice thread about Kelly Preston being pregnant is not. Yes she is 47 and pregnant, and yes she is an older parent and could die when the child is young. On the other hand she is very fit and healthy and you can be a 20 year old parent and die. Her and her husband John just had a horrible tragedy losing their son. No baby can make up for that loss, but her being pregnant shines some light into a world that has been very dark since their sons death. I am personally very happy for them.
totally agree. When I heard that she was pregnant I was so happy for her.
It COULD be her own egg, but I heard the same doctor on TV as the OP who said that the current bunch of actresses who have babies in their 40's are probably not having them with their own eggs...he was talking about Marcia Cross, Sarah Jessica Parker, and others in their 40's. He did not know for sure, he wasn't their doctor.
It COULD be her own egg, but I heard the same doctor on TV as the OP who said that the current bunch of actresses who have babies in their 40's are probably not having them with their own eggs...he was talking about Marcia Cross, Sarah Jessica Parker, and others in their 40's. He did not know for sure, he wasn't their doctor.
well, considering that the Travoltas are scientologists and they believe that psychology is junk science ...
ODDS are ... ODDS ... that she used donor eggs. But who knows, they'll never tell. She's 47, they are rich, they can hire a scientology nurse to raise the baby. There is no doubt that this is a replacement baby. They probably consulted some creepy scientologist doctor within weeks of Jett's death to get a new one in the oven.
As Countess LuAnn sings, money can't buy you class, but in this case, money can sure buy you an embryo!
well, considering that the Travoltas are scientologists and they believe that psychology is junk science ...
ODDS are ... ODDS ... that she used donor eggs. But who knows, they'll never tell. She's 47, they are rich, they can hire a scientology nurse to raise the baby. There is no doubt that this is a replacement baby. They probably consulted some creepy scientologist doctor within weeks of Jett's death to get a new one in the oven.
As Countess LuAnn sings, money can't buy you class, but in this case, money can sure buy you an embryo!
Just because your grandmothers had kids after 45 doesn't mean that is the general case..it is an unusual exception. You pass it off like it is something normal. The generalizations are made by doctors and scientists not by me, I was merely quoting their text. The statement that a woman in her mid 40s having a child with her own eggs being extremely unusual is made by a doctor.. it is based on statistical research. Are you claiming to be more qualified than a doctor?
After age 40 only 3% of a woman's eggs are viable.. this doesn't sound very promising to me!
...........and yet you are in another forum advising a 44 year old male to find someone and have a child. The guy said he's 44 and regrets not having kids. Hypocrite much. 44 year old man-regretting not having kids
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow what an ugly thread!
