TLC showing I'm pregnant at 55

TLC showing I'm pregnant at 55

Joined: December 2nd, 2008, 2:10 am

November 11th, 2010, 3:40 pm #1

What a wonderful show. First time pregnancy, trying for 12 years using embies frozen 12 years ago. Gives me hope.

Everyone, there is hope for all and more power to us that continue to try no matter what the age.

Ann
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 14th, 2003, 10:59 pm

November 11th, 2010, 6:43 pm #2

didn't she use the embryos before now? I am always curious when people say that have embryos that have been frozen for many years and are just now trying for a pregnancy...

Why wait until 55 when the IVF was at 43?

What I am basically saying is that I am happy that she is able to achieve a pregnancy but the likelihood that these embryos are from an OE IVF she did in 1998 is almost zero. And she cannot claim that she wants privacy when she is going on a television show to tout her miraculous pregnancy.

Sorry to be a little cynical on this but I just hate for people to believe in the impossible.

Quote
Like
Share

Ann
Ann

November 11th, 2010, 7:09 pm #3

for 12 years and she had several MC far along and surgeries on uterus for fibroids. They had a few left, gave it a shot and it took. I thought DE myself. But, whichever it is I am happy to see a show with a woman of "advance maternal age" (dislike this label) achieving the dream of motherhood.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

November 11th, 2010, 7:58 pm #4

What a wonderful show. First time pregnancy, trying for 12 years using embies frozen 12 years ago. Gives me hope.

Everyone, there is hope for all and more power to us that continue to try no matter what the age.

Ann
This will surely offend some, but my concern is for babies born to women who are past childbearing age. Yes, it's sad for women who may have "missed out" on having children when they were younger, but there comes a point in time when it is no longer about the woman wants, and more about what is truly best for a child. Having a 55 year old mother at birth is clearly not in the best interest of a child (I don't know how anyone could argue that). It just makes me sad that someone would knowingly bring a child into this world when there is no possible way that the mother, and possibly father if he's just as old, will be able parent as actively and healthfully as younger parents. When the poor child is 15, his/her mother will be 70 (or may not even alive). How can anyone say that's fair or in the best interest of a child?

DE is an incredible option that I'm about to embark on as a 41 year old woman, and even then, I feel some selfishness about it and worry about my age in terms of how it will affect any potential children. I understand fully the need to be a mother, but once a woman is conceivably past the age of having a child on her own, is it really right to force such an option? There are so many older children and children with disabilities who need homes. Wouldn't that be a better option for women nearing or above 50 who never had the chance to have children (based on her OWN life choices)?

I know this will P.O. some, but I care more about innocent children than any women who waited too long and now think it's their "right". There are serious implications to be considered that really have NOTHING to do with the parents, but rather with the lives of these potential children. I guess it's really the fault of the doctors who allow this, as it's now gotten out of hand.

Sorry, but I had to say it.
Savannah
Quote
Share

Kekona
Kekona

November 11th, 2010, 8:18 pm #5

a child. He gets an "Attaboy!" and a wink. If a woman of comparable years becomes pg, ppl judge her.

Not all children born to older dm's have a poor life. Not all children born to young dm's have a good life.

It is not the special responsibility of older dm's to adopt special needs children anymore than it is for IF ppl of ANY age to adopt special needs kids. As the sister of a 53yo woman with DS, I can vouch for the fact that special needs kids are dependent MUCH longer and drain MUCH more energy and resources than the average child.

I'm not religious, but I have to say, if it's good enough for Sarah and Elizabeth and their God, it should be good enough for anybody else.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

November 11th, 2010, 8:28 pm #6

Just askin'
Quote
Share

Julie
Julie

November 11th, 2010, 8:40 pm #7

This will surely offend some, but my concern is for babies born to women who are past childbearing age. Yes, it's sad for women who may have "missed out" on having children when they were younger, but there comes a point in time when it is no longer about the woman wants, and more about what is truly best for a child. Having a 55 year old mother at birth is clearly not in the best interest of a child (I don't know how anyone could argue that). It just makes me sad that someone would knowingly bring a child into this world when there is no possible way that the mother, and possibly father if he's just as old, will be able parent as actively and healthfully as younger parents. When the poor child is 15, his/her mother will be 70 (or may not even alive). How can anyone say that's fair or in the best interest of a child?

DE is an incredible option that I'm about to embark on as a 41 year old woman, and even then, I feel some selfishness about it and worry about my age in terms of how it will affect any potential children. I understand fully the need to be a mother, but once a woman is conceivably past the age of having a child on her own, is it really right to force such an option? There are so many older children and children with disabilities who need homes. Wouldn't that be a better option for women nearing or above 50 who never had the chance to have children (based on her OWN life choices)?

I know this will P.O. some, but I care more about innocent children than any women who waited too long and now think it's their "right". There are serious implications to be considered that really have NOTHING to do with the parents, but rather with the lives of these potential children. I guess it's really the fault of the doctors who allow this, as it's now gotten out of hand.

Sorry, but I had to say it.
Savannah
I do struggle with the issue of how old is too old and who gets to decide? Why does the doctor get that right? I mean, what if a 50 year old has a baby and her parents and grandparents lived to be in their 90s? So somebody else gets to decide she is "too old" at 50 or 55 even though she might live until her DC is in his/her 40s? For some people, me having my first child at 47 is beyond the realm of what should be acceptable and I know some people who think 41 is too old. I am 37 weeks pregnant right now and just turned 47; DH is 48. We did not get married until we were 43 and 44, respectively, and have been TTC since that time. We did OE for a bit then moved to DE and had a number of heartaches. Yes, we were going to move to adoption next but I really wanted the experience of being pregnant. I don't think that makes me selfish -- I just wanted a normal female experience. I don't look my age, my parents are very active in their 70s so I am going to have the "normal" help from them and I have nieces and nephews just a 3 years older than my baby will be. My donor's grandparents are long-lived and my DH's family have very long life expectancies. DH and I are still active, have lots of friends who are younger than us. Most of our neighbors don't really think about us being our age, most people at work know we are active and we really have not gotten any real negative reaction from the people that know us -- they are all just so happy for us. Nobody knows how long they are going to be there for their children -- the best and most we can do is love them, take care of them and do whatever we can as long as we are there.

My real hot button is the assumption that as a nearly 50 year old or older than 50, I should just be the one who adopts a special needs child or an older child. Why doesn't every single one of us on this board do that instead of trying to do DE? Because I have old eggs and then I got bad young eggs in my 2 previous DE cycles means I am the one the can't keep trying to get pregnant? That just does not make sense to me. DH and I may decide to adopt if we want to expand our family after this baby is born but I think that is our choice to make. And certainly I can't see why I should be limited to an older or special needs child. So I guess you did PO me a little -- please know I did not want to be 47 and having my first child but that is what happened. Just know that there are a number of other women on this board who started trying to have their babies years ago -- and even started pursuing DE years ago -- who still have empty arms. It does not work like clockwork for all of us but we have a dream of being pregnant and having a baby. We have been screened by our doctors and are in good health. It is the best interest of my baby, me and my DH that my LO is going to be born soon.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

November 11th, 2010, 8:45 pm #8

Just askin'
I think this post is sarcastic and not needed. Many women are incapable of having babies in their 20's and 30's. As shown on many of our sister boards. What do you say to them? They didn't wait to have a child, but they still couldn't get pregnant. In some cases, older women have to wait for various health reasons, or they didn't meet the right man in time. Most women don't want to wait until 55 to have a child, but life gives them circumstances that cause them to wait. I don't see why it is appropriate for a man to have a child in their 50's but not women. If they are healthy and have no major health issues, they may live to their late 80's. At which point the child would be in their 30's. I think the main concern with energy comes in when the child is younger (toddler or preschooler). After that, you won't be running after them anymore. I know many 50 year olds that have tons of energy. Plus, I think most people tend to be ethical. They won't bring children into the world if they truly were sick or had pre-existing conditions. I know Elizabeth did have DE children after cancer but I think she believed she was in remission at the time.
Quote
Share

Savannah
Savannah

November 11th, 2010, 8:54 pm #9

I do struggle with the issue of how old is too old and who gets to decide? Why does the doctor get that right? I mean, what if a 50 year old has a baby and her parents and grandparents lived to be in their 90s? So somebody else gets to decide she is "too old" at 50 or 55 even though she might live until her DC is in his/her 40s? For some people, me having my first child at 47 is beyond the realm of what should be acceptable and I know some people who think 41 is too old. I am 37 weeks pregnant right now and just turned 47; DH is 48. We did not get married until we were 43 and 44, respectively, and have been TTC since that time. We did OE for a bit then moved to DE and had a number of heartaches. Yes, we were going to move to adoption next but I really wanted the experience of being pregnant. I don't think that makes me selfish -- I just wanted a normal female experience. I don't look my age, my parents are very active in their 70s so I am going to have the "normal" help from them and I have nieces and nephews just a 3 years older than my baby will be. My donor's grandparents are long-lived and my DH's family have very long life expectancies. DH and I are still active, have lots of friends who are younger than us. Most of our neighbors don't really think about us being our age, most people at work know we are active and we really have not gotten any real negative reaction from the people that know us -- they are all just so happy for us. Nobody knows how long they are going to be there for their children -- the best and most we can do is love them, take care of them and do whatever we can as long as we are there.

My real hot button is the assumption that as a nearly 50 year old or older than 50, I should just be the one who adopts a special needs child or an older child. Why doesn't every single one of us on this board do that instead of trying to do DE? Because I have old eggs and then I got bad young eggs in my 2 previous DE cycles means I am the one the can't keep trying to get pregnant? That just does not make sense to me. DH and I may decide to adopt if we want to expand our family after this baby is born but I think that is our choice to make. And certainly I can't see why I should be limited to an older or special needs child. So I guess you did PO me a little -- please know I did not want to be 47 and having my first child but that is what happened. Just know that there are a number of other women on this board who started trying to have their babies years ago -- and even started pursuing DE years ago -- who still have empty arms. It does not work like clockwork for all of us but we have a dream of being pregnant and having a baby. We have been screened by our doctors and are in good health. It is the best interest of my baby, me and my DH that my LO is going to be born soon.
The only reason I suggested adopting older children or children with disabilities was because I know that adoption agencies do not allow women who are 40 or so adopt healthy infants (and they have their reasons for this). I have also considered adoption, and think it's a nobel act for anyone, at any age, to save a child who wouldn't otherwise have parents. My point was really about bringing innocent children into the world knowing that you'll probably have to cut them short or not be healthy enough to make the most out of their childhood. Yes, I know that even young parents can die or get diseases, but let's face it, the odds become increasingly higher the older we get.

Savannah
Quote
Share

Joined: May 14th, 2007, 7:28 pm

November 11th, 2010, 9:08 pm #10

At what age will you stop trying to get pregnant?

Just in case it will not work right away...

Quote
Like
Share