Nancy Grace married and pregnant with twins??

[Mimi]

Wooohooo for Nancy and David!! :dance:

Enjoy the entire journey...marriage and parenthood are the most adventurous ride in the world...just remember to hang on tight when it is going topsy turvy!!! :blowkiss:

 

[eleven]

I'm not trying to argue with you but you are misinformed.

When you turn 35, your pregnancy is not automatically classified as high-risk. You ARE classified as AMA which stands for Advanced Maternal Age. I found this to be quite amusing because at my OB's office they put a big red AMA right at the front of your chart.

When I was 18 1/2 weeks along and the sonogram showed it was twins, I asked if I was now high risk. My doctor said it was more like "different" risk. I was never put on bed rest, I was never told I was high risk. They were extra careful with me and sent me to a Perinatologist for a few visits and I had a sonogram every 4 weeks to check for size differential but my doctor does that with any woman having multiples.

40 really is the new 30.

I'm not trying to argue either, but I'm not misinformed. Your pregnancy IS without a doubt classified as a high risk pregnancy if you are over 35. The AMA or Advanced Maternal Age is the reason for the high-risk classification. There are many reasons why being over 35 is high-risk--mainly because there is more chances of having complications during your pregnancy. Women who are 35 or older have a much higher risk of having babies with chromosomal abnormalities than younger mothers, as well as a higher incidence of gestational diabetes, miscarriages, high blood pressure and stillbirths. Having twins is ALSO classified as high-risk. I don't understand what your doctor meant by the term a "different risk". That doesn't make sense to me. All risks are "different", but they are risks nonetheless.

40 may be the new 30 in some circles, but not in the obstretics community and the ACOG because the fact is that the percentages of having complications increase dramatically after 35.

There are, however, many many women past 35 who have normal, healthy pregnancies and deliver perfectly healthy babies, but their pregnancy was still a high-risk one, according to the ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

 

[Jolynna]

Women that are AMA have been having babies for years even without the benefit of today's medical advances.

My grandmother was 49 when she had her last baby. I have two uncles younger than I am. My aunt had her last child at 41. And my GREAT aunt had not had a visit from her monthly "friend" for over a year when she had her only child...a son, my age. (According to my mother, back then there was a name for it..."change of life" babies.)

All of the babies were healthy. And the women were able to keep up.

I think Nancy is going to be fine.

 

[Show Me]

I'm happy for Nancy. Her husband is huge! She just reaches his shoulder. If those babies take after their dad she will probably have to have a C-section cause they will probably weigh 12 lbs each

I don't think there is anything wrong with a person deciding to have children at her and his ages BUT I'm glad it is her and not me They have the money to hire nannys to help out though so that will make a difference. When the babies hit about 2 yrs old she will need extra help just to keep track of them

You said it Bobbiesangel....I'm glad I was younger when I had mine. Mr. Show Me and I just looked at each other, when we heard the news, and laughed...I'm not much older than Nancy so we are looking to grandchildren.

However Nancy can have allllll the hired help she needs so she will be okay.....except...

Nancy get all the sleep you can for once the babies are born....sleep becomes a luxury!

 

[NewMom2003]

40 really is the new 30.

This is a great qote GatorMom!!! I love it!

I was 33 when I became a mother. More and more woman are waiting to have their children later in their lives. I think it's wonderful and becoming more of the norm. In fact, the majority of mom's I see at my daughter's pre-school are my age or older. It almost seems unusual to me to see a mother in her 20's anymore.

I wanted to add that I am overjoyed for Nancy and her new hubby!!! She was absolutely glowing on her show the other night when she made the announcement!!

 

[Rino]

40 really is the new 30.

:dance:, but I'm still only 29

 

[natasha-cupcake]

Forty might be the new thirty, but not all women remain fertile in their 30's and 40's. I got married at 34, had my first baby at 35 and my twins at 41. I got pregnant the first month we tried to conceive the first time, which was no surprise to me because the women in my family are incredibly fertile. I figured I'd have no problem, despite my age. But only a year after the birth of my son, I was shocked to discover that I was unable to get pregnant at all. I soon realized that all the fertile women in my family had their last babies around 34-35 years old, not their first babies. I went through the whole infertility circus and finally got pregnant after three IVF cycles, a lot of dollars and even more tears.

One infertility doc who worked with me told me that many woman are very mistaken in thinking that they can delay childbearing until their late 30's and 40's with impunity. While many woman retain their fertility, a very large percentage of women experience a decline in fertility that begins at age 30 and progresses rapidly after that. I personally, did not delay childbearing because I was working on my career, or trying to become financially secure. It just worked out that none of my relationships developed to the commitment level that was necessary for marriage and children until I was well into my 30's. I personally was ready for children in my very early 20's but it just didn't happen for me until much later.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having children in your 40's. I just know that it may not be possible for many women and that a lot of these women who wait, have no idea. There is so much publicity about older moms, especially older celebrity moms having babies. As one poster mentioned, the vast majority of those celebs having babies over 45 got pregnant with IVF using donor eggs. Notice how many of them refuse to discuss the details of how they got pregnant? I respect their right to do so, but there is almost always a story behind it and that story usually includes donor eggs and IVF.

 

[Nocgirl]

I agree Natasha, I am 35 and trying to get preggers with #2. Me and my DH have been trying for about 5 months. My DH works out of town alot so that is partof the problem. I had my first at 32 with no trouble. I will seek fertility help if in a few more months a pregnancy does not happen.

Fertility starts to decline slightly, for most women, at 35, then at 38 is the next biggest decline. After 40, most womens eggs start to decline at a rapid rate. These celebrities you see having babies, and twins in their 40's most likely used IVF or if they are older than 44, probably used donor eggs.

A super model's last child was conceived through donor eggs, she had that baby at 42. I know this because about 7 or 8 years ago I considered donating my eggs to a couple, who told me this DR they used in Vegas was the same DR that a famous supermodel used to get pregnant and she also used donor eggs. Most women don't announce it.

I wonder if Geena Davis's kids are biologically hers? She had all of her 3 kids after 45 which is almost unheard of. Since she also had twins I am thinking she also used donor eggs.

I would not wait until past 35 to have your first child. Many women are doing it nowadays but its not easy. My twin sister is also 35, never married, wants a family, but cannot hold on to a guy for more than a couple weeks. I see her eventually just getting pregnant

 

[eve]

Wow! I had my third (last) child at 35 and guess I should consider myself lucky I had no problems! Took bc pills til I was 45, too! Also made hubby get snipped after that! LOL!

Eve