Advanced search

remember the thread about OP who couldn't sympathise with her friend who'd left it too late to have a baby???

(46 Posts)
MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 14:51:37


A lot of people shouted "Journalist!!!"

I thought, surely not, could be real. Well I saw the DM today and an article which could have been cobbled together from this thread is in there.

I'm becoming more cynical.

flamingobingo Wed 17-Jun-09 14:52:46

Is there a link to the DM article?

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 14:53:26

hang on. I just realised I gave it a DM spin myself there, saying "she left it too late". I shouldn't have said that.

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 14:55:23

here it is

Rindercella Wed 17-Jun-09 15:02:22

Well, well, there's a surprise hmm

I said this on here a while ago, but I do think that more and more lazy arse journos use MN for their 'research'. Quite often I will turn on the TV or radio & hear a debate that sounds spookily familiar. Then I realise I have seen a thread on here posing exactly the same moral dilemma.

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 15:05:27

Yes it's beyond coincidence now. You feel like you've read the paper and you can't possibly have read it..

Hang on, we wrote it!!! (more or less!).

Heated Wed 17-Jun-09 15:06:32

I do think that celebities who manage to pop out twins in their 40s - there are a surprising number in Hollywood - may help perpetuate the 'myth' that it's perfectly possible to have babies until about 46 (Cherie Blair) or if not there's always IVF - although I believe IVF has a 5-12% success rate (depending on source of info) once over 40. Apparently 1 in 5 mothers are 40+. I must admit because my own mother had us quite late in life and my great-grandmother has her last at 46, that I've assumed I'll be fertile until then - possibly erroneously.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 17-Jun-09 15:12:10

The one in five figure is mistaken - of all births, 19% are to women aged over 35, of whom 21% are over 40.

Back on topic - to be fair to journos, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a report into fertility rates this week, so no big surprise that stories about older mothers/failing to conceive are inevtitable.

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 15:12:32

I think having already had children alters the stats. Your body knows what to do, that's not a very scientific explanation, but it's a totally different set of parametres (having another baby when you are 40).

According to the daily mail article shock blush add 25 yrs on to the age you were when you got your period, and they're saying it's going to be an uphill battle after that. I don't know if that's fact or fiction.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 17-Jun-09 15:12:48

Er, what happened to the end of that sentence? Went a bit wibbly there.

Paolosgirl Wed 17-Jun-09 15:15:21

I got my period when I was 11, and conceived at 38 very easily (and unexpectedly)! At 28 it was a different story - fertility treatment for months. I'm guessing Daily Mail=fiction grin

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 15:15:23

I hear you that the report was published this week, but journos definitely using MN as a sounding board to see how judgmentally or sympathetically they should present the information. They want to present it in as judgmentally a light as they can get away with. find out where the line is (thanks to MN) and then just rein in back in a centimetre.

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 15:16:35

I'm 39 in December and I got my period the summer I was 13. so my fertility ends about

[countdown music]



Paolosgirl Wed 17-Jun-09 15:49:02

Hurrah! Throw away all contraception and enjoy!!!

FrontRowFig Wed 17-Jun-09 15:51:04

Tony is an od name for a kid these days ishnt it

MaggieBee Wed 17-Jun-09 15:52:32

I know!! Tony! I laughed at that too.

spicemonster Wed 17-Jun-09 19:36:15

OMG - I said that bit about celebs virtually word for word. angry

It makes me really reluctant to contribute to topical debates tbh

FabBakerGirlIsBack Wed 17-Jun-09 19:41:14

I just read that article. Is she saying it is all her own words when really it is quotes from MNers?

They should be banned.

Journalists get help when they are open about who they are so why should they be sneaky about it?

spicemonster Wed 17-Jun-09 20:35:48

My post:

"And it isn't helped by the number of celebs who have babies in their 40s and don't mention their fertility treatment - I'm convinced that's led to a general sense that it's fine to wait."

The article:

'What many don't realise - because celebrities don't admit it - is that many older-mother births are the result of using a donor egg, or donor sperm'.

PaulaYatesMum Wed 17-Jun-09 20:37:30

i shouted journo - been here too long wink

elvislives Wed 17-Jun-09 20:38:22

I started my periods at 11 and had DD2 (my 5th) at 43 - 2 months before I turned 43- so that 25 years theory is codswallop.

FAQinglovely Wed 17-Jun-09 20:41:04

oooo spice! That is very similar isn't it - I reckon the OU plaguer ism system would pick that up as stolen from you

Rindercella Wed 17-Jun-09 20:44:39

Arrggghhh. Why oh why did I read that article. It is the fecking DM. It is about older mothers - <whispers> those women who want it all. It was always going to piss me off immensely.

I will not click on DM links again x100

HaventSleptForAYear Wed 17-Jun-09 20:47:03

OMG even the pics of the slebs are the exact same ones someone quoted on the thread!

HaventSleptForAYear Wed 17-Jun-09 20:50:45

Where are her stats from re: age of eggs???

You are born with all the eggs you will ever have.

Surely when you start your periods is to do with the maturity of your body (ie physically able to have a baby).

On the plus side, I can put off deciding about number 3 for a while, I didn't start my periods til I was 17 so got 8 yrs to umm and ahh about it.

Made up "scientific facts", I suppose are just part of the lazy journalism.

How much do these people get paid?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now