AOC and freezing eggs
LBJ bared his belly to show us his gallbladder scar.
Too much information.
AOC has bared hers to show us her quest to freeze her eggs in order to preserve her chances to have children. Also too much information. But certainly more interesting information, considering that this is a practice – purposely delaying conception and using medically-assisted means in an effort to get pregnant later at the “right” time – that has become more common.
AOC says:
“Maybe in life you can’t have everything,” she says. “But here’s the secret: You can have a hell of a lot.”
AOC is herself a good example of maximizing a gift for gab and a little bit of undergrad-type knowledge and gaining a position of some power, perhaps to gain even more. She’s thirty-six years old now and had been keeping company with a boyfriend of at least a decade, although they’ve now broken up:
… she also is single, with The New York Times reporting that she has split from her long-term fiancé and college sweetheart, Riley Roberts. …
… Now she finds herself at 36, still beautiful, considered youthful by the standards of the day, but with ovaries that stubbornly remain in nature’s grip. From the age of 35 a woman’s fertility falls off a cliff.
AOC is trying to outsmart the process by using hormone injections to force her ovaries to emit six to 10 eggs at once which are then removed and frozen in the uncertain hope that they can be successfully thawed and fertilized when she’s ready to become a mother.
The rest of the article discusses the difference between left and right on child-bearing and abortion and Having It All. It also contrasts AOC with Karoline Leavitt, who at 28 has two children and a great career but is leaving to spend more time with her baby and toddler.
What interests me more is whether AOC is giving women (and perhaps herself) false hope that conception can be almost indefinitely delayed and yet ultimately be successful. But even with egg-freezing that can definitely extend the window of possibility, actually having a baby gets more and more difficult and there are costs both monetary and in terms of health. The drugs involved to induce hyper-ovulation are disruptive and potentially damaging. The chances of successful fertilization and implantation get lower and lower as times goes on, no matter at what age the eggs were frozen. Pregnancy itself is more difficult and hazardous as a woman gets older. And then of course there’s the question of whether a partner or husband is ever found. Although a woman can go it alone with donor sperm, that’s still another difficult decision.
The other day I was watching an interesting podcast on these sorts of issues, and so here it is:
[NOTE: The article characterizes AOC as “still beautiful.” You may disagree. I happen to think AOC is a very attractive woman. I also think that’s part of her electoral success. If she weren’t attractive, I’m not at all sure she’d have been elected in the first place or would have such a large following today.]
Her physical beauty is a large part of her political success, in my opinion. She’s also become very adept at publicity and media influence. Her mental processes don’t match her appearance, alas.
AOC, when asked about her fiance, stated that she refuses to discuss her private life. OK
Then post a video of her trying to harvest her eggs. How much more private can you get?!
Can someone explain this to me?
AOC is OK looking IMHO, not a great beauty. That is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
Your wory about the ‘false hope’ is all too well-founded, I’m afraid. This is an old problem, though. Hollywood female celebs were feeding this iffy perception 20 years ago.
LBJ’s gall bladder, but yeah, didn’t need to see it.
The actress has aspirations no doubt, aspirations that don’t include being white-boy-arm-candy. Woke 1 was so crazy, right? Well, it’s obvious she’s getting ready for woke 2, and white boyfriend might be too much for woke 2.
…As if they’re not going to double-down.
@ Neo > “If she weren’t attractive, I’m not at all sure she’d have been elected in the first place or would have such a large following today.”
She would never even have been selected as a candidate; moderate pulchritude and banal platitudes are all she’s got.
It’s been a long time ago when she was first elected; I don’t remember what the news reports / speculation were about her “finders and funders” – it’s a cinch she didn’t make it on her own.
Do frozen eggs get cracked when the DSA decides it is omelette time?
AOC is past her prime.
Time and the tide waits for no man. (nor woman). Chaucer
I, too, consider her quite (physically) attractive.
But it’s a mark of our times that she — or Michelle Obama — could be bruited about, apparently seriously, as a potential U.S. president.
The same is/was true of Barack Obama, but some Americans actually did elect him prez. As Mark Steyn wrote in 2010, “The election of Barack Obama was a fundamentally unserious act by the U.S. electorate, and you can’t blame the world’s mischief-makers, from Putin to Ahmadinejad to the many Gitmo recidivists now running around Yemen, from drawing the correct conclusion.”
My summary: The U.S. is a great country but not a serious country.
Sometimes the worst thing that can happen to you is to get what you want. In her case, that was election to our ghastly federal legislature.
==
It’s regrettable she did not close the deal with Riley 15 years ago, regrettable she did not have children at a time when it’s not typically a challenge to conceive, and regrettable she could never develop a proper work life. She doesn’t have much that one might truly value. She’s a clown.
She’s had a great deal of orthodontic work. Pictures of her from around age 10 are painful to look at.
==
She compares favorably to a great many women in Congress. Not to Krysten Sinema.
We certainly don’t need another red diaper baby around. Someone talkher out of children all together, remember the world is horrible and burning up or something.
AOC is certainly better looking than her ex.
Karoline Leavitt is pretty amazing, I was surprised to learn that she is only 28, and already so successful.
The photo makes her appear to have put on a few pounds in the last six years. I suppose she’s physically attractive, but I can’t separate her looks from her overall repugnant personality and that grating voice.
In a way she hadn’t intended, it may be good that she publicized this stunt. Not that it’s relevant for me, but I hadn’t been aware of how risky and improbable this method of postponing pregnancy is. But my first reaction was that this was not a good omen for her relationship (this was before they broke up).
When she runs reality will come around!!
The electorate had their coronation with.Obama.
And then…when she decides the time is right, she’ll probably find a woman who’s willing to receive the ovum while it develops into a baby, and then when it’s born, she’ll hire babysitters to take care of her infant. But…it will be “her child”. Of course, there has to be a father … wonder what part he’ll get to play!!
That’s it, Sue K! She wants to be elected president, and then have a surrogate carry a child for her, a child whom she can then turn over to nannies to raise.
Sue K: let us not worship craven hip idols like AOC.
sdferr:
Oops, thanks, will fix.
Umm…sometimes “Rubenesque” is fetching. On AOC I’m thinking retching.
I suspect she’s hit the “No mas” wall as a candidate sooner than Bernie Sanders.
neo: What interests me more is whether AOC is giving women (and perhaps herself) false hope that conception can be almost indefinitely delayed and yet ultimately be successful.
Re: Arday tangent
Today I watched a video in which the presenter made a point I hadn’t considered — that Arday’s story of triumph over autism gave parents of autistic children false hopes about the possibilities for their children.
Cruel.
–The Jolly Heretic, “Jason Arday was not a nice person”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQiQYlO_YMk
Sue K:
Humble me is hearing rumors outta Texas that she has her eyes on Elon as the father…
huxley:
Yes, it gave false hope to parents of profoundly autistic children. “Autistic” now includes Asperger’s, though, and that can involve very high achievement indeed. But Arday’s story included a history of profound nonverbal autism to the age of 11. If that was part of the lie (and it’s very possible it was), then it would give false hope.
Unfortunately, though, false hope is very common in profound nonverbal autism. I’m not even sure it’s cruel, though, because profound autism is terrible and it might be best to retain at least a modicum of hope for as long as possible. I have written previously about facilitated communication and the false hope it’s given to some parents of profoundly autistic children (see this as well as this). The best thing I’ve ever seen on the matter is a Frontline documentary from many years back. You can watch it here. I found it heartbreaking.
Re: autism. I have an autistic grandson, and as a result I’ve become very conscious of it. I’d guess that until sometime 1980 or so, we heard next to nothing about autism. Since then, it seems to have become much more frequent, and I’ve wondered….is it because prior to about then we had mental institutions and most of them were committed? Or…is it a factor of medications that weren’t used prior to that … maybe during pregnancies, or perhaps inoculations kids got increased significantly about that time? Sure wish I had an answer because I’d sure like to see it eliminated!
Part of it was that, within living memory, only people suffering from severe mental retardation were diagnosed as autistic.
Sue K:
Autism was quite well known by the time I was in college in the 1960s. Sometimes it had been called “childhood schizophrenia,” though, and Asperger’s was considered a separate malady for a while.
It is my opinion that there has been no actual significant increase in autism and that the statistics are artifacts of other things that have changed. I wrote this post on the subject in 2008.
Our oldest grandson is autistic and is definitely NOT non-verbal.
I had a thought about Arday’s claim that he couldn’t read until 18 (or 11?) because of autism, but after reading some more about the American black English teacher lamenting the sorry condition of his high-school-senior students who literally could not read, I wondered if perhaps Arday’s early schooling also left him in the same boat, but he didn’t want to blame the school system because that would be criticizing the Leftists he was trying to impress.
It seemed to me, about the US students, that a sufficiently motivated, reasonably intelligent, high-schooler could be taught to read fairly quickly, but would not easily recoup the years of missed knowledge-acquisition.
However, autistic or unschooled, Arday’s reaction to criticism, his lack of teaching ability, and his very poor written articles (aside from the plagiarism, which would be a real crutch for a poor reader) show that he was not at all proficient in what should be a primary skill for a professor of anything.
Grace Kelly was beautiful.
Elizabeth Taylor was beautiful.
Not sure who is their equal at present.
AOC is ‘good time girl’ pretty.
If you know what I mean.
AOC is no Sophie Cunningham.
Will she tilt at windmills in intermittent freezing or fry her eggs in a Novel Green Deal without collateral waste and carbon endangerment? Has she considered a deep space stasis until she reaches a viable age is a forward-looking fashion. AOC of the 24th century.
Grace Kelly was beautiful.
==
True
==
Elizabeth Taylor was beautiful.
==
At her peak, in an arid sort of way.
==
The most durable beauty, of course, was Lauren Bacall.
Neo’s into dance, so here’s Mary Ellen Moylan. The interspersed interview was given at age 63. She lived to be 94.
==
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKQ5pS2y_o4&t=138s
I don’t get AOC. She comes across as having the mind of a middle-school student, but during the hearings about the former head of the U.S. Secret Service after the attempted Trump assassination in July 2024, I thought she did a fine job of grilling the person. She sounded like an actual intelligent adult, something I’d _never_ seen before.
Is here ditziness at least partially an act?!
I think she’s very attractive when she has her mouth closed. That orthodontic work surely helped some, but not enough. But everything else about her is very unattractive.
I can imagine the Babylon Bee will post an article about her wondering what to do with the cartons when she freezes her eggs.
Rick Gutleber:
It may be that in the hearings her questions were prepared and given to her by lawyers/advisors.
Then again, her ditiziness may be at least partly an act designed to make her “relatable.”
Not to focus on appearances, but when she lifted her shirt, I said ew.
AOC is an excellent reason for omelets de Stalin
Always trying to get around what God intended for child bearing. Always failing.
Richard Cook:
Why do you say “always failing”? Plenty of people conceive with the aid of science, and have wonderful children whom they love very much.
I don’t profess to know the mind of God, but humans do have the capacity for scientific discoveries.
Jacobins gotta jacobin…
“DSA’s Maoist faction says AOC too Zionist to be president”—
https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/dsas-maoist-faction-says-aoc-too-zionist-to-be-president
Night of the long knives coming to a neighborhood near you?