Another famous couple used a surrogate, put it down to God's grace

I don't know whether you're being particularly obtuse @CatherinaJTV but it's an oft used expression 'you wouldn't treat a dog like that'.

VVV's point was that dogs and puppies have better protection and treatment than the brood mares the surrogacy industry encourages. A woman having 5 surrogate babies is not something to be celebrated.

Yes, she said that dogs are treated better than women

There are a few people in the chat thread who seem very confident her fertility issues have been well known for a couple of years, she’s been seeing going in and out of a prominent london specialist, so it’s probably not just selfishness leading to the surrogacy (might be cultural issues why she isn’t being honest about it).
It may be science but that doesn’t make it black and white, ivf is science and that’s been an emotional rollercoaster with no happy ending for many women!
I do hope this baby and it’s mum is ok, but also from the chat thread the baby is in another town (my geography is terrible) and the ‘parents’ aren’t visiting until it’s moved to an LA hospital and while nothing that’s in the news about this is necessarily true, IF that is then I am judging massively. They need to be there bonding with their teeny 27 week old (and making sure mum is getting the care she needs too).

How is this acceptable in this day and age? Money can buy you everything you desire, it seems.

I'm happy to judge anyone who rents another woman's womb to host a baby for them

Same here

They can't even say 'woman who was our surrogate'. Saying we got a baby 'via surrogate' is the equivalent to saying we got a baby 'via stork'. Completely erasing the woman who gave birth.

Me too, @Clymene.

My worry is that there is a very unwell woman here who's had pre-eclampsia, and a tiny baby who's prematurity makes her, and I say this knowing the notion is repugnant, her early birth and likely consequent challenges will make her "damaged goods".

It makes me very uncomfortable, and will do until rich women with lots of resources start volunteering to do surrogacy too.

"By God's grace, when it happens, it happens"

Pretty sure this was science, not God, though as surrogacy features in the Book of Genesis it's origins could be called archaic and old fashioned, not at all progressive as this couple will pretend to be, but sure, make it appear morally sound as if it was God's wish.

Raping your servant girl in order to get her pregnant so to kidnap her baby is pretty far removed from this situation, I suppose at least the surrogate mother of this child got paid.

There is no shame in having fertility issues approaching 40, better to say that then admit to this social surrogacy where a woman's body is hired to provide a service you can't be bothered to undertake.

I suspect at the root of this is vanity, pressure of working in such an appearance drive industry and possibly even the desire to have a 'tight' vagina for your husband who is 10 years younger than you. It may have even been his idea.

As a relatively newly wed couple who don't have time to have sex I hope at least one of them reevaluates their priorities...the baby is premature and reorganising your work commitments is your first thought (or important enough to make such a comment in the article).

I guess that's what happen when you buy a baby.

I'm pretty sure she has fertility issues that she doesn't want to admit to.

I suspect she may have fertility issues, but may not want to go public about them due to cultural issues. However, unfortunately, by stating that it is NOT about fertility, it makes it sound as if the couple can't manage to organise time together to have a baby 'naturally' which prompts all sorts of questions about how they will look after the baby together. I think the truth of this is that we really don't know the situation and should probably not judge.

Unless she has fertility issues 39 is nowhere near too old to conceive. Most women without fertility issues conceive in their 30s and even early 40s

I have to say the article about this was rather shocking.
She used a surrogate because even though she has no fertility issues she is already 39 and due to their busy schedules they aren't together enough to try to conceive?
Baby was due in April so she could wrap up a shoot and now that she is early they will have to re-arrange their schedules?

It sounds so... sad. And cold.
(Disclaimer I am aware that I am judging based on news reports but everything is presented as an inconvenience to the parents).

It also makes the surrogate sound like a 'cool' accessory.

Article says it's the woman's fifth surrogacy. If she also has children of her own then she has had a lot of pregnancies.

People who breed dogs responsibly don't have a litter every year and would have fewer than four litters. Stark, isn't it?

I hope the baby and the mother are both ok, that is a very early delivery indeed.

The “God’s Grace” answer might also have been given in 2020, but it is also very definitely in the Vanity Fair article for which she was interviewed several times in 2021. There is of course (sadly) no guarantee of any pregnancy resulting in baby one takes home from the hospital - & “so when are you going to have children” isn’t a question any women should ever be asked. Priyanka is 39 & doesn’t have any other children, so the chances of her being able to conceive are very slim, which is nobody’s business but hers & her husband’s.

Abhorrent as surrogacy is, she presumably does genuinely view it through the lens of God’s Grace allowing her & Nick to have a child [when it would not otherwise be possible].

Apparently the baby was 12 weeks premature - so “a source” has helpfully ignored their request for privacy while they deal with their daughter having a 60-70% chance of surviving & the knowledge that if she does she will almost certainly have life-long health issues. Not having to worry about how they’ll manage paying for her care probably isn’t that much of a consolation.

Sorry, you’re right, she did say it this year or for this years article. But the baby has just been born at 27 weeks so it was still perfectly reasonable to say something vague like that, especially if they knew of problems. I’m 36 weeks and often feel uh oh earlier in the pregnancy when I say something concrete about baby arriving, nothing is ever guaranteed. I don’t support commercial surrogacy but hope the baby does well and Mum is doing well too and being looked after.

That gods Grace statement looks to be what they said in 2020, when asked about family plans. No one owes a journo anything more concrete than that about their plans for future babies.