‘With science I can have a baby whenever I want’’

[Laughingstock91]

Naomi Campbell had had a baby at 50 - not sure if she’s given birth or it’s a surrogate but her comments really irritated me. She said ‘with science I can have a baby whenever I want’ - do people actually think about the baby? I am sure she’ll be a lovely mum but it makes having a baby just sound like something to tick off on a list when you have decided you have had enough of everything else no matter what age you are. Maybe I am being harsh but if it’s that easy with science, why wait until you are 50?

Aibu?

A very gentle YABU.

With science and money! Not many people can afford fertility treatment/surrogacy. On the feminism board there are also lots of interesting ethical points about surrogacy too.
I get what you mean that it’s a very flippant way to refer to becoming a parent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4248408-Naomi-Campbell-has-had-a-baby Long running thread about this.

Maybe the time has not been right until now. Who cares knows?

@Sparklingbrook quite a lot of the posts on that thread have been removed for breaking mumsnet rules 😂

It made me laugh how in an interview a year or two back she said she wasn't ready for kids.

If you're not ready at 48 you may have missed that boat love.

My parents had me in their 40s (naturally!) so I think I'm seeing how hard it is for the kid.

[quote Laughingstock91]@Sparklingbrook quite a lot of the posts on that thread have been removed for breaking mumsnet rules 😂[/quote]
Yes exactly. Not sure we need another one.

@Sparklingbrook I didn’t see it before posting as it’s on talk

Yanbu. There comes a point when it's just not fair on the kids. I mean at 75/80 she might require a lot of support and care at which point her kids barely finished uni and began adulthood

@Duvetstay yes, that’s exactly it. No need to worry about age - I find it a bit depressing- it’s like going shopping 🙈

She has plenty £££££ to spend on all the science (or however she got the baby).

I'm sure it won't be her that ends up actually looking after the baby.

It’s like a baby is a commodity. I am probably being harsh but it makes me uncomfortable

[quote Laughingstock91]@Sparklingbrook I didn’t see it before posting as it’s on talk[/quote]
talk?

Not on Instagram but looked her up first to confirm this is true. If she means what she wrote (and I assume she does), I say goodluck to her and the baby. I don't see the need to villify her and, consequently, the woman who "chose" (I assume she had agency) to be the surrogate (allegedly).

I think it's rather selfish to choose to have a child at 50+, even if you are wealthy enough to afford the process and fund a lavish lifestyle for your child. It's a little different, imo, if one parent (typically the mother, thanks to biology) is significantly younger, but if there's only one parent involved or both parents are 50+, there's a much higher chance that the child will lose both parents at such a young age.

I'd have sleepless nights worrying about that.

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

Plenty to vilify I'd say in buying a baby at 50.

We’re living healthy lives for longer, so I don’t really see having a baby at 50 today much differently to having one at 40 a few decades ago, which has always been relatively common. Anyway, we wouldn’t think it acceptable to criticise disabled people with limited mobility or lower life expectancy or in need of care for being selfish having children they won’t be able to care for without support, so I don’t think criticising older parents on a similar basis is any more acceptable.

I wouldn't say a word to anyone who had a child knowing they (the parent) will likely die while the child was still young, but I probably would think it was a selfish choice, if the child would then be left with no parent at all. That would be my opinion whatever the reason for the parent's shortened life expectancy. It may not be a popular opinion, though.

A healthy 50-year-old may live another 20 or 30 years, but even with higher life expectancy, the odds are still worse than for someone having a child at 40.

I suppose I don't see the sense in waiting until you're 50, particularly if you go the route of sperm donation and/or surrogacy. Why not make the decision in your late 30s or early 40s? None of my business, I know, but yes, I do have an opinion.

Wow so much judgement. I say good for her!

Well, good luck to her. She's going to be knackered.

@bioluminescence

I think it's rather selfish to choose to have a child at 50+, even if you are wealthy enough to afford the process and fund a lavish lifestyle for your child. It's a little different, imo, if one parent (typically the mother, thanks to biology) is significantly younger, but if there's only one parent involved or both parents are 50+, there's a much higher chance that the child will lose both parents at such a young age.

I'd have sleepless nights worrying about that.

This.

I knew a couple who were very wealthy and who had contacts in the NHS. They had their son when the woman was the same age and the man nearly a decade older. A few years later she was diagnosed with young onset dementia and the man was not as fit as he used to be. Their son at 14 had a huge burden on his shoulders at such a tender age.

So this example is why I believe it is selfish to have a baby in your 50's. I know no-one knows what is round the corner but the chance of illness etc while your child is still young is significantly higher at 50 than say 30.

It's not that simple for most people and that attitude is actually quite upsetting to people who have/are struggling.

As another poster put it

Just because you can -doesn’t mean you should