AIBU?
‘With science I can have a baby whenever I want’’
Laughingstock91 · 18/05/2021 20:40
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?
Am I being unreasonable?
AIBUYou have one vote. All votes are anonymous.
Sparklingbrook · 18/05/2021 20:48
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?
3AndStopping · 18/05/2021 21:02
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
OldkermitSippingtea · 18/05/2021 21:25
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).
bioluminescence · 18/05/2021 21:36
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.
ComtesseDeSpair · 18/05/2021 21:55
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.
bioluminescence · 18/05/2021 22:09
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.
SnappyMcSnapface · 18/05/2021 22:30
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Cheeseandlobster · 18/05/2021 22:34
@bioluminescence
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.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.