‘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?

It is going to happen now that science enables people to.

Right now it will feel like a wonderful gift and NC will have a team of nannies so she won't have to worry about whether she has the energy to do it.

I think the sadness will come later. When NC is in her 80s and her child is only in her 30s I think there will be a sadness on both parts that they didn't have each other for longer. She might not live long enough to meet her own grandchild.

I am not in this situation but I had my DC in my early 30s. I'm now considering whether I could could it all again with a new partner in my early 40s. Even if I do conceive that's a decade less I will have and know those children, and their children if they had any. That is a bit sad but it wouldn't stop me.

Well, if she carried and gave birth to the baby herself, or if she has adopted a baby, congratulations to her indeed on becoming a mother.

But where is the cut off givemesteel?

I had my first baby at 40. If I’m lucky enough to have a second I’ll be 42, probably closer to 43.

Is there really such a dramatic difference between 43 and say 46? And between 46 and 50?

When my son is 40 I’ll be 80, I know I may not even live that long and I know if I do I probably won’t be running round after grandchildren.

But I am not sure 'because I might die' would have been a great reason not to have my DS. Both my parents are dead and had me at 35.

I think people have children in all sort of difficult and downright dreadful situations, and I am afraid that IMO healthy, happy, settled and engaged people may be a better start, albeit at the hideously old age of 50, than many many other situations.

Can I just interject here and say how gutted I am that the other thread was deleted. I was reading with interest and found some of the posts really helpful. I'm not the best at formulating arguments and some posters had written really intelligent and informative posts. I was planning on going back and reading again. Just seems so wasteful to just delete all of that information when people have put such effort into writing their posts.

@stillreallytired but for most women, the chances of getting pregnant naturally after about 43 are something like 1%

So there is a huge difference between age 43 and 50 as by 50 most women are in menopause. It’s natural selection.

@stairway

If she carried the baby herself I don’t have a problem. I just don’t agree with the concept of using poorer women as breeding stock for the rich.

Ans that’s fine. But you’ve no idea on the origins of this baby, you don’t know if it was pregnancy (unlikely although hugely possible with ivf women much older than her have given birth to children) adoption or indeed surrogacy,

[quote Laughingstock91]@stillreallytired but for most women, the chances of getting pregnant naturally after about 43 are something like 1%

So there is a huge difference between age 43 and 50 as by 50 most women are in menopause. It’s natural selection.[/quote]
So? She could have had Ivf.

Yes you always get the ‘my auntie Doris had her last baby naturally at 50 in 1953’ posts on here but it’s really not that common.

Having babies after that age is only made possible for most women due to expensive egg donation procedure.

I think the comments sound a bit crass.

Like 'what are all those infertile couples whining about? Why on earth are all those silly women worrying about their biological clocks ticking? Stupid women. Don't they just know science lets you have a baby at the drop of a hat nowadays?'

Yeah. Cause it always works like that...

@LostInTheLingerieSection yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

The NHS cuts off fertility treatment at so you need to have money to carry on after that.

*at 40 I meant to say

Have some empathy - Naomi Campbell has her own issues as much as anyone else, she's single and having a baby at 50, which judging from her previous comments is not what she wanted. She has a history of anger problems. Being rich is great but it's a total insulation from life or yourself.

The comment about science allowing her to have a baby whenever she wants hides a fair degree of pain. In her case it has more truth than most because for her it means money + science. But it doesn't mean she equates it with buying a handbag.

It's not reasonable to take a person's off the cuff remarks about themselves, and critique that person as if they were trying to dictate rules for the rest of us.

I'm not a Naomi Campbell fan by the way, I imagine she's something of a nob - but you are being unfair.

Plus IVF has 30-ish% success rate (from memory?)

It makes me sad for all the women who see her story and believe it will be easy for them to achieve the same thing.

There is a lot of misinformation about fertility and the impact of believing it can be devastating.

It’s not so much the age issue for me.
It’s the morality around the wealthy being able to rent other women’s bodies and buy a baby.
If you want a child there are plenty of children in need of adoption

I think most people who have been in that painful situation are a bit more sensitive with their comments, because they understand how much they can hurt!

I have empathy for anyone who can't have children and want to because I've been there and had it drive me to the brink of sanity. Subsequently I'd never utter anything like as crass as her comments.

I don't believe the comment was flippant. In 2017 that's how she felt. 4 years later she has become a Mother. maybe she didn't need science we don't know.

It wasn't an interview specifically about her having children, but part of a bigger one about all sorts of things-

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/naomi-campbell-on-her-work-with-refugees-and-why-nothing-will-ever-come-between-her-and-kate-a3529581.html

@Ussernayme

Can I just interject here and say how gutted I am that the other thread was deleted. I was reading with interest and found some of the posts really helpful. I'm not the best at formulating arguments and some posters had written really intelligent and informative posts. I was planning on going back and reading again. Just seems so wasteful to just delete all of that information when people have put such effort into writing their posts.

I only read the first page or so of the other thread. It was so full of deletions from the start I didn't continue.

If there's particular subjects people want to discuss regarding becoming a parent later in life then that's another thread to start. (Although TBF there's generally one a week of 'is 40 too old to have a baby? etc)

I have issues with this. Based on experience. My nan got pregnant by surprise in her 40s. This impacted my aunt in different ways. Even from just kids asking if her mum was her grandmother. Especially in her teens. Then nana died when my auntie was relatively young. However, my auntie would much rather be born or not.

I have issues with surrogacy, in general. I know it hasn't been officially confirmed this is how she had the baby. But presuming it is, even if the women carrying the baby was more than happy to do so. Lots of surrogate mothers are doing so because of poverty and yes, renting a womb feels wrong.

I do think much older parents are potentially, putting alot of strain on their kids. This includes older dads. Dad's in their 60s & 70s are impacting their kids. Not just that they are more likely to die while the child is young. But some sort of care is possibly needed, not by the kids. But having a much older adult who needs care, in the home impacts everybody. Even if it's just because that parent can't do much with the child or plans have to always be made around a frail parent. Lots of kids go through this when they have younger parents, who become unexpectedly ill. But I wouldn't have a child knowing this is far more likely, to happen whole the child is young. We care for family because we love them, but that doesn't make it easy or lessen the impact. This goes for older mothers as well.

But, while it's unfair, a mega rich older parent will have less of an impact. NC has the money for nannies to help her, so a normal 50 year old mum may find it knackering. NC, as the facility to reduce that massively. If NC got dementia in 10 years, the child isn't going to become a young carer. Yes it will still impact the child, but to a lesser extent, than it would if she was a normal earning person.

While I am uncomfortable about the situation, I feel the situation is different due her money. That's why I disagree with her statement about science. It's science and money that enables her to do this. The fact that she doesn't appear to get this is because of her privilege. I very much doubt if she had earned 25k a year for her whole life, that she would be doing this at 50.

@Exhausted4ever

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

I never understand this argument, anyone could get injured tomorrow and need care.

Also with her wealth she is unlikely to need hands on care.

@LadyEggs

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

Hardly, she'll be hiring people, ain't no way Naomi is doing the grunt work

The papers have made it look as if the statement was made and then the very same day hey presto-a baby appeared. Which is a bit
They have in fact found an interview from 4 years ago on the same day NC announced she had become a Mother but significantly not how because they don't know.

I think most people know the longer you leave it the harder statistically it will be to have a child.

That in itself is not a reason not to have one!

And I have no doubt I will embarrass ds with my wizened haggard face at the school gates

@Laughingstock91

Which ever way you look at it, it’s still a flippant comment

It’s not a flippant comment, it’s true and has been true for decades. Even going back to when people used to call IVF children “test tube babies” back in the 80s. Are you now saying that people shouldn’t pursue IVF either because that takes a whole lot of science and money? If so, congrats for deriding a large section of MN posters who are experiencing infertility and IVF.

Again, nobody knows how this baby was conceived and it really isn’t anybody’s business either. Would you be doing all this venomous vilifying to your next door neighbour or is it only because Naomi Campbell is a celebrity (and Black)? As a reminder to you Black women are women too and also experience infertility. Black women can also go through IVF and can afford to pay for implantation of their own eggs if need be. She is a woman who wanted a baby just like so many of the white women on this site, period. This criticism is starting to feel tinged with unconscious bias toward her akin to “Who does she think she is? She doesn’t deserve that.” It’s a mix of subtle racism and an overt hatred of rich people. Either way, it’s not a good look.