‘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?

Many MN posters have a bit of a prejudice towards black women and towards older parents, so this must be marvellous for them.

It's not just with "science" though is it? It's with science and a boat load of money. Most people wouldn't be able to afford either the private IVF treatment or the surrogacy costs. I wish her well but I think this is a crass comment and it certainly doesn't put the child's needs first.

And no, this is not prejudice towards black woman, I would say the same about anyone but yes, I do think 50 is too old to have a baby by choice. You wouldn't be allowed to adopt a baby at 50 because it is widely acknowledged that it is not good for the child.

@OverByYer

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

Which would be fair enough if you know that is what happened. But you don’t. She could have conceived naturally she could have had ivf and been having it for years she could have adopted, she could even have had someone do an altruistic surrogacy, so taking issue over something you don’t even know occured is a little odd, no?

I swear by god, the amount of people on MN who fall for the sh*t whipped up by papers is astounding. As a PP said, they’ve taken things out of context to deliberately stir up rage against her and a lot of posters are falling for it. Why hasn’t the British public figured out this strategy by now? Or are posters just so in love with frothing they buy into it just to give a celebrity or rich person a kicking? I think so at this point.

@EmeraldShamrock

‘...the tiresome, thankless journey of motherhood’

Please speak for yourself! Certainly not to me, nor, I’m sure, to countless others.

Which would be fair enough if you know that is what happened. But you don’t. She could have conceived naturally she could have had ivf and been having it for years she could have adopted, she could even have had someone do an altruistic surrogacy, so taking issue over something you don’t even know occured is a little odd, no?

It is pretty clear she didn't actually physically have the baby, she was walking the cat walk about a month ago very clearly not pregnant.

That leaves 2 options adoption or surrogacy. Now of course she may well have adopted but given how prevalent surrogacy has become for celebrities in the past few years I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider this child has been born to a surrogate mother.

@JingsMahBucket

I swear by god, the amount of people on MN who fall for the sh*t whipped up by papers is astounding. As a PP said, they’ve taken things out of context to deliberately stir up rage against her and a lot of posters are falling for it. Why hasn’t the British public figured out this strategy by now? Or are posters just so in love with frothing they buy into it just to give a celebrity or rich person a kicking? I think so at this point.

Exactly. It didn't take long to do a bit of googling, find the article from 4 years ago and actually read what was said. But presumably that takes too long and starting to froth straight away at a one line comment posted by the press is easier...

As I said on the thread yesterday.

In this country it is illegal to remove mammals like puppies and kittens from their mother until they are fully weaned. 8 weeks is the legal age but most responsible breeders will push for a C minimum of 8-12 They NEED their mother and to remove them to hand raise is fully understanding to be cruel and detrimental to the animals Development.

Linguistic studies by David Crystal shows that babies actually start learning the mothers language and linguistic patterns within the womb. The first thing they hear is her heart beat and voice. They recognise it. They recognise her smell when born. She is literally ALL that baby knows and regardless of genetics she is the mother.

To commission a baby, in exchange for money, with the excited intention of sitting it from its mother is horrific . It cares nothing about the baby or it's needs and is all about a vanity project for the parents.

As a poster said yesterday, addition is all about finding much needed parents for desperate children. Surrogacy is all about desperate adults needing to be parent's. It's not about the child. And multiple studies show that separation from the mother after birth causes trauma. Even in children that are adopted right after birth to wonderful parents.... they often feel there is something vital missing from their lives.

The rate of suicide in adoptees is 4 times higher than in non adopted children. And those children had no choice but to be adopted.

Surrogacy is a choice. And a wrong one.

I think it's rather selfish to choose to have a child at 50+,
My aunt had a baby at 53
much to her shock. She is alive and kicking at 88 and adores her 35 year old son. The extended family are still outraged over it and whisper about the embarrassment it caused at tbe time! 😂
( definitely outed myself!)

That stat is not altogether telling.

Very few newborns are removed from their mother and when they are, so not usually go straight to their adoptive parents.

It is more likely that a turbulent and difficult start is the contributory factor to higher rates of suicide, not being parted from their biological mother.

Tbh adoption shouldn’t be about ‘saving’ a child, and the adoption board will confirm that.

The agencies might have the child’s best interest at heart but the motivation is still desperation to have a child.

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.

But science doesn’t mean anyone can have a baby whenever they want. That’s a naive way of looking at it.

To commission a baby, in exchange for money, with the excited intention of sitting it from its mother is horrific

So I assume you’re equally horrified by sperm or egg donation and want all forms of Fertility treatment banned unless it involves only the parents and their genetic material? You feel all infertile couples should be denied all other forms of help?

NC said ‘I’ not ‘anyone’. She was being interviewed. The interview was about her.

It is pretty clear she didn't actually physically have the baby, she was walking the cat walk about a month ago very clearly not pregnant.
Were there catwalks happening a month ago? I thought the majority of the catwalking world was still locked down?
In the picture she shared she wears a hospital wrist band...

@Sparklingbrook

NC said ‘I’ not ‘anyone’. She was being interviewed. The interview was about her.

Exactly. And by science she could have meant anything. She may have frozen her eggs, she may have meant ivf, she could have meant anything. It is totally correct she doesn’t reveal the origins of her child, her child is entitled to their privacy.

It is pretty clear she didn't actually physically have the baby, she was walking the cat walk about a month ago very clearly not pregnant

Wow. Where were you where you were sat watching that? Can you tell us the show you attended? Becayse no one else has seen it. Must have been very exclusive.

I had two friends in secondary school with older parents. No science involved, their parents conceived in their mid-late 40s. One already had a son in his late teens when my friend was born so we all found it amazing that she had a brother in his 30s and was an Aunty. The other was an only child, her parents never thought they’d have children. They retired just before we finished secondary school, my Mum still hasn’t retired yet!

Both friends close with their parents, both sets of parents still alive and well. They had great childhoods tbh with parents who could afford everything they needed, never seemed stressed etc.

I say good luck to Naomi. She isn’t the first to do this, Cameron Diaz was a similar age and Janet Jackson too.

I am sure she’ll be a lovely mum

Are you?

Isnt she notorious for abusive treatment of her PA's and for being extremely volatile.

I think it is OK as long as the advanced-age parent has money or plans how to manage their old age care and has either resources or support to help with childcare. The best estimate is that a 50 year old mother will live to somewhere around 82-83, with her child being 32-33 at that time - and I know plenty of people who lost a parent by that age. Ms Campbell's life expectancy is probably higher than the population average too. I don't see a huge problem. Surrogacy does not always sit easily with me, but outside of that, I don't see a problem.

Nobody says much when it's a man in his late 40s,50s.

So I assume you’re equally horrified by sperm or egg donation and want all forms of Fertility treatment banned unless it involves only the parents and their genetic material? You feel all infertile couples should be denied all other forms of help?

I’m not 100% happy about egg donation either. In the UK it is regulated but in most countries it isn’t and can be exploitative. Young women donate their eggs because they need the money. The procedure is not without risk. Even in the UK some clinics have egg sharing schemes in return for cheaper IVF.

At the end of the day no one is entitled to a baby by whatever means necessary to achieve it. I say that as an infertile woman.

@forinborin

It is pretty clear she didn't actually physically have the baby, she was walking the cat walk about a month ago very clearly not pregnant. Were there catwalks happening a month ago? I thought the majority of the catwalking world was still locked down? In the picture she shared she wears a hospital wrist band...

Yes I think if I remember correctly she closed the Michael Kors show. I think it was in April. I only remember taking note of it because I was surprised to see she was still walking tha cat walk at 50 and was pleasantly surprised to see someone her age still doing so well in that industry. She however was definitely not pregnant.

Of course it is speculation that Campbell had a surrogacy contract. She is 51 this week (yes I looked it up), we know your fertility at that age is through the floor. That is nature. She has said she can chose to have a baby when she wants due to science and no where in the press does it say "have birth to a baby girl".

Even if surrogacy wasn't becoming more and more popular as a 'journey to parenthood' and even if it wasn't a choice rich people take because they can afford it and commercial surrogacy is widely available in the country where Campbell lives...even if 'social surrogacy' wasn't popular in 'celebrity culture' (if there is such a thing), Campbell is used to getting what she wants.

As a public figure her private life is not private and she listed it in a global social media platform.