‘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?

People keep saying poorer women like they know the financial situation of every woman. I'm not talking about vulnerable women who're forced to be baby farms. I'm talking about women who've chosen to do this albeit for either the money or because they want to help and usually both. I know two and have seen a few more. Everyone's selling something to make money whether you want to see it that way or not.

Women trying to take away their choice without giving them another option. They're happy with it and who am I to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies. Staying out of women's wombs and bodies goes both ways.

Again, this is different to those who're vulnerable and have no choice but to "sell" their womb. Unless you have EVIDENCE that this is the case here, I choose to take the positive story.

OldkermitSippingtea
When financially secure and wealthy women routinely rent their wombs out at the same rate as vulnerable and poorer women, then I'll be open to changing my mind.

I feel the same about sex work as well. I know some people who do Only Fans and they seem content in their choice. But on a society level it's not wealthy women who are doing sex work, so the fact I know a couple of people who are content doing online sex work doesn't change the fact that it's vulnerable and poorer women who end up making the 'choices'.

@OldkermitSippingtea

People keep saying poorer women like they know the financial situation of every woman. I'm not talking about vulnerable women who're forced to be baby farms. I'm talking about women who've chosen to do this albeit for either the money or because they want to help and usually both. I know two and have seen a few more. Everyone's selling something to make money whether you want to see it that way or not.

Women trying to take away their choice without giving them another option. They're happy with it and who am I to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies. Staying out of women's wombs and bodies goes both ways.

Again, this is different to those who're vulnerable and have no choice but to "sell" their womb. Unless you have EVIDENCE that this is the case here, I choose to take the positive story.

It's another human being. No one should be able to sell other human beings.

Surrogacy seems the most likely option, there are photos of her in NY a few weeks ago clearly not heavily pregnant and the baby's foot in her hand is clearly a newborn foot rather than an older baby that has been through the adoption process. The Daily Fail is saying it's probably surrogacy but the other papers are not speculating. I think most of the disapproval on MN is because of it probably being surrogacy, a practice that is banned in Europe because of the ethical considerations.

I don't have an issue with a 50 yo adopting a child. There are lots of celebrities who have adopted at that kind of age, e.g. Diane Keaton. Lets not forget average life expectancy for a woman is in the 80s so a child of a 50 year old will have their parent around into adulthood. Losing a parent in your 30s is not like losing them as a teenager.

Fair enough, I can't say that I encourage surrogacy but I can't condemn it either in the case of people who aren't feeding from hand to mouth and their only saving grace is to reluctantly use their womb to make money. A few people on both sides of this have told me their stories so I understand that some cases are not as black and white as people make them. I really can't just hear "surrogacy" and go off without first trying to understand the circumstances.

I remember it wasn't that long ago IVF was looked down upon for a different reason, sperm and egg donation, etc.

Science has brought about more possibilities but it's naive to think that's all it is about. I wouldn't lay that responsibility of further thinking at the door of someone talking about her own life, celeb or not. People should stop looking at others to speak on behalf of everyone.

a practice that is banned in Europe because of the ethical considerations

Commercial surrogacy is banned in many European countries. Altruistic surrogacy less than a handful. And you can adopt a baby from birth, she works in many Romanian orphanages and there is no info on where the photo was taken. She could also have used ivf, frozen her eggs, or done any other number of options. She is not the first woman to habe a child at fifty nor will she be the last. This speculation is just appalling. No one knows the circumstances of the babies birth and the child is entitled to their privacy.

Shes only a few years past when a woman can conceive a baby naturally. I really can't see what the fuss is about.

@OldkermitSippingtea

People keep saying poorer women like they know the financial situation of every woman. I'm not talking about vulnerable women who're forced to be baby farms. I'm talking about women who've chosen to do this albeit for either the money or because they want to help and usually both. I know two and have seen a few more. Everyone's selling something to make money whether you want to see it that way or not.

Women trying to take away their choice without giving them another option. They're happy with it and who am I to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies. Staying out of women's wombs and bodies goes both ways.

Again, this is different to those who're vulnerable and have no choice but to "sell" their womb. Unless you have EVIDENCE that this is the case here, I choose to take the positive story.

Everyone's selling something to make money whether you want to see it that way or not

Your actually talking about a human being being for sale - not a pair of shoes/hand bag. People selling human beings. That’s essentially human trafficking no matter how you dress it up.

People keep saying poorer women like they know the financial situation of every woman. I'm not talking about vulnerable women who're forced to be baby farms. I'm talking about women who've chosen to do this albeit for either the money or because they want to help and usually both

There is no difference. A baby for sale is a baby for sale. At what point will it become unpalatable in the U.K? When women who need money start posting on facebook market sites that they are willing to have a baby for some one if they meet their financial commitments. I can imagine must horror if this was to ever happen. ( although it would actually be illegal to do that in the U.K.

Plus how can the people who are buying the babies be truly vetted? The focus is on the surrogate - what about the commissioning parents? There is no formal vetting such as their would be if adoption was involved. Remember this is a child we are talking about.

The U.K. has laws some laws in place whilst other countries do not protect the child or the surrogate. But over all is it ever ok to sell children?

I don’t think it is

A baby for sale is a baby for sale

What an overly emotional yet simplistic way to look at it. It’s gestation for sale. The sale of the actual embryo comes with the egg and sperm donation, if that occured. You need both. Gestation on its own does not make a baby. That’s not how biology works. You need an embryo too.

I honestly don't see surrogacy as "selling children", not when the surrogate has been implanted with the woman's eggs. It's essentially the woman's baby. So I see it more as renting a womb.

But that could be where my problem lies.

the child is entitled to their privacy

Well it's a shame then that her famous mother (by whatever means) had decided to announcement her birth (from a woman somewhere, if not herself) on a global social media platform.

This thread is the most misogynistic thing I have come across in a long time.
50 isn’t even old. My father had me at 50, no one batted an eyelid. And he’s still alive and I’m in my 40s.

could Naomi Campbell pass the adoption process with her record of violence

I think it would depend on which country and what requirements they have for age, circumstances, physical and mental health etc. We don't know whether the baby was from international adoption, which along with surrogacy is common in celebrity circles as compared with people who aren't wealthy and famous. I imagine a lot of it is down to money.

Thanks to science Patricia Rashbrook had a baby at 62

I posted this on the deleted thread. This woman had a baby for her son aged 61 despite being post menopausal, the husbands sister didn't do it despite her age being better in terms of risks.

www.insider.com/woman-gave-birth-to-her-granddaughter-surrogate-2021-4?fbclid=IwAR32JpMC8e4TMXLPg7PHNxMSoIk4g7O1r4enqlO8PdsWEGB7b5HUxY8ep_Y

The U.K. Law Commission propose no upper age limit (and for 18 to be the lower limit, the youngest surrogate mother in the U.K. was 21 with triplets) in their reform paper, their report was launched last month.

www.andrewpercy.org/accountable/appg-surrogacy

@OhHolyJesus

the child is entitled to their privacy

Well it's a shame then that her famous mother (by whatever means) had decided to announcement her birth (from a woman somewhere, if not herself) on a global social media platform.

She posted a photo of a pair of baby feet, didn’t announce her daughter’s name, and hasn’t responded to speculation on whether the baby was conceived naturally and carried by Naomi, conceived through IVF, adopted, or born through surrogacy. I’d say that’s being pretty respectful of her daughter’s privacy and story.

When financially secure and wealthy women routinely rent their wombs out at the same rate as vulnerable and poorer women, then I'll be open to changing my mind.
This.
The advertised guaranteed baby worries me, the agency need results , it wouldn't surprise me if they're using insemination on more than one woman at a time after filling them with hormone treatments? If they are and two becomes pregnant will they sell the 2nd one?
Is dna testing carried out before the baby is handed over?
It's fashionable too as long as Kim Kardasian, Rosanna Davison and other celebrities are doing it.

• So I see it more as renting a womb.

But that could be where my problem lies.*

Yes. Renting a womb is such an awful yet bluntly truthful way to put it. You are paying to use part of a person's body which may have serious mental and physical health consequences for them - and that's before you look at what it means for the baby.

It’s gestation for sale.

I don't agree but isn't that bad enough?

Some hideously vile comments here. Woman can and do have babies in their late 40s and early 50s - yes it's rare and yes of course some will be through egg donation/egg freezing/surrogacy (from the comments she has made I suspect she has used one of these options), but throughout history a few outliers will have conceived naturally. I'm a few weeks younger than Naomi and although I wouldn't try to conceive I'm aware that it is an (albeit extremely unlikely) possibility.

As long as no one has been exploited and people aren't lying to younger women about fertility dropping massively by mid 40s then live and let live.

The ageist comments saying it should be illegal to be a parent after a certain age are incredible- are people suggesting forced sterilisation/abortion/adoption?? How would this be implimented?

Judgement is often harshest from women who have been lucky enough to have completed their families at a young age.

@Lonel, this is not true. Adoption decisions are based on many factors, including health and attitude. 50 is not the magical cutoff age.

@Mummyratbag Yes, a few people conceive naturally at 50 and most people aren't criticizing them! There is a big difference though between that and actively seeking to have a child at 50 through surrogacy. Why are you trying to make out there isn't?

As long as no one has been exploited This is the whole point. Surrogacy is exploitative.

50 is not the magical cutoff age.
As someone who has looked into adoption, I disagree. I don't know any agency or government guidelines that would let you adopt a baby at 50, an older child yes.

So I see it more as renting a womb.
But that could be where my problem lies.

Is prostitution OK because that's just renting a woman's orifices?

The advertised guaranteed baby worries me, the agency need results , it wouldn't surprise me if they're using insemination on more than one woman at a time after filling them with hormone treatments?

Or they are transferring multiple embryos, more than is allowed in the UK and performing selective termination. This happens routinely in the US.

Judgement is often harshest from women who have been lucky enough to have completed their families at a young age.

I'd argue that whilst some of it comes from people who have been fortunate enough to have children a large amount of those I've seen arguing that surrogacy is abhorrent are actually those who were unable to have any children at all.

They understand probably better than most that whilst life isn't fair in allowing them to have a child it would still be unreasonable to ask another women to put her body through pregnancy and deliberately separate a newborn from their mother all so they could have a baby.