‘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?

There's really no getting away from the fact that the baby is being treated as a possession here, with legal title depending on the baby's genetic relationship to each of the parties involved. Grim.

It's a single sentence from a much longer interview NC did 4 years ago, but taken on it's own it's better for a thread title in AIBU presumably.

Ah, I didn’t know that. I’m not sure what I was imagining - probably almost, “Here’s this baby I had, thanks science”.

@EssentialHummus

It's a single sentence from a much longer interview NC did 4 years ago, but taken on it's own it's better for a thread title in AIBU presumably.

Ah, I didn’t know that. I’m not sure what I was imagining - probably almost, “Here’s this baby I had, thanks science”.

Yes I think that was the idea the idea. Both from the OP and the newspapers. That she said it yesterday and then on the same day-a baby appears. There was a 4 year gap between the two things.

A very emotive subject.

My parents were 22 when they had me but I lost my father when I have 32 (so he was 54) and my mum was diagnosed with a debilitating illness when I was 19 and I have paid for her nursing home fees since she went into a home 12 years ago so children at any age can lose a parent and have the burden of care.

For me the issue would be surrogacy. We only ever hear the news about ‘selfless women’ who carry a much wanted child for childless parents, we never hear of the exploitation.

It does sound a bit like she’s got bored of every other life experience and thought she’d give motherhood a whirl. That added to the dubious ethical implications of surrogacy makes this a bit

@parsnipsnotsprouts

It does sound a bit like she’s got bored of every other life experience and thought she’d give motherhood a whirl. That added to the dubious ethical implications of surrogacy makes this a bit

Wow that’s really judgey and based on absolutely no facts at all.

There is no evidence a baby is traumatised by being placed on a different woman from birth, in fact the opposite is true, people can google it, as so many babies have been born through surrogacy now the evidence so far suggests these children are actually cherished more and the bond closer between mother and child.

No evidence to suggest they aren't traumatised or bond closer either. This is just an opinion which, granted, we are all sharing. Here is an actual experience of being a child born of surrogacy

And for more

There are decades of study and research into the mother/baby bond during and after pregnancy which has established that a newborn knows their mother's voice, heartbeat and smell. From "The Primal Wound" to attachment theory, you may not subscribe to the views expressed but there are studies, but please do share what you find in Google to prove this research null and void.

As mentioned on the other - now deleted thread so forgive me for repeating myself - that we apply medical science as a measurement and assessment in fertility but we do not apply science in assessment of grief and other emotions (though we can apply scientific methods), we don't need science to predict that a child losing its mother will have a detrimental emotional impact and it's not disputed that a newborn who cannot be with his or her (or their, multiples are common in gestational surrogacy due to the number of embryos implanted) for whatever reason - emergency surgery or worse - will sense their absence, be very unhappy and unsettled and difficult to settle with others.

In Breeders (Amazon Prime) a surrogate mother described how she didn't see her daughter for months but when she held her she immediately stopped crying and fell asleep. Maybe she was tired but maybe she knew it was her mother from her smell and felt huge relief and exhaustion having missed her for those months they were apart.

Put simply, newborn babies are, as a human species, pretty dependent and 'know' nothing about the family they are born into, but they know their mother, the only home they have ever had until birth.

Rather than put them (and by them I mostly mean the intending mother) through gruelling fertility treatments for years and years, wouldn't it be better to help them come to terms with this?

I agree entirely @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g
It's amazing what little safeguard there are and what little information (regarding risks of from the hormones and other drugs) is shared in terms of reproductive cancers.

Though focused on the fertility industry in Australia you might enjoy The Fertility Business on Amazon Prime - trailer here

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fertility-Business-Jaya-Balendra/dp/B07C12HH4N

”100% agree. You can try and make yourself look younger with fancy make up and procedures, (although no-one looks more than 5 to 8 years younger than their age anyway, when you look at them properly,) but you can't defy ageing, and the natural deterioration of your body.”

By this argument, IVF is wrong: being infertile is nature’s way of telling you that you shouldn’t be having babies because you’re too old / too genetically damaged for it. That’s not something many people would think acceptable (or dare!) to say to somebody undergoing IVF.

This thread is just all over the place. Whether having a baby as an older parent is okay and whether surrogacy (which may not have been the case here) is morally defendable are entirely separate arguments.

@parsnipsnotsprouts

It does sound a bit like she’s got bored of every other life experience and thought she’d give motherhood a whirl. That added to the dubious ethical implications of surrogacy makes this a bit

That’s just making stuff up isn’t it?

@Bluntness100

I also believe that women have a right to choose. No one agrees with exploitation. No one agrees poor women should have to resort to surrogacy for financial reasons becayse they have no other options. No one thinks rich women should be able to outsource to poor women.

But I believe there is a place for choice here. For women who have already had their families, who enjoy pregnancy who want to help infertile couples, who are not poor and doing it out of some form of desperation , and who have a support network in place and are emotionally capable to rationalise, understand and manage their experience. Denying these women exist is wrong.

There is no evidence a baby is traumatised by being placed on a different woman from birth, in fact the opposite is true, people can google it, as so many babies have been born through surrogacy now the evidence so far suggests these children are actually cherished more and the bond closer between mother and child. Possibly due to the high link of infertility v those using surrogacy. There is no impact on the babies development either.

Of course it should be tightly regulated. But I simoly don’t agree that it’s so cut and dried it’s always wrong.

There are some very emotional words being used here. Selling babies, rich women exploiting poor women. Desperate women selling body parts.

They are not selling babies. That makes it sound like they are selling their own biological children. They are selling or providing gestation only. And it should be tightly controlled to avoid exploitation. But past that if a woman wishes to gestate another’s woman’s baby for her, becayse she herself cannot, I take no issue with it.

All of this.

Iknow very VERY few people who had a baby naturally around that age, (3 actually, in the past 25 years.).

You clearly haven't lived in a country where religion had s strong grip and artificial contraception was disallowed.

We don't have a realistic grasp on his many women would have children up to mid 40s because the vast vast majority have taken contraceptive measures, often extreme ones like sterilisation (v common in my parents generation after having kids young-ish) to prevent it.

Surrogate confirmed apparently.

What a horrible thread

@Bluntness100 just my opinion. She had plenty of money and security ten, twenty years ago. There doesn’t seem any legitimate reason she would purposely put off having a child other than she was prioritising work and socialising over becoming a parent. In which case, how important is parenting going to be to her going forward? Personally I think part of parenting is seeing your children through major life events if you possibly can. Having a child at fifty means there’s less likelihood of her being able to be there when the child gets married themselves, gets pregnant, brings up their children. The grandparent role is important too

Men become fathers in their 50s all the time and no one cares. But a woman does it and it’s a huge issue.

There doesn’t seem any legitimate reason she would purposely put off having a child other than she was prioritising work and socialising over becoming a parent. In which case, how important is parenting going to be to her going forward?

Are you saying that women can't be at different stages of their lives mentally and emotionally?Could it not be possible that she didn't think she had what it takes (time and energy-wise) to devote to a baby and now she does? Whats so wrong with prioritising career, then knowing this is the right time to have a child? In that case, I'll say she possibly gave it more of a thought than the majority of the population who have babies just because.

I'll rather someone put off having a baby and do so when they can devote their energy and time than the usual stress that a lot of women complain about because they're juggling a baby (let alone 2 or more children), work and other commitments.

We only ever hear the news about ‘selfless women’ who carry a much wanted child for childless parents, we never hear of the exploitation.
That's quite deliberate in my opinion. It's a very convenient narrative that aims to ignore the inconvenient issues of poverty, deprivation, vulnerability, and the fact that renting your womb is generally not a choice that is made by affluent women.
Keeping the narrative on lovely women who help a couple have a much wanted baby, it can gloss over the equally true reality of "people with money rent human body to buy a commodity they feel entitled to have, and think someone less privileged than them should risk their health in order that privileged people can have baby".

Whilst it's true that the baby may be very much loved and wanted by the intended parents, it is also true that they are buying and selling women's bodies and babies.

@LadyEggs

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

Yeah sure she will. The 2 nannies might help with that.

people can google it, as so many babies have been born through surrogacy now the evidence so far suggests these children are actually cherished more and the bond closer between mother and child. Possibly due to the high link of infertility v those using surrogacy. There is no impact on the babies development either

It's offensive to suggest, state or imply that babies acquired through surrogacy or IVF or adoption or anything else are somehow more loved or more important than any other baby.
It's also bloody stupid.

@BimBimBapp

people can google it, as so many babies have been born through surrogacy now the evidence so far suggests these children are actually cherished more and the bond closer between mother and child. Possibly due to the high link of infertility v those using surrogacy. There is no impact on the babies development either

It's offensive to suggest, state or imply that babies acquired through surrogacy or IVF or adoption or anything else are somehow more loved or more important than any other baby.
It's also bloody stupid.

Couldn't agree more.

@OldkermitSippingtea smacks at wanting it all. As someone else said just because we can doesn’t mean we should. If she didn’t have the time and energy at 30 or 40 she definitely isn’t going to have it at 50.

Men become fathers in their 50s all the time and no one cares. But a woman does it and it’s a huge issue.

It's almost as if men and women are different isn't and so men's fertility and women's fertility isn't equally comparable.

It's like talking about the latest gadget😬

What a horrible thread

That's what the OP said about the last one in chat that got deleted.

I suppose most of us give motherhood a whirl and hope for the best.