Another famous couple used a surrogate, put it down to God's grace

[ScreamingMeMe]

Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra this time.

No thanks to the women whose body they used.

"Speaking to Vanity Fair for its February 2022 issue, she said: "They're a big part of our desire for the future.

"By God's grace, when it happens, it happens." "

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/priyanka-chopra-and-nick-jonas-announce-birth-of-first-child-through-surrogacy-12522097

That gods Grace statement looks to be what they said in 2020, when asked about family plans. No one owes a journo anything more concrete than that about their plans for future babies.

@timeisnotaline

That gods Grace statement looks to be what they said in 2020, when asked about family plans. No one owes a journo anything more concrete than that about their plans for future babies.

It says 2022 in the article

Sorry, you’re right, she did say it this year or for this years article. But the baby has just been born at 27 weeks so it was still perfectly reasonable to say something vague like that, especially if they knew of problems. I’m 36 weeks and often feel uh oh earlier in the pregnancy when I say something concrete about baby arriving, nothing is ever guaranteed. I don’t support commercial surrogacy but hope the baby does well and Mum is doing well too and being looked after.

The “God’s Grace” answer might also have been given in 2020, but it is also very definitely in the Vanity Fair article for which she was interviewed several times in 2021. There is of course (sadly) no guarantee of any pregnancy resulting in baby one takes home from the hospital - & “so when are you going to have children” isn’t a question any women should ever be asked. Priyanka is 39 & doesn’t have any other children, so the chances of her being able to conceive are very slim, which is nobody’s business but hers & her husband’s.

Abhorrent as surrogacy is, she presumably does genuinely view it through the lens of God’s Grace allowing her & Nick to have a child [when it would not otherwise be possible].

Apparently the baby was 12 weeks premature - so “a source” has helpfully ignored their request for privacy while they deal with their daughter having a 60-70% chance of surviving & the knowledge that if she does she will almost certainly have life-long health issues. Not having to worry about how they’ll manage paying for her care probably isn’t that much of a consolation.

Article says it's the woman's fifth surrogacy. If she also has children of her own then she has had a lot of pregnancies.

People who breed dogs responsibly don't have a litter every year and would have fewer than four litters. Stark, isn't it?

I hope the baby and the mother are both ok, that is a very early delivery indeed.

I have to say the article about this was rather shocking.
She used a surrogate because even though she has no fertility issues she is already 39 and due to their busy schedules they aren't together enough to try to conceive?
Baby was due in April so she could wrap up a shoot and now that she is early they will have to re-arrange their schedules?

It sounds so... sad. And cold.
(Disclaimer I am aware that I am judging based on news reports but everything is presented as an inconvenience to the parents).

It also makes the surrogate sound like a 'cool' accessory.

Unless she has fertility issues 39 is nowhere near too old to conceive. Most women without fertility issues conceive in their 30s and even early 40s

I suspect she may have fertility issues, but may not want to go public about them due to cultural issues. However, unfortunately, by stating that it is NOT about fertility, it makes it sound as if the couple can't manage to organise time together to have a baby 'naturally' which prompts all sorts of questions about how they will look after the baby together. I think the truth of this is that we really don't know the situation and should probably not judge.

I'm pretty sure she has fertility issues that she doesn't want to admit to.

There is no shame in having fertility issues approaching 40, better to say that then admit to this social surrogacy where a woman's body is hired to provide a service you can't be bothered to undertake.

I suspect at the root of this is vanity, pressure of working in such an appearance drive industry and possibly even the desire to have a 'tight' vagina for your husband who is 10 years younger than you. It may have even been his idea.

As a relatively newly wed couple who don't have time to have sex I hope at least one of them reevaluates their priorities...the baby is premature and reorganising your work commitments is your first thought (or important enough to make such a comment in the article).

I guess that's what happen when you buy a baby.

@peonyred

I suspect she may have fertility issues, but may not want to go public about them due to cultural issues. However, unfortunately, by stating that it is NOT about fertility, it makes it sound as if the couple can't manage to organise time together to have a baby 'naturally' which prompts all sorts of questions about how they will look after the baby together. I think the truth of this is that we really don't know the situation and should probably not judge.

I'm happy to judge anyone who rents another woman's womb to host a baby for them.

"By God's grace, when it happens, it happens"

Pretty sure this was science, not God, though as surrogacy features in the Book of Genesis it's origins could be called archaic and old fashioned, not at all progressive as this couple will pretend to be, but sure, make it appear morally sound as if it was God's wish.

Raping your servant girl in order to get her pregnant so to kidnap her baby is pretty far removed from this situation, I suppose at least the surrogate mother of this child got paid.

Me too, @Clymene.

My worry is that there is a very unwell woman here who's had pre-eclampsia, and a tiny baby who's prematurity makes her, and I say this knowing the notion is repugnant, her early birth and likely consequent challenges will make her "damaged goods".

It makes me very uncomfortable, and will do until rich women with lots of resources start volunteering to do surrogacy too.

They can't even say 'woman who was our surrogate'. Saying we got a baby 'via surrogate' is the equivalent to saying we got a baby 'via stork'. Completely erasing the woman who gave birth.

I'm happy to judge anyone who rents another woman's womb to host a baby for them

Same here

How is this acceptable in this day and age? Money can buy you everything you desire, it seems.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Article says it's the woman's fifth surrogacy. If she also has children of her own then she has had a lot of pregnancies.

People who breed dogs responsibly don't have a litter every year and would have fewer than four litters. Stark, isn't it?

I hope the baby and the mother are both ok, that is a very early delivery indeed.

did you just seriously compare the woman to a dog?

There are a few people in the chat thread who seem very confident her fertility issues have been well known for a couple of years, she’s been seeing going in and out of a prominent london specialist, so it’s probably not just selfishness leading to the surrogacy (might be cultural issues why she isn’t being honest about it).
It may be science but that doesn’t make it black and white, ivf is science and that’s been an emotional rollercoaster with no happy ending for many women!
I do hope this baby and it’s mum is ok, but also from the chat thread the baby is in another town (my geography is terrible) and the ‘parents’ aren’t visiting until it’s moved to an LA hospital and while nothing that’s in the news about this is necessarily true, IF that is then I am judging massively. They need to be there bonding with their teeny 27 week old (and making sure mum is getting the care she needs too).

Yes, she said that dogs are treated better than women

I don't know whether you're being particularly obtuse @CatherinaJTV but it's an oft used expression 'you wouldn't treat a dog like that'.

VVV's point was that dogs and puppies have better protection and treatment than the brood mares the surrogacy industry encourages. A woman having 5 surrogate babies is not something to be celebrated.

did you just seriously compare the woman to a dog?

Did you just seriously miss the point by a million miles?

Puppies also stay with their mothers for 8 weeks. It's called Lucy's Law (U.K.). A home birth of a surrogate born baby can see the newborn handed over in 6 hours.

It is possible that she had fertility issues but I find it strange to say this is cultural. Chopra originates from India, land of Bollywood. This genre of film often depicts surrogacy stories and celebrates the practice.

India banned commercial surrogacy in 2019 and this is already being challenged under a woman's 'right' to grow, birth and rent their wombs and sell babies.

Chopra may have been in and out of clinics for the purposes of harvesting her eggs so she is genetically related to the child she paid another woman to have.

In India is it culturally sensitive to be known as a woman who is infertile but then it is culturally acceptable to buy a baby? Would she be well-thought of by her family to have been able to have got a baby and fulfilled her duty as a Indian daughter when she hasn't given birth but used her money instead?

Regardless she is a very wealthy famous Indian woman, married to a very wealthy famous man, who has subcontracted out the service of pregnancy and labour, with all the risks that entails and this is being celebrated in this article.

I'm sure she will wrap up filming soon, or maybe her husband can complete whatever project he is working on, and someone can go fetch the baby at their earliest opportunity.

27 weeks and no one there to love you but the woman who was paid to have you, if that's even true.

There was an AMA thread from a midwife and she’d worked for a short period in one of the elite private hospitals in London where HNW individuals give birth. OP said occasionally they would give birth and then leave the baby at the hospital for the nanny to pick up later. I mean...what?

Anyway.

I feel desperately sorry for anyone with fertility issues but we seem to be moving from too posh to push to too important to impregnate.

I wonder if they will still take the little girl once it fully dawns on them that she may have particular needs and developmental issues due to her very early birth.

Poor wee soul.

Sick of rich men and women renting poor women’s bodies.

did you just seriously compare the woman to a dog? Dogs have protection in law. Registered dog breeders may not breed more than six litters from any one bitch and no more than one litter a year. I think Caesarean sections are limited to two so in breeds like bulldogs that have big heads and often need caesarean that would effectively limit breeding to two litters.
The kennel club have stricter rules and will not register more than four litters to a pedigree bitch.

Women who engage in surrogacy are free to do it as often as they like and some do it many times. There was one featured in the papers last year having her 7th surrogate baby (her 9th pregnancy overall as she has two of her own). On the 5th she had a life threatening haemorrhage and ICU but still went back for more. Her 7th was commenced just six months after surrogate baby number 6 was born.
Let's remember a dog gestates for nine weeks or thereabouts and puppies go to new homes around nine weeks so the whole thing is done and dusted in less than five months but the law requires a full year to enable the dog to recover and live a normal non pregnant dog life.
Repeat pregnancies in this way can never be good for a woman's health and even if the women want to do it I am disgusted that fertility clinics will enable it.