-
Posts
-
We’ve heard all the comments of “too posh to push” when famous people elect for a caesarean for the convenience factor rather than for health reasons, but is this a case of too posh for a bump?
Think your a tad harsh saying that tbh
She already has a 6 year old son so i wouldnt imagine thats shes afraid of the bump. It probably more that the girl wants more children and is finding it difficult/impossible to conceive
I based my comments on the article in the link, and I must admit my thoughts were “well she has a 6 year old son so she can obviously have children, so why resort to surrogacy” – I’ll slap my own wrists for forming a judgement on insufficient facts there (and I usually take everything in the media with such a huge bag of salt!). However, whilst it doesn’t appear to be the case here, I do think it’s only a matter of time until a “celebrity” does pay a surrogate simply for the convenience.
Which leads me on to another question….there are so many children waiting to be adopted around the world, if they can’t have children of their own, why not adopt? At least they’d be adopting for the right reasons of wanting to extend their family and being unable to do so naturally.
I cant find anywhere thats says if one of them was a donor ie sperm or egg. It may be that just one of them now is infertile and the other isnt and so they want a child thats a part of *them*……. its a decision either way and one that im sure wouldnt have been made lightly.
Adoption is definately another option but if the opportunity was there for a child that was at least half *theirs* im sure most couples would take that route if they could afford itI do however agree with the idea that somewhere in the future it may well be the case that *busy celebrities* will indeed be too posh to carry their own children.
Agree with chess on this one – nowhere does it mention why they are not having a baby naturally but fair play to them for taking the route that is right for them…its a personal choice… :roll:
Too many judgements are formed on misleading articles that allow people to jump to conclusions ……. :?
She’s 44 ffs give it up
Meaning ………………she’s too old ??? Get over yourself …my friend at 46 has just had her fourth one….one before that at 43…..pfftt !!!
yeah meaning she’s too old and he’s too old
people have 65 yr old grandparents at 20 not parentsHmmm this is a good topic for debate ……
Medically speaking the risks are hightened after 40 yrs old but it’s personal choice I suppose.
I’m had my 1st at 31 & my 2nd at 34 – I was classed then as a geriatric mum (charmin eh). :roll:
I agree with Pete on the age thing.
Do these people that have kids later in life think about being able to keep up with their kids ? – it’s bloody hard work.Todays kids are going to lucky to have a house before they are 30 given the housing market……they are getting married later and later …so kids will be later ( normally )
I got married at 19 and lots of my friends were married at 21 but these days it is much much later – average age to get married now is 29 sooooooooooooo kids will come along later in their 30s and 40s…..
I see nothing wrong with a child at 44 – when the child is 18 mum will be 62…todays 62 years olds are completely different to 62 year olds 30 years ago..people live longer and have better quality of life…
Long live the older mums and dads…… :) :) :)
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!