Kelly Preston Pregnant at 47!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Amazing. But sad if they are so sad about the passing of their son that they want another son when they still have a lovely daughter.

How can you judge "how sad" they should be about losing their child?

SHe's not. Sharpen your reading comprehension skills. Sad only if they are tryng to"replace" a child, which is not a grief coping mechanism, as anyone who has ever lost a child and gone through grief counseling knows.

Whatever way you take this original quote, it is very insensitive. Children can not be replaced and I couldn't imagine that is what they're trying to acheive here. I have known people who lost children and at least a couple of them got pregnant again quickly. They had their reasons. Sometimes being pregnant gives the person something to think about that they can't pass to another person. It's like they need to be jolted into reality. If they are capable, loving, Parents, why does it matter? If this will help her pull herself out of her depresion, it will make her a better Mother to daughter. People have all sorts of reasons for having children and all sorts of ways of dealing with grief. You can not judge what other people do no matter what your life experience or education dictate. I realize that these people are celebrities and so they will not be "hurt" by a thread like this, but there may be others reading these posts who would be hurt.

Also, what the hell does having another child have to do with ANYTHING? You think that if they'd only had the one it would have been somehow less tragic? So, they have a spare? Give me a break. Their daughter and their son are different people.

[Anonymous]

SHe's not. Sharpen your reading comprehension skills. Sad only if they are tryng to"replace" a child, which is not a grief coping mechanism, as anyone who has ever lost a child and gone through grief counseling knows.

My reading comprehension skills are just fine, but thanks for the catty response.

The original quote was offensive to the extent it implies that, if they desire another son, they may be trying to "replace" the son they lost, and instead, they should focus on the daughter they still have. How can any of us possibly know what their motivations are or waht kind of emotions they are struggling with? I don't doubt that their grief plays some role in their choice to have another child, but I don't think they (or any grieving parents) believe that another son could ever replace the one they lost.

And I think trying to judge grieving parents' motivations for having another child is beyond presumptuous if you have never walked in their shoes.

[Anonymous]

Wow, wow, wow. The couple of PP's are dissecting this poor poster's comment. I know of many families who have another child when they have lost a child. Sometimes it is because the passing of a child is such a tragic loss that grief can bring the parents closer together. Sometimes it is because they want something positive in their life after suffering such a devastating loss. And yes, for some, it can be because they always wanted a certain number of children, and a certain number of boys or girls, and they want to try to still fulfill that dream. Whatever the couple's reason, it's none of anybody's business. It is interesting to see how people can interpret this PP's comment so differently. I didn't find it offensive at all. I don't think she was saying the couple was trying to replace Jett, their son, I think she was saying it would be sad if they were trying to replace a boy with another boy.

I wish the women, particularly on the TTC forum, would spend less time criticizing each other and more time seeking and providing support. The catty responses, the dissecting, the criticizing, all contribute to stress and we all know stress is a killer for fertility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, wow, wow. The couple of PP's are dissecting this poor poster's comment. I know of many families who have another child when they have lost a child. Sometimes it is because the passing of a child is such a tragic loss that grief can bring the parents closer together. Sometimes it is because they want something positive in their life after suffering such a devastating loss. And yes, for some, it can be because they always wanted a certain number of children, and a certain number of boys or girls, and they want to try to still fulfill that dream. Whatever the couple's reason, it's none of anybody's business. It is interesting to see how people can interpret this PP's comment so differently. I didn't find it offensive at all. I don't think she was saying the couple was trying to replace Jett, their son, I think she was saying it would be sad if they were trying to replace a boy with another boy.

I wish the women, particularly on the TTC forum, would spend less time criticizing each other and more time seeking and providing support. The catty responses, the dissecting, the criticizing, all contribute to stress and we all know stress is a killer for fertility.

I honestly think that myself and the other poster who criticized that comment were trying to criticize what we felt was an unfairly critical statement. Sometimes getting a reaction when you say something that people read as critical can be helpful in learning how to filter your comments in the future. If I'm offended I see no problem in explaining why. Getting offended at an offensive comment isn't catty. Your critical response was just more of what you're attempting to "teach" everyone to stay away from. If you don't want critical posts, don't post them.

[Anonymous]

Has it actually been announced that she herself is pregnant? I thought the announcement was worded that they are expecting an addition to the family. That could mean they're using a surrogate or an adoption is in the works. If she's pregnant, my guess is that she used donor eggs. I read an interview with a doctor once who said that when you hear of older celebs carrying babies, they've often used eggs from younger donors, but they usually don't publicize that. I would think that after having a child with autism (as has been pretty widely discussed), they'd be very cautious about getting pregnant naturally with two parents older than 40; higher autism risk there.

[Anonymous]

It is nobody else's business how Kelly Preston conceived her child. Yes, HER child. So let's cut out the nasty, negative gossip and congratulate her on her new baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And it would be nice if the celebs came clean, because it gives a lot of people false hopes that they can have kids into their 40s without intervention. Really, educating my husband on how hard it would be to get pregnant and not m/c in my 40s has been tough.

Totally changing the subject here, but have you noticed how many Hollywood twins there are, and born to moms under 40? Since the Brangelina twins, I've wondered if there's a trend in Hollywood of having IVF for the express purpose of having multiples. Angelina's twins made me very suspicious, because she seemed to have gotten pregnant quickly before, she was still pretty young, and she clearly didn't have any issues with adoption. I just don't think that twins are that common without having some sort of assistance, and yeah, I'm making unkind assumptions about a celebrity, but it wouldn't seem out of character for her to say, hey, I want twins for my next pregnancy, I'll just get some help with that.

[Anonymous]

Angelina's twins were the result of IVF. It's been written about and I don't think she has tried to hide it.

[Anonymous]

http://blindgossip.com/?p=20730


Fake Pregnancy but Real Baby

BlindGossip – Despite what the tabloids and glossy mags say, this very famous show business couple in not really pregnant. She had her tubes tied a long time ago. For the next few months, though, her fake, special-effects pregnant stomach made of silicone will slowly grow in size until she “gives birth” to an adopted baby. Since her other child/ren didn’t resemble her, no one will question that fact that this one won’t, either. You’ll get a close-up of the scientifically-made miracle child on the front cover of a magazine (now being negotiated for a hefty fee).

[Anonymous]

http://blindgossip.com/?p=20990


FauxBelly Goes to a Party

BlindGossip – FauxBelly went to a big party last week. Prior to the event, a producer friend’s special effects team created a pregnancy prosthetic that wouldn’t require shoulder, chest, or waistline support. It was lifecast from a real pregnant woman, and actually glued directly to her torso. They had to experiment quite a bit, as the usual adhesives were smelly, highly chemical, or left a rash. They settled on a glue applied on top of a barrier cream. FauxBelly got a little overconfident, though, and started moving around too much. The bump started to peel off. In a panic, she raced to the restroom with her assistant and the FX expert, removed the belly, repositioned it, and glued it back in place. She barely moved the rest of the evening.

[Anonymous]

Above blind items are supposed to be about Kelly Preston. Rumor is that the pregnancy is actually fake.

[Anonymous]

You're confusing Church of Scientology with Church of Christian Science.
The Travoltas belong to the Church of Schientology which as far as I know
does not have a strict stance on the "life" issues (abortion, contraception, etc.)
The Church of Christian Science believes that a power outside of man is the
creator and maker of all life and to go against/interfere with natural science is
to go against that God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, granny had her last prgnancy at 47. She was not happy, as she had seven other children. She definitely was not trying. They did not have fertility drugs back then even if she wanted another child. Also, a colleague of mine was pregnant at 48. When she stopped having her cycle, she naturally thought she was going through menopause. She also was not trying. It's possible and Kelly Preston's odds are just as good as anyone else's odds. It's not nice to place your assumptions on others when you don't know their situations.

It's just that the over 45 pregnancies are REALLY common in Hollywood among stars who get married later in life. So the "average" woman has a 1:100,000 change of conceiving at age 47 but all those hollywood stars just hit the odds right? Amazing!!!!!!!
Someone is keeping those LA and NY donor egg IVF clinics in business. Hmmmm.

I'm still doubtful about the 1:100,000 statistic. Does this have any scientific basis at all? My mother conceived naturally at 47 (by accident) and delivered a perfectly healthy baby at 48. Several others have reported similar stories. I doubt these are ALL about my mother, and I doubt DCUMD has this broad a readership. Does anyone have better data? I'm sure many women in their 40s would be interested in your research.

[Anonymous]

It's much more common for a woman to conceive in her 40s if she has other children, which is usually not the case with the Hollywood stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's much more common for a woman to conceive in her 40s if she has other children, which is usually not the case with the Hollywood stars.

This.