Congratulations to Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban who surprised the world with their announcement today that they have welcomed a new daughter, Faith Margaret, on December 28th via a “gestational carrier” which is a new and different way of saying “surrogate”.
In a statement, they said:
“Our family is truly blessed, and just so thankful, to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret.”
“No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier.”
There were no hints given during Nicole’s appearance at the Golden Globes yesterday, even though their new daughter is now 3 weeks old. We’re going to be doing a post shortly that looks more closely into the options of surrogacy and egg donation. They are choices that seem to be gaining popularity with couples battling infertility – and not just famous ones like Nicole & Keith and Sarah Jessica Parker and husband Matthew Broderick who welcomed twin girls the same way last year.
It’s a beautiful day when a baby is born and having struggled to fall pregnant myself as Nicole obviously has, I wish them and their new daughter all the happiness in the world.
Tags:
The Spill
Top Comments
I don't have any issues with her using a surrogate. It is something that is available to any woman experiencing fertility problems (albeit for the right $$) so why are we getting up in arms about it?
Sarah Jessica Parker did it and not even a muffle of criticism.
Let's remember at the heart of this is a man and a woman that just wanted to add to their family. What a crime!!
I think also the comments about her not wanting to ruin her body or career are absolute crap. I'm sure after this many years in the biz and so many millions in the bank she would be able to have a second pregnancy without fear of being shunned by Hollywood!!
Some of the judgmental in-your-face venom on here is so anti-Mamamia. This site is usually so full of warmth & compassion that I was a little taken aback by it all. That being said - here's my two cents worth - when children are welcomed into the world by parents who love them & want them, then the future of this planet is that little bit brighter (& yes, I believe this is true no matter how these children came to be here).
in September 2006 The catholic news commented on Nicole Kidman return to the church and her very high profile homecoming marriage with Jesuit Father Paul Coleman conducting the service.
Following is the church position on this and i quote
Let us again try to uncover the core of the teaching. The Catholic tradition sees marriage as both divinely instituted but also the most humanly compelling context for sexual expression. Love puts down stakes. Love reaches into the future. I do not truly love without truly committing my life and my future to my spouse's life and future. The fullest expression of love between man and woman finds its home in marriage, therefore. It is but a short step from here to the conclusion that marriage is the most ethically appropriate place in which to have and raise children: if (from above) one of the purposes of a marital sexual relationship is procreation, and procreation produces something that's permanent (a child), then the child is most appropriately received in a context which is itself permanent (marriage).
There is a more symbolic way in which to render this point. Donum Vitae calls children "the supreme gift" of a marriage. For this reason, no one can have a "right" to a child, just as no one can have a "right" to a gift. Things we have rights to are by this very fact no longer truly gifts. Gifts are simply things to which we don't have rights. Reproductive technologies which seek to 'take' a child apart from sexual intercourse do not treat a child as what he or she truly is. Moreover, recognition of children as gifts underscores the most proper context for receiving that gift. According to the Church, a child is not only "the most gratuitous gift of marriage," but is also "a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents." Sexual intercourse is the mutual giving of partner to partner. And the idea is that the most proper way to conceive a child, who is a gift from God, is from within a context which is itself a giving one. For this reason, the Church speaks of the child's right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents." The very nature of a surrogacy arrangement rules such out.
This applies not only to surrogacy arrangements in which the surrogate isthe genetic mother of the child, but also to so-called "gestational surrogacy," in which the surrogate carries a child not genetically related to,her. The mutual giving expressed by what the Church calls "the language of the bodies" morally requires that the child not only be conceived through sex between its biological father and mother, but also carried and gestated by its genetic mother. Thus, Donum Vitae speaks of "the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents."
I am only quoting this for comment and again I throw it open as it does send a very mixed message.
I'm confused - your statement "I am only quoting this for comment" - does that mean you agree with surrogacy or you don't?
I personally have an issue with the payment of money for this service and totally agree with the state governments bringing in a fine if money is involved. Its very hard to argue a point here if money was never exchanged.