Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick just announced that they are expecting twin girls who will be born via surrogate this Summer! Their rep said to EW, "Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick are happily anticipating the birth of their twin daughters later this summer with the generous help of a surrogate. The entire family is overjoyed." A friend of the couple says that they have been trying for more children for years and recently realized this was their best option. James Wilkie is soon going to have two times the big brother responsibility on his hands. Congrats to the expanding family!
Inspirations
Cath Kidston
Paul & Joe
Congrats to them! I always wondered whether they'd have more children.
1Yeay for them!
2congrats!!! hopefully this will shed even more positive light on alternative ways of mothering children (besides adoption)...so happy for them!
3Congrats to SJP and Matthew! I was curious about whether they would have more children...I'm glad to hear that SJP will have two little girls to hand down all of her clothes & shoes to
4This is great!
5amazing, yet so random and unexpected.
6Congratulations to them! I'm glad they could have kids even if they couldn't have them themselves.
7Congrats to them.
8Congrats to my little pony
9Much joy to them =)
10Great news!
11wow, this is a surprise! congratulations to them
12Wow! What beautiful news! Congrats congrats!!!!!
13Congrats to them! I just love this couple
14that's nice. I thought all the gossip surrounding them was breakup stuff lol
15That's cool. Congrats to the couple.
16Personally I couldn't handle a surrogate situation but I do wish them the very vest.
17Aww thats so nice!! Congrats!!!
18Aww, that's great
. I'm sure SJP will be happy to pass on some fashion advice!
19Great news for them.
20Congrats to them
21aww, im so happy for them!
22I'd rather adopt than have a surrogate, but I guess if having biological children is that important to them...good luck.
23Good for them; that's truly wonderful.
24Oh boy, here comes the judging. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. There is nothing wrong with wanting biological children, it's not a crime. And if they were adopting someone would have something to say like they are jumping on the bandwagon like the rest of the celebs, or that they bought their babies, blah blah blah. Can't people just be happy for anyone anymore...period, minus snarky remarks? Guess that's too much to ask for.
25(Not anonymous, just can't sign in on this PC)
congrats to them
26Whoa, totally outta left field.
Congratulations to them.
27I am against using surrogates. I think its disgusting and going too far. This is not what nature intended, why should we go against nature? If we start shedding positive light on scientific experiments such as this one, where does it end? What's next, cloning? Genetically engineering the perfect baby?
28If you can't have a biological child, get over it and stop being selfish. Maybe it just wasn't meant to be. If you're so desperate to be a parent, ADOPT! There are so many children out there suffering with no families, why bring two new children that weren't even meant to be in the world? Two children who were made in a lab? My god, people go through such great lengths to have biological kids when there are already so many available kids out there! It just doesn't make sense to me.
What exciting news for them! I can see SJP loving having twin girls. They seem like great parents.
29I love this couple and wish them nothing but happiness.
30Awww - very exciting news! They are a cute family.
31Dahlia, you are beyond lacking in compassion:
"If you can't have a biological child, get over it and stop being selfish."
How thoughtless can you be? What a vile thing to say.
As someone who wants nothing more than to have a baby but can't your post is very hurtful.
Yes, adoption is a wonderful option but that does not take away from the hurt & mourning many of us have to face as we struggle to accept that the dream of getting pregnant & giving birth is one we may never realize..
You have NO idea WHAT SJP & MB's situation is. How dare you judge another person so harshly.
Shame on you.
How ever a child comes into their lives is a blessing.
Feel free to apologize.
32they look very weird in this picture
33No, Lulumay, I will not apologize. That is my opinion and I am going to stick by it.
34Its just not right. By doing this, we are only step away from having genetically engineered children.
Please explain to me: Why would someone go through such great lengths to have a biological baby when they can easily adopt a child?
Do you realize why our planet is so screwed up? Global warming, etc? Because people keep playing with nature! We think we have a right to do whatever we want. So we've gotten to the point where a significant amount of our population consists of former test tube babies -- WHAT IS NEXT?
This is incredibly selfish of the mother. I am not saying everybody should adopt, but really, adoption is the much more compassionate and NATURAL answer to motherhood.
Besides, not only is this detriment to our society and nature, but also to women!
Do you realize that the majority of surrogate mothers are poor and desperate women willing to do anything to make money? And do you realize most of these women develop feelings for the baby throughout the pregnancy? Consensual or not, we are exploiting women.
What does this say about our society? Hmm, I wonder...A future generation of test tube babies taken from exploited women. Great!
Also, I'm sick of old women having children. Yeah, she may be avoiding some risks by having some young woman carry her children, but the egg and the sperm are still old! There are still many risks! Also, as the daughter of an older father, I can say that its very selfish of the parent and sad for the child to have children at such an old age knowing you won't be in their lives that long and you won't be able to keep up with them as they're growing up as well as you could if you were younger.
Wrong wrong wrong!
But..but..he cheated on her!! I don't like him.
35w/e i guess.
They should have adopted instead.
36They already have a biological child and there are too many abandoned kids in this world. They were a little selfish IMHO.
Having children at older age is not wrong. It is a choice. Different people have different situation. I am also a daughter of an older father. He passed away but I won't trade him for anyone else. He loved me and that is what's important. He left me nothing than good memories.
In my opinion, those who are not ready to take responsibilities of raising children, should not have ones, no matter how old they are.
37Wow. I think it's great so many people feel free to criticize the most personal life choice an individual can make...
Imposing your own beliefs and prejudices and restrictions onto others and vilifying those who are not of the exact same mindset--guess that's what makes the world such a great place.
38having more children is not going to fix the fact that your husband is gay
39Happily, there are many ways to become a mother. Limiting any of options means making it less possible for women to control their bodies and their destinies. While some people might not be able to imagine choosing abortion or adoption or surrogacy or any number of other decisions a woman might make regarding her family and her body and her life, it's important to remember that every woman has a different set of circumstances, a different set of values and different hopes and dreams. If you're against surrogacy, no problem, don't have a surrogate. Same with any of the other options- choose for yourself, but be careful before judging other women for not making the same choices that you did or would.
I'm happy for SJP- she really wants some more babies she's no doubt considered all her options and she and her husband have made a decision that works for their family.
40Congrats X 2!!
41test tube babies are many, many steps away from genetically engineered children. slippery slope arguments will not fly here.
i'm sure that there's a 1:1 ratio of "abandoned baby" to all available parents, including women capable of carrying their child to term, so to say there are enough abandoned babies in the world why don't you adopt one seems off the mark. the logical conclusion of your statement would be that no one should conceive or birth their own children until all children in need of adoption are taken in. but then you say two sentences later that not everyone should adopt... unfortunately negating your own statement. also, one can easily infer that only people not capable of conceiving should adopt.
global warming is caused by us playing with nature which lead to test tube babies? sorry, there are too many red herrings for me to see straight.
i would need to see statistical data to back up your assertion that surrogates are poor and desperate. i don't see why anyone would doubt the neonatal relationship, but pointing it out does appeal to emotion. i would also need to read more data about how these women are being exploited, because the appeal to fear and false generalizations don't hold up to logic.
i think many women will have opinions as strong as dahlia's in support of surrogates.
cancer tore out my ability to carry a child, but not to create an egg, so, which part of nature am i supposed to listen to? the part that reminds me every month that i'm a breeder, and that i could create life if given the chance, or the part that says the life would die inside of me if i tried?
oh, and the cells from which sperm arise are produced continuously throughout life, so any healthy man can father a child after reaching sexual maturity.
42btw, matthew's michael nesmith like porkchops are making me itch for some monkees tunes! i love these guys.
43I love the Monkees!
44You clearly didn't read anything I said, ovenmitt.
I didn't say test tube babies are the same as genetically engineered babies, so please don't put words in my mouth.
I also did not imply test tube babies cause global warming, please learn how to read.
However, I did mention all of those because they are all intertwined; GOING AGAINST NATURE.
My point is: What is next?
At one point, humans will take it too far and everything will go wrong. We have to know our limits.
Also, YES, I did say adoption isn't for everyone, but I did not contradict myself. What I clearly meant was that adoption is a much safer, compassionate, and NATURAL way to become a parent then creating a baby in a lab.
In the future, don't twist my words around to fit your agenda. You know very well what I meant by everything I said.
45No, it is not acceptable. Maybe they tried and she couldn't get pregnant, maybe her new movie got in the way. The point is, the more acceptable surrogacy is, the more rich women will exploit poor desperate women, and many of those rich women will just not want to go through the pregnancy process and would rather "rent a womb" than lose their figure or get stretch marks. Having children involve sacrifice, and going through a pregnancy and labor is the beginning of that.
46I think for a first timer parents, surrogate is acceptable.
47Who doesn't want to have her own child? But they already have one.
Instead of surrogate, they should consider adoption, in my opinion.
Congratulations to a great couple who are already parents to one gorgeous child and soon to be parents to beautiful twin girls. Peace and love to all.
48Surrogate mothering is as old as the bible, they only had other methods back then.
Having children is always a selfish act and so it should be; people have childrens because they totally want them.
49I have never met one family who adopted a child (who could or couldn't have biological children) who EVER regretted the decision or felt in ANY WAY that the child was "not" theirs. In fact, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM thanked God they went ahead with the decision. The child is theirs in every way possible. Whether or not they birthed them became a moot issue. (Frankly, why a woman would miss out on a droopy-marsupial pouch, stretch marks, vomiting, weight gain, delivery, etc. is beyond me.) This is one of the most common concerns of women in this position. Frankly, I have no idea why people are so obsessed with "their genes" because a child is a child and love is blind that way. We all probably know at least one child we are very fond of that isn't our own. That we have thought of in a motherly way. It's a beautiful thing, adoption. IT SAVES LIVES. Plus, instead of getting knocked up whether you are interested in children or not, adoption is a serious commitment. You go through an intensive background investigation of all your private business, pay money, wait, wait, wait and the process takes wayyy longer than a biological baby. (At least a couple years.) It's sort of a "gee, you really have to want a baby to do this" scenario. I have no problem with fertility treatments- to a point. It's extremely offensive to me that couples will spend years and years and bankrupt themselves and/or family members to have a bio. child. At that point, it IS selfish. What kind of start is that for the child? Aren't there ethical considerations for the clinic? There is no question couples should do what they can first, but at some point they need to be open to other options. The majority of fertility treatments are unsuccessful and traumatizing for each failure.
We are closer to genetic dream babies because they already check for known defects on chromosomes/alleles. Scientists have mapped out specific gene markers that clearly denote the significantly increased risk of a certain outcome. This is in addition to using other techniques to find, let's say, babies with Down S early on so the parents can decide if they want to abort. (Sickle Cell Anemia is fatal and terrible. It would be a loss no matter if the baby was aborted or died in childhood. But is this the best start you'd want to give your child? That certainly falls under the category of heading towards a pick and choose.) This is absolutely an easy leap to designer babies.
They do experiments on animals all the time where they alter the genes for different outcomes. Specific, known outcomes. So obviously, we are not a far step away. We can already define the gene that gives xyz eye colour. It's all a matter of giving a sample at the right lab. So it's NOT a slippery slope. It bothers me that people are so selfish they can't see not being able to have bio. kids might be a gift in and of itself: they can give the exact same love and home to a 100% deserving baby whose own mother/situation didn't allow for the best start. If anything, it is a beautiful lesson for both parents and child. Folks, in our lifetimes, we will have significant home/life help from Jetson-style housekeepers (not saying we'll be young enough to enjoy it). The military is working on combat droids right now. The last real obstacle is programming it to be able to react extremely quickly and correctly. Amputees utilize their own brains to move artificial limbs. The point is, we are going there. Surrogates are not necessarily all poor or uneducated but it wouldn't be stretch to learn that a large proportion of them are paid through an organization because they need the money. When was the last time you knew someone in good financial sorts who donated eggs "for fun"? They don't pay several thousand for nothing- upping the amount for subsequent donations. It's targeted. I know someone who did this. She did it for the much-needed money. Nothing altruistic about it.
Surrogates do go through an enourmous amount of emotional issues. They are carrying to term children they cannot keep. (Michael Jackson, folks.)
People are always at liberty to do want they feel is right for them, just as those who disagree should not have to apologize for an opinion.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.