It's amazing because she's almost in her 50s. Being pregnant at that age is very rare.
-
InMemoryof_MP — 15 years ago(August 06, 2010 02:39 AM)
Kelly was spotted at LAX airport in LA yester2000day. She looks very happy and radiant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1300773/Baby-board-Pregna nt-Kelly-Preston-looks-radiant-jets-LA.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=phi -
InMemoryof_MP — 15 years ago(August 22, 2010 05:31 AM)
Why don't they just adopt another child or take a kid into foster care. There's so many children out there who nobody wants. It's not like they don't have any biological ones.
If they want a biological child,that's their right. There are always risks in pregnancies anyway. Hell ,Adrienne Barbeau had twins in her fifties.
http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=phi -
KrisNAz — 15 years ago(September 22, 2010 07:47 PM)
I honestly think Kelly had medical help. The chances of a 47 yr old woman still being fertile is VERY rare. Yes there are isolated cases, and there is a female sergeant at my job whose kids range from 26 yrs old to 5. She had has last child at around 44 none of us could believe she was pregnant again.Kelly may have used donor eggs or had hers frozen from when she was younger. I honestly think IVF was used but it really doesnt matter. Celebs have the money for reproductive technology. Having a child later in life makes getting older more fun. Women have children in different stages of thier life and for different reasons. And I think them losing Jett is part of the reason she's pregnant too. The chances of her having a baby with Down Syndrome seems pretty high though, but good luck to Kelly and her family.
-
mariahfan-1 — 15 years ago(September 19, 2010 06:53 AM)
stars in hollywood have had children in the decade around her age for decades it's not that big of a deal. Patricia Neal for instance had her last child at 39 and after surviving a series of strokes while pregnant and that was 1965 before in vitro exsisted. and no the baby wasn't born deformed because of the strokes and subsequent coma but perfectly healthy and matured into a beautiful woman like her two surviving older sisters as her oldest sister had died of meseals encephalitis nearly 3 years before she was born.
"why are you married to him then if you can't work with him how do you live with him?" -
Full_Of_Surprises_54 — 15 years ago(September 30, 2010 04:55 PM)
They are blatantly having another baby to replace Jett which is appalling! I highly doubt that they would be having another baby at the age that they are now if Jett hadn't died. Creating a LIFE to help them in their grieving process is selfish. Its hard but they need to accept his death, not mindlessly fill the void that he left. They can't even cite childlessness as their reason for having another baby because they still have their daughter, who is still young and dependent on them. Plus if they conceived naturally they have totally set themselves up for more heartache and worry because there is a strong chance that their baby will have some sort of chromosomal defect! And if they did use an egg donor or even Kelly's own frozen eggs, their child will be so young when they are so old. Selfish silly people, heaven help the child.
"He won't come after me. He won't. I can't explain it. He would consider that rude."
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) -
InMemoryof_MP — 15 years ago(September 30, 2010 06:54 PM)
They were trying for another kid for several years. I think Jett's death delayed their plans,so this is not a replacement. You can't replace a child with another. I think it's pretty irresponsible for you to suggest such a thing.
Rest in Peace
Old Friend -
Full_Of_Surprises_54 — 15 years ago(October 02, 2010 08:50 AM)
Irresponsible? lmao. How is it irresponsible to suggest that a man and woman whose youngest child is 10 years old, who fall pregnant a year after their son dies to think that they are filling the void? I wouldn't be surprised if they called their new son Jett.
And i am aware that you can't replace a child with another, which is why i was expressing my disagreement, however recently bereaved parents aren't particularly logical or in their right mind.
Also, irresponsible is drink driving, or getting a loan that you can't repay.
Im baffled that you think an opinion is irresponsible
I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum."
They Live
(1988) -
InMemoryof_MP — 15 years ago(October 02, 2010 09:39 AM)
Irresponsible? lmao. How is it irresponsible to suggest that a man and woman whose youngest child is 10 years old, who fall pregnant a year after their son dies to think that they are filling the void? I wouldn't be surprised if they called their new son Jett.
It irresponsable to suggest that they are trying to fill a void. I can show you interviews to back up what I said. They've been trying for another kid since at least 2005. It not like they just started trying after Jett's death. That most certainly delayed the progress.
Saying that you wouldn't be surprised if they named him Jett is outright assanine.
And i am aware that you can't replace a child with another, which is why i was expressing my disagreement, however recently bereaved parents aren't particularly logical or in their right mind.
So,how long should they wait? Everyone grieve differently. Who are you tell anyone how to grieve? What makes you an expert?
Rest in Peace
Old Friend -
Full_Of_Surprises_54 — 15 years ago(October 02, 2010 11:38 AM)
An opinion can't be irresponsible, just like an opinion can't be wrong. You are just clearly incredibly closed-minded. Only actions are irresponsible, i can have whatever opinion i want.
I'll tell you something though, if they were trying for a baby before he died, THAT is irresponsible. At the age that they are they will be over the hill when the kid is still young, its unfair, and selfish. They totally don't consider the impact on the child, its all about THEY want a baby. Plus, the chances that their baby will be born with some kind of chromosomal defect are very high due to their age if they used Kelly's egg, which they claim they did. i.r.r.e.s.p.o.n.s.i.b.l.e.
And as for my OPINION that they will name the baby Jett being asinine, come on, look at what you're saying - we are talking about people who are hoping that the soul of their dead son will be reincarnated into the body of their new baby, i dare you to call giving their new son the name of their old son far-fetched, trust me its not.
And yes, everybody does grieve differently, but having a new child so close to the death of another child is certainly not advisable, its actually quite a dangerous act. Not only does the loss of a child cause marital strain, but they are adding new unnecessary strain into the mix by bringing in a newborn, which will only negatively deflect onto the children. Parents don't get over the death of a child in a year, this pregnancy is clearly a coping mechanism, even if the decision to have a baby before his death is true, the fact that it is happening so quickly after his death suggests an alternate motive to "i want another baby," because they should be looking at it objectively saying "this isn't right, we have just lost a child, we are still in pain, a new baby will cause more pressure and strain, lets focus on healing and coming together to be stronger with the family members that we have left."
Hey, Ricky, get this lame-o out of your yard.
Get out of my yard, Lame-o!
The Burbs' (1989)