Sheryl Crow Not Ruling Out A Pregnancy

Sheryl Crow Not Ruling Out A Pregnancy

Singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow recently became a mom for the second time when she adopted five-month-old Levi James. Sheryl’s elder son, Wyatt, entered her life three years ago when she adopted him during her recovery from breast cancer.

In a meeting with the Guardian, the mom-of-two discussed her feelings on pregnancy, adoption and motherhood.

I would have loved to have gone through the whole experience of pregnancy myself – and it’s not impossible that that couldn’t happen still – but I didn’t feel like I needed to bring another kid into the world just to satisfy my own needs to become a mom when there were already so many kids in the world that needed one.”

During the adoption process, Sheryl had no specific requirements with regards to the child. She always felt that the right one for her would arrive.

I said I would take whichever baby I was supposed to have. My philosophy was that souls find each other; you don’t end up with the wrong child.”

She did, however, want the process to be “closed” which means that the birth parents receive no information about the adoptive family. “It would be extremely hard for a mother to watch the child she gave away grow up in the magazines,” Sheryl said.

Filed under: Adoptions,Sheryl Crow

Photo credit: Flynet

7 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Anonymous

    Isn’t she, like, 50?? Pretty sure time’s ruled it out, whether she likes it or not.

    Reply
  2. Sonya

    Have we ever seen a picture of Levi? Wonder why she didn’t do an introductory interview like she did with Wyatt.

    Reply
  3. Shirilicious

    She sounds condescending when describing why she didn’t choose to get pregnant. Like all the women getting pregnant are selfish cows thinking only about their own needs. And then she turns around saying, she doesn’t rule out getting pregnant. So which is it, Sheryl?
    And how does she know if the birth mother wouldn’t enjoy seeing pictures of her child every now and then?

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Look I’m sorry but it kinda sounds like there’s a fat logical fallacy with your comment and thus you’re way of thinking; I know it’s a free country and you’re entitled to your opinion but its’ not based on actual facts. you’re sounding condescending yourself, more so than your false concept of her being condesending, where she actually isn’t if at all. And by doing so you’re actually placing words into HER mouth which are simply not true, in her intent, the words she uses and the fact, the most beautiful women and voice, in the world, is being selfless to care for a child, someone she didn’t give birth to, is a rare trait in this messed up world. Don’t make this world worse with toxicity. the simple fact by saying All women are “such and such” as you claim you also include that meaning, she’s talking about herself, and since he didn’t say that, you’re simply just projecting and saying it about yourself to. Now unless a women is a compleete bitch lies and steels or cheats and mistreets even those they “love” leave them alone. Be nice.

      Reply
      • Shirilicious

        Please step of your soapbox.
        Funny how you call me condescending and then go on preach and warp what I said, like I thought my opinion is anything more than just that. /big eye-roll/

        Reply
  4. Anonymous

    unless the parents of the kids are dead, they know where the kids went, trust me.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    I think it would be so weird to see your kid in magazines! I think they’d recognize “their” kids. Not saying the biological parents have any place in their lives, just that they might be able to tell.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>