Cameron Diaz “has third child” aged 53

Adopting is no different. It's still a baby being taken away from its mother at birth.

Whilst I am sorry for anyone who can't have children naturally, and have to result to adoption, it really annoys me when people bash surrogacy and then celebrate adoption. In both cases, babies are taken away from their birth mother...

Adoption, is a woman who is unable to keep the baby because she's in a precarious position, often financially, or isn't allowed to keep it because her family won't let her. Surrogacy, is often a woman who is from a poor background and needs the money, and someone financially better off than her pays her to have their baby. (Some surrogates are not poor though.)

In both cases the baby is being taken from its birth mother. And in both cases, the birth mother is often not well off financially... At least with surrogacy the baby will often be biologically related to the parents when the surrogate hands over the baby. So there will be that genetic link. And she usually gets paid by the couple for carrying the baby.. A mother giving her child away via adoption gets nothing.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with NOT being biologically related and I know you can love an adopted child as much as your own, but let's stop pretending surrogacy is this evil thing and anyone who uses them is a monster, and adopting is something utterly perfect. At the end of the day, when a couple adopts a baby and is happy and joyful at their new little bundle, a heartbroken birth mother who had to give up the baby lies in the wings, sobbing her heart out. The majority of surrogates will be happy to give up the baby, as that's what the plan was from the start, and the baby is often not genetically/biologically hers.

I get it, many on Mumsnet hate surrogacy, that is your right. But stop making out anyone who uses a surrogate is an evil monster who has used a poor young woman to service their wishes to have a baby 'for show,' and anyone who adopts a baby has 'saved a child' and 'given them a loving home,' and deserves a medal for it.

And saying gay couples use surrogates to gain a baby for an affectation. (Like just to show off, as some kind of new toy, to impress others?!) WTF?!

No skin in the game here, I have never used a surrogate, or adopted, but this 'surrogacy is evil' thing on here, and the anger and rage aimed at it is just ludicrous. Some women help couples have a baby via surrogacy because they want to.

I do think Cameron Diaz is too old to have had 3 babies in her late 40s/early 50s though.

.

Good for her, men have kids at all ages.

Most people know having kids in your 50s requires help, and people can do what they like with their bodies.

While I do think surrogates need greater protection in some places, I'd never condemn another person's choice to use or be a surrogate. Wanted children are usually happy children.

Surrogacy can give some poor women power - over their bodies, futures and ability to look after their own children.

Lots of the criticism of surrogacy is rooted in homophobia towards gay men, and patronising misogyny.

Adoption, is a woman who is unable to keep the baby because she's in a precarious position, often financially, or isn't allowed to keep it because her family won't let her.

Are you referring to the UK in 2026, or are you basing this on an episode of Call The Midwife you once watched? No, that isn't why babies are removed from mothers in the vast, vast majority of cases (and the large majority of children aren't removed as babies). It is done because there is an evidenced decision that the risk to the child of remaining with their mother is too high. Orders for adoption usually follow multiple failed attempts by social services to make interventions to keep the child with their birth mother. Voluntary relinquishment is rare. The strong guiding principle in social services is to keep children with their birth families wherever possible, and family are always looked to first as possible carers/adopters. Adoption is therefore the best option in a situation with no good ones. This is very, very different to surrogacy, most significantly because adoption is done in the best interests of the child and surrogacy is done for the wishes of adults.

Adopting is no different. It's still a baby being taken away from its mother at birth.

Whilst I am sorry for anyone who can't have children naturally, and have to result to adoption, it really annoys me when people bash surrogacy and then celebrate adoption. In both cases, babies are taken away from their birth mother...

Adoption, is a woman who is unable to keep the baby because she's in a precarious position, often financially, or isn't allowed to keep it because her family won't let her. Surrogacy, is often a woman who is from a poor background and needs the money, and someone financially better off than her pays her to have their baby. (Some surrogates are not poor though.)

In both cases the baby is being taken from its birth mother. And in both cases, the birth mother is often not well off financially... At least with surrogacy the baby will often be biologically related to the parents when the surrogate hands over the baby. So there will be that genetic link. And she usually gets paid by the couple for carrying the baby.. A mother giving her child away via adoption gets nothing.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with NOT being biologically related and I know you can love an adopted child as much as your own, but let's stop pretending surrogacy is this evil thing and anyone who uses them is a monster, and adopting is something utterly perfect. At the end of the day, when a couple adopts a baby and is happy and joyful at their new little bundle, a heartbroken birth mother who had to give up the baby lies in the wings, sobbing her heart out. The majority of surrogates will be happy to give up the baby, as that's what the plan was from the start, and the baby is often not genetically/biologically hers.

I get it, many on Mumsnet hate surrogacy, that is your right. But stop making out anyone who uses a surrogate is an evil monster who has used a poor young woman to service their wishes to have a baby 'for show,' and anyone who adopts a baby has 'saved a child' and 'given them a loving home,' and deserves a medal for it.

And saying gay couples use surrogates to gain a baby for an affectation. (Like just to show off, as some kind of new toy, to impress others?!) WTF?!

No skin in the game here, I have never used a surrogate, or adopted, but this 'surrogacy is evil' thing on here, and the anger and rage aimed at it is just ludicrous. Some women help couples have a baby via surrogacy because they want to.

I do think Cameron Diaz is too old to have had 3 babies in her late 40s/early 50s though.

.

what about if you adopt at 53?
I adopted aged 50 . Is that selfish and vile ?

Adopting is pretty much the opposite of surrogacy.

Well, it’s an interesting one. Can we treat infertility or do we accept that this is how life panned out. If we compare it to cancer, can we treat cancer or do we accept that this is how life panned out? We can argue - it’s different because you can die from cancer. Alright, can we “treat” unemployment (by looking for a new job), or do we accept that this is how life panned out? With infertility, the morals are not settled and developments are happening before our eyes and we’re trying to find an ethical line. IVF and egg/sperm donation used to be suspicious and the work of the devil and now we got used to it. Surrogacy is now suspicious. There is a good argument for me that it’s not all black and white, not all buying human beings, the work of the devil, handmaid’s tale, exploitation, like it’s not all exploitation with organ donation, for example. There will be arguments to the contrary of course. I think the society is leaning towards the acceptance of surrogacy.

It worries me that some people just read headlines like this and think all these women have children naturally. At least that’s the impression I got from reading the comments on this story. The surrogacy sometimes isn’t even mentioned.

All three children of Cameron Diaz and Benji Madden were born using a surrogate.

That fact is used as advertising by this surrogacy agency in the US.

https://www.acrcglobal.com/post/cameron-diaz-welcomes-third-baby-via-surrogacy-what-intended-parents-can-learn

Hardly surprising when the children were born when she was 47, 51 and 53.

what about if you adopt at 53?
I adopted aged 50 . Is that selfish and vile ?

..why anyone would want a baby at 53 is beyond me...

Having outsourced the gestation and birth of the baby, I hardly think she's going to do the hard work of child-rearing herself. She'll have staff for that.

She may take the child out for the odd photo opportunity. Rather like those dogs in bags.

It's using another woman's body that's vile.

what about if you adopt at 53?
I adopted aged 50 . Is that selfish and vile ?

Of course it’s vile; all surrogacy is.

Presumably she's also paying another underprivileged woman to do the night waking and the poonamis and to just generally be on call when the relentless needs of a newborn get overwhelming. It's nothing like what a normal non-celebrity would experience.

I’m 52, still have regular periods and am peri.

Nobody is thinking a 53 year old woman is having a baby naturally though her age alone will pique interest to read further into it, i am 55 ive not had a period for 5 years far less conceive a baby 2 years ago.

To be fair the headline and article i read said they used a surrogate so it wasn't misleading really, why anyone would want a baby at 53 is beyond me,

I couldn't even see an article that mentioned surrogacy at all.