Cameron Diaz “has third child” aged 53

Adoption is making the best of a bad situation - a child who is already in the world, cannot remain with its birth parents and the adoptive parents are stepping in.

Surrogacy is causing a child to be taken from its birth mother deliberately. Years ago we didn't really understand much about the 4th trimester - I think there was a tendency to see newborns as a blank canvas and if they were safe and loved, it didn't necessarily matter who by. But we are learning differently now.

And then you get into the reality of men using surrogates to get babies - who is checking on their motivations?

The chances of a woman carrying to full term is so breathtakingly low that it doesn't even register. It is virtually zero per cent.

Women have not historically had babies in their 50s. In the vast VAST majority of cases, women in their 50s took on their daughter or niece's baby that she had out of wedlock, and raised it as her own. Great Granny Fanny, and Great Auntie Lulu, did NOT have uncle John and Auntie Pam when they were 52-55 years old!

Stop spreading myths and inaccurate information. Women in their mid 50s are NOT having babies naturally. 99.99% of them are not even 'catching' pregnant, and the very very VERY few who are, are not going to full term and having the baby!

Adoption is totally different. While an adopted child may be traumatised, that trauma was not deliberately caused by the adopted parents for their own benefit. It's like saying that a firefighter isn't much different from an arsonist. This is a ridiculous statement from someone who clearly doesn't want to think about why feminists recognise the huge harms and damage done by surrogacy.

Exactly. Despite all the hatred and loathing for surrogacy on Mumsnet (from some) adoption is not much different.

Natural pregnancy isn't impossible at 53 @JournalistEmily. Sone women have a late menopause or are still ovulating sporadically. Before the pill was widely used, and abortion was legal, it wasn't uncommon to see women catch in their late 40s/early 50s.
The problem with this is that not everyone who wants a baby at this age can get pregnant, because fertility does decline and you have a much higher risk of miscarriage and genetic abnormalities.

Exactly! Surrogacy is reprehensible.

I know they dont 'ask' but the point I'm making is that men go along with pregnancy despite the risks to their loved one.

Could I ask how old you are, Cheese55?

I think it’s a) terrible surrogacy or ivf isn’t mentioned in these stories and b) people are stupid enough to think a natural conception and birth would be possible at 53

In a normal and healthy relationship, men don't 'ask' their partned to 'get pregnant'. Two people in a relationship decide to have a child together.

This is a very strange way of describing relationships.

you need to read up on attachment and trauma. There is ample evidence that any baby removed at birth experiences a traumatic loss which can cause long lasting issues . Some
times that trauma can't be avoided but choosing to.seperate a newborn baby from its birth mother by choice can not be a good idea.

If you're saying that you shouldn't ask someone else to have a baby for you because of the risks related to pregnancy/ childbirth then men shouldn't ask their partners to get pregnant because of the risks.

No man has previously experienced birth trauma? Each of your posts sound stupider.

You could say that about every man in a heterosexual couple who agrees that the woman should get pregnant so they can have children together.

@Cheese55 so someone suffers birth trauma so they can’t have more children, so they pay another woman to take that risk the next time. That sounds ethical - not.

It’s amazing how many wealthy actresses/celebrities where being pregnant may get in the way of their life use a surrogate.

It's naive to think that rich people don't experience birth trauma which means they can't have more children. Lucy L's comments are probably misquoted or her trying not to say why she couldn't get pregnant/carry a baby.

That’s the most naive thing I’ve ever seen posted on here. You think 2 of the Kardashians ‘had’ to use surrogates? Despite the fact that they had their own babies naturally first? Surely no one is that hulliable?
Lucy Liu even admitted she couldn’t be bothered to take time out from filming.

The 'hard work' of producing babies as a product?

In the UK emotional coercion and manipulation is often used as well as 'expenses'. Often vulnerable women are pressurised into being surrogates.

And whether or not money is involved, the trauma remains the same.

You missed the current lawsuit in the US then, where the buyers wanted to force the mother to abort for a heart defect and the mother is now being sued for breach of contract.

Surrogacy contracts contain a lot that is illegal or on the verge of ilegal but knowing these are often poor women doing it for the cash, how many good lawyers do you think the mother can afford in comparison to the wealthy buyers?

There is no buying involved in the UK, you pay expenses which is recognising that pregnancy is hard work.

If a child has to be removed from its mother for safeguarding reasons/relinquished, children's services will approach the grandparent(s) first. Its very common.

Assuming you are not on the wind up, separating a baby from his or her mother causes severe trauma.

In utero a foetus/baby learns the sound of its mother's voice, the rhythm of her heartbeat, her smell.

It's well known and understood that babies will have serious trauma from birth separation. This is likely to be life long.

Acknowledgement and preparation for this trauma is part of adoption.

www.adoptionuk.org/introduction-to-trauma-and-attachment

I'm pretty sure, anyone who uses a surrogate does it because they have to.

@DontSayItsOver adopted children can suffer trauma from being taken from birth mother, no matter how much they are loved by their adoptive parents.

Children may suffer trauma knowing they were a commercial transaction and treated as a commodity