Cameron Diaz “has third child” aged 53

You sound very young.

They have been together for over 20 years and seem very happy and compatible. There is no money or power imbalance and no incentive to be together other than they want to be. She has not ‘bought’ him, they both work and are on the similar levels financially. This smacks a bit of the idea of old people having sex is yucky. 😊

Was he someone people found on fb? Don't clinics screen to stop this happening and restrict the number of babies one donor is used for

@Cheese55 only in certain countries, and you still have to wait until you are 18. Many countries/clinics still have anonymous donors and also unrestricted number of donations.

There was that recent case where it was found that donor carried a cancer gene and he had fathered nearly 200 children. That cannot be ethical

They can find out, you have to agree to be contacted when the child becomes an adult

I think a child also has a right not to be taken away from its mother - the woman who gestated it - straight after birth, unless there are absolutely dire circumstances to warrant it. It’s widely acknowledged that this is detrimental to the child, but this fact is completely ignored in the surrogacy business.

I didnt say that no men whatsoever want children

I said it was likely she was the main driver of this.

That is fairly common in male/female relationships

The problem I see with the whole thing is that it's most likely not her own eggs (unless she froze them many years ago).

I always thought it was rather selfish to use an anonymous sperm or anymous egg donation.

In my opinion a child should have a right to find out their genetic link.

Everyone should be able to know where their biological roots are.

All surrogacy is human trafficking and people like Cameron Diaz putting a glamorous face to it are legitimising the less salubrious baby farm businesses in places like India and Ukraine.

Who will care for those children when the parents can't?

I do. It’s irresponsible for anyone to have a baby at that stage in their life. Whilst men don’t lose their fertility in the same way women do, sperm quality decreases and there are increased risks of miscarriage, premature birth, congenital heart defects, and increased neurodevelopmental risks. And how is it fair for a child to have a father who will be rapidly heading to old age when they are a teenager?

What about all the gay men who are now buying surrogate babies?

Tbf a lot of them come across as wanting a child as a lifestyle accessory rather than it being driven by a deep biological urge.

I personally do. 73 by the time your child turns 20? Wow.

But it’s worse when both parents are 53 to be perfectly honest.

Wow. Toddlers at 58.

Not necessarily. I was 38 when my daughter was born, my husband was 51. DD is now 20 and although her dad is older than those of most of her contemporaries, it's never been an issue.

If he wants to have a child with her, he definitely needs it as well…

I've got a work colleague who is a Dad to two young toddlers at 58. He's a physical and mental wreck most of the time, he's absolutely exhausted. His wife is in her late 40s, gave birth at 47 through use of fertility drugs. The oldest child is autistic with serious behavioural issues, and the youngest is showing all the same signs (both non verbal).

It's so morally wrong on every level to have children at these ages, when a lot of people that age are in fact grandparents. Add in buying the child just because you want it? There should be laws preventing anyone buying a child in the first place let alone someone heading towards old age. Surrogacy should only exist for relatives/close friends to altruistically carry a child and no money ever changes hands.

Yes I agree, just wondered if other people felt the same

@Dancingsquirrels I think 53 is too old for anyone to become a parent of a newborn

Out of interest, and genuine question - do you feel the same about men fathering children aged 53?

Agreed. I've met families who adopted their children as babies and in an age appropriate way, throughout the years, the adoption was often discussed. The children started school knowing and understanding what adoption was and the role it played in their family unit. It seemed like a really healthy and emotionally sound approach. This meant there was never a painful 'learning the truth' moment.

And I find surrogacy appalling. Just because it's possible doesn't make it right.

I find that gross. If it was a man married to a woman the same age as his daughters people would think that , what's the difference?

As to surrogacy. I watched a horrific programme about it in India. It was heartbreaking. And all about money for the women providing it. They were living in grinding poverty. Their wombs were for sale.
But the wrench of handing over their babies to the people who had purchased them was dreadful to watch.
It is not a nice business.
I should add, the people making the real money were the agency who skim off money from the poor ladies who actually go through the pregnancies and birth the children.

You absolutely should know who your parent is.
My mother was involved with a very well known baby parent group. I cannot recall the fine detail but the gist of it was a girl and young boy who were becoming too close. From seemingly different families. But didn’t know they were actually half brother and half sister. The parents knew but didn’t know how to manage it. Crazy. There was a need to step in before anything happened.
All children should know who their parents are. Donors or not.

What about surrogates via an agency. They must have a partner supporting them as presumably they don't get paid until the deed is done. How much do they get for expenses in the Uk. Is is £25-30k, average 1 year wage pre tax as otherwise it's not worth their while also what happens when they can't work during recovery time. Are they paid for this too.