Cameron Diaz “has third child” aged 53

[Namingbaba]

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.

It usually is, with the mother either having a child via surrogacy, or using a younger Woman's eggs, which seems to be more acceptable to people, for some reason.

@TiredOldHen so your sister in-law married someone nearly the same age as one of her sons, and then thought it would be a good idea to have a child with them.

Yes all babies born by surrogate
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a30444097/cameron-diaz-surrogate-baby-daughter-raddix/

So likely none are her biological child.

He could be infertile for all we know. Or be a carrier of some genetic disease.

Well maybe but I would put a hefty bet on tbe fact they are his biological children. They married in 2015 so the year she was 43, very, very likely she was too old to concieve.

She hasn't done a film for years in order to be a SAHM so yes I think she is doing the hard graft.

@Cheese55 even if he is infertile or carries a genteic disease, it does not make it okay to use a surrogate.

The child could be her biologically as she could have frozen her eggs years ago. Many do in that environment.
I don’t agree with surrogacy either way but the child could be both of theirs biologically.

She may have frozen her eggs when she was younger, or even just when they met. 43 really isn't that old to conceive, especially with IVF - of course it's increasingly risky, but not that uncommon.

Oh yes, I bet she is just struggling along without a single nanny, housekeeper, cleaner, cook or PA in sight.

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.

Yes could be, but I would put money on the fact he isn't. In order to have a stash of decent quality eggs she would need to have frozen them nearly 30 years ago- not sure the technology was around then or that it was particularly a narrative in the '90s. Egg quality declines from age 25. Sucess rates from frozen eggs is poor. But this is all speculation.

The first child was born in 2019 when she was 47. Less then 50% of women will have a sucessful pregnancy after age 40.

Yes, but im sure the surrogate has a fee in this so its obviously all about the money. That keeps them happy, and at the end of the day im sure cameron diaz will be and is a great mother to all of her unbirthed children nonetheless.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.londoneggbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/infographic-3-1024x911.png&tbnid=J73BEfWmz_Hd-M&vet=1&imgrefurl=www.londoneggbank.com/egg-quality/&docid=4cydshyUWUg4oM&w=1024&h=911&source=sh/x/im/m1/2&kgs=815d7e68b17c4cb0&shem=rimspwouoe&utm_source=rimspwouoe,sh/x/im/m1/2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://share.google/g6qqjlrFm3dsO04Kq

@aster10 rules have changed (at least in England) that sperm/egg donation can't be anonymous, as it can really impact a child not knowing their genetic parent. Even so they still have to wait until they are 18. Many children born before the law changed or born with parents using donor from another country so can remain anonymous, will suffer (and yet parents still choose to use anonymous donation even though they know this might mentally harm their child)

All because science has made some things possible does not mean it is the right thing to do, for the resultant child, the most important person with any of these treatments.

The rules about adoption have changed over the years. The horror of the magdalene laundries. Maybe, one day the world will wake up to the horror of using low income women to produce babies for rich people.

Graph here

For me ( I work in adoption) genetics really matter. Helping a couple concieve with thier own gammetes is fundementally different. With IVF the birthing partner takes on the biological risk and consequences of pregnancy and child birth. For me these are really important distinctions.

Handsomely paid ?

£12,500

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp4kp687go

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.