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.

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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Could I ask how old you are, Cheese55?

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.

Exactly! Surrogacy is reprehensible.

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

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.

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 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?

It's nothing like saying a firefighter is the same as an arsonist.

Both situations result in a baby being removed from its birth mother.

At least with surrogacy, the woman plans to have the baby often with the couple's egg and sperm, and knows she will be giving it to them.

Adoption is a woman forced to give her baby away because of various reasons, sometimes financial, sometimes practical, sometimes because family force it.

Behind every couple who are delighted at their new little adopted bundle of joy, lies a devastated birth mother who had to give up her baby.

How anyone can say adoption is better than surrogacy just baffles me.

@ILoveAGingerCatif a woman is still having periods then she can still get pregnant. And some women in their late 40s/early 50s are still ovulating. I didn't say it was common, it is rare (esp in early 50s) but it's not impossible either. Which is why lots of women are still using contraception until they've been 12 months without a period.
Because we have access to contraceptives and the morning after pill, you wouldn't necessarily know. Most women at this age don't want a baby and would take steps to prevent or end an accidental one.

This is just untrue. The large majority of adopted children are not babies torn from their loving mothers who have been forced to give them up due to poverty, singleness, etc. Decades ago, that may have been the case, but it's not anymore. Very, very few newborn babies are adopted.

That's really not true. Children are only removed from their birth mother against the mother's will if she is unable to keep them safe from harm or is actively harming them, and they will not be available for adoption but will stay in fostering or other temporary care if there is any hope at all of the mother gaining the skills and dealing with whatever other problems (drugs, alcohol, an inability to live without dangerous relationships with dangerous men) such that she could have the children back and keep them safe.

Well the reality is with adoption that if no one stepped up there would be even more children in care or temp foster placements. But I guess that's better than adoption morally? Better to be back with your drug addiction mother who's new bf abuses you and nothing beats being with bio mum even if it means your abused daily. Utter BS.

But I'm in position of privilege here as I have my own bio kids.

You’ve mentioned the needs/wishes of and benefits for the potential user of surrogacy and those of the potential surrogate. Is there maybe anyone involved whose needs you haven’t mentioned or presumably considered?