Anderson Cooper is a dad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

+1 if you want kids, have them by 40.

As someone with a parent over 40 when I was born, this is a ridiculous and arbitrary standard and I’m very glad no one told my parents or they chose not to listen.

I'm happy for Anderson because he seems like a loving, caring person.

But, with all due respect: 40s and 50s are light years apart. 45 vs 55. 15 year old when you are 60 vs a 15-year old when you are 70....very, very different no matter how well you take care of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

This was one of the subplots on the last season of Search Party and it was interesting to see it portrayed this way (as entitled rich people literally ordering children from a menu). In real life, people who hire surrogates genuinely want to be parents, like Cooper. My main question as a woman who has given birth is how these women feel about it, how well compensated they are, how it impacts other things like their employment elsewhere and long term health. I am still dealing with some health issues from my healthy, complication-free pregnancy and birth 5 years ago. Zero regrets, as my kid is well worth it. But if it had been someone else’s child, how would I feel? And would I qualify for disability? Because these copays add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

This was one of the subplots on the last season of Search Party and it was interesting to see it portrayed this way (as entitled rich people literally ordering children from a menu). In real life, people who hire surrogates genuinely want to be parents, like Cooper. My main question as a woman who has given birth is how these women feel about it, how well compensated they are, how it impacts other things like their employment elsewhere and long term health. I am still dealing with some health issues from my healthy, complication-free pregnancy and birth 5 years ago. Zero regrets, as my kid is well worth it. But if it had been someone else’s child, how would I feel? And would I qualify for disability? Because these copays add up.

But like should the standard be that anyone who wants to have a biological link to their child is entitled to that? And as you said pregnancy can result in lifelong physical complications. Also is it a 'choice' if a woman has no other real options? I don't really know the answers to this but I think it is worth discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

This was one of the subplots on the last season of Search Party and it was interesting to see it portrayed this way (as entitled rich people literally ordering children from a menu). In real life, people who hire surrogates genuinely want to be parents, like Cooper. My main question as a woman who has given birth is how these women feel about it, how well compensated they are, how it impacts other things like their employment elsewhere and long term health. I am still dealing with some health issues from my healthy, complication-free pregnancy and birth 5 years ago. Zero regrets, as my kid is well worth it. But if it had been someone else’s child, how would I feel? And would I qualify for disability? Because these copays add up.

But like should the standard be that anyone who wants to have a biological link to their child is entitled to that? And as you said pregnancy can result in lifelong physical complications. Also is it a 'choice' if a woman has no other real options? I don't really know the answers to this but I think it is worth discussing.

We buy and wear their hair, we rent their bodies for babies, we rent their bodies for sext. What's next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah and no one says nothing when a John Stamos or Scott Baio shows up old having a kid because they are straight and rush to get married. These men show up at 50 to have a kid because they can. Gay or straight. Single or married. Stop picking on Anderson. Everybody buys something. They buy a ring and a house or a surrogate.

Stupid Scott Baio had a show with several episodes on whether he should get married and have a kid and he was late 40s or early 50s. Pathetic.

Scott Baio should not reproduce because he's a trumper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

+1. It's sick.

[Anonymous]

How does the surrogate work when you're filthy rich and famous like him? Was it anonymous or he literally picked the woman? Does he ask someone he knows for an egg (read rich, upper class, credentialed), then pays another woman (likely lower class) to carry it? Did he use the same woman's egg for both kids?

[Anonymous]

The children's other father is in his 40s, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

+1. It's sick.

Why though? Women have been marrying older men for decades pre-feminist wave and popping out babies with men in their 40s, 50s, 60s. It was alright then but first-time parents in their 40s or 50s now are a problem?

I'll never forget learning that the grandson of President John Tyler is still alive. Direct line descendant. His GRANDSON. Tyler was born in 1790, so how is his grandson still alive?

He married a 24-year-old at age 54.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-02-20/president-john-tyler-born-in-1790-still-has-2-living-grandsons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

+1. It's sick.

Why though? Women have been marrying older men for decades pre-feminist wave and popping out babies with men in their 40s, 50s, 60s. It was alright then but first-time parents in their 40s or 50s now are a problem?

I'll never forget learning that the grandson of President John Tyler is still alive. Direct line descendant. His GRANDSON. Tyler was born in 1790, so how is his grandson still alive?

He married a 24-year-old at age 54.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-02-20/president-john-tyler-born-in-1790-still-has-2-living-grandsons

And her last child with him was born when he was 75.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the thing: if Stamos or Baio or any other rich guy has a baby with a much younger woman, it’s NBD because the mom will presumably live longer and will have plenty of money when the old rich guy dies.

Anderson doesn’t have a much younger partner. He has a somewhat younger ex. Not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: if Stamos or Baio or any other rich guy has a baby with a much younger woman, it’s NBD because the mom will presumably live longer and will have plenty of money when the old rich guy dies.

Anderson doesn’t have a much younger partner. He has a somewhat younger ex. Not the same thing.

Stamps is married to a 30-year-old. Cooper is partnered to a 40-year-old. Both have guardianship rights over kids. Both have been there since birth. Both have access to substantial trusts.

Just say you’re bigoted and go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah and no one says nothing when a John Stamos or Scott Baio shows up old having a kid because they are straight and rush to get married. These men show up at 50 to have a kid because they can. Gay or straight. Single or married. Stop picking on Anderson. Everybody buys something. They buy a ring and a house or a surrogate.

Stupid Scott Baio had a show with several episodes on whether he should get married and have a kid and he was late 40s or early 50s. Pathetic.

A ring, a house, or a surrogate.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is a human being...

A living, breathing human being. Disgusting that this is how we view people, certain kinds of people, certain kinds of women, women of certain socioeconomic backgrounds. As some"thing" to be bought or rented, no different than jewelry or a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: if Stamos or Baio or any other rich guy has a baby with a much younger woman, it’s NBD because the mom will presumably live longer and will have plenty of money when the old rich guy dies.

Anderson doesn’t have a much younger partner. He has a somewhat younger ex. Not the same thing.

Stamps is married to a 30-year-old. Cooper is partnered to a 40-year-old. Both have guardianship rights over kids. Both have been there since birth. Both have access to substantial trusts.

Just say you’re bigoted and go.

I don’t think most people thought an old man having children with a much younger woman was ever ok - it has always been weird and assumed he was largely absent. Think Tony Randall. You must be poor if you think having a substantial trust makes up for a dead or absent parent. Anderson Cooper was tossed in luxury and remains marked deeply by the absence of his father. When you get to a certain age it is selfish to have a baby. It is about you wanting that experience not about the child. That’s applies to Hoda as well. Richard Gere had a baby at 70! I mean what the actual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all he’s 54! I know you all are going to say “oh eh has lots of money and any of us could die at any time” but still this whole AARP parenting trend is concerning. I’m also getting really uncomfortable with rich people renting the bodies of women to produce children for them. It is all very freaking dystopian. I mean literally you can now order a human the same way you order a purebred dog and just pick it up when it is done.

+1 if you want kids, have them by 40.

As someone with a parent over 40 when I was born, this is a ridiculous and arbitrary standard and I’m very glad no one told my parents or they chose not to listen.

I'm happy for Anderson because he seems like a loving, caring person.

But, with all due respect: 40s and 50s are light years apart. 45 vs 55. 15 year old when you are 60 vs a 15-year old when you are 70....very, very different no matter how well you take care of yourself.

I don’t disagree but I was responding to the PP said everyone who wants kids should have them by 40. Although — everyone’s energy levels and ability to handle a teenager at whatever is personal.