Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

People are allowed to change their mind. People go through experiences that can really change ones opinions. She also met somebody she probably thought she could have a family with. If her kid sees the interviews one day I think it would have the opposite effect. She could say she wasn’t ready at that time but when she had her kid, she knew that the kid was very wanted and would be cherished.

I just think it’s funny. She was one of a select few actresses who were consistently very vocal about not wanting kids. She went out of her way to decisively proclaim she would never have kids. She was one of my friend’s heroes precisely because of her very public stance. And now she’s announcing her new baby which was obviously adopted or carried by surrogate. It’s just funny to me.

I doubt Aniston will ever adopt. I’ve always believed she’s too self-absorbed to parent. I’m on the fence about Handler; she seemed to have some sort of midlife crisis that prompted a complete personality change. We’ll see what happens.

Is it really that odd to you? People change their minds about having kids all the time and no one owes it to the child-free community to continue being a spokesmodel off they decide to have a child. Sometimes people think they’ll never have the stability they want to raise a child in. Others face health challenges, including MH, that resolve later in life.

One thing is for sure: you can be ambivalent for a long time, but it’s not something most women don’t have to make a final decision about at some point. Some women seem to make that decision very publicly in their 20s or 30s, but never get their tubes tied. I think that’s a sort of ambivalence.

It’s one thing to deflect or be noncommittal. Instead, Cameron was very public with her decisive, strident beliefs. As a celebrity, she knew she had a platform and her choice of words in interviews mattered.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less what any celebrity does. But it’s funny how this played out.

PS - all your reasons for normal people to change their minds don’t apply to an A list celebrity who had plenty of money to have a baby/buy a baby or take advantage of the best fertility technology over the last two decades. She probably did hedge her bets and freeze her eggs way back when she was doing interviews about how she never wanted kids. Can’t decide if that’s funny or sad?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

People are allowed to change their mind. People go through experiences that can really change ones opinions. She also met somebody she probably thought she could have a family with. If her kid sees the interviews one day I think it would have the opposite effect. She could say she wasn’t ready at that time but when she had her kid, she knew that the kid was very wanted and would be cherished.

I just think it’s funny. She was one of a select few actresses who were consistently very vocal about not wanting kids. She went out of her way to decisively proclaim she would never have kids. She was one of my friend’s heroes precisely because of her very public stance. And now she’s announcing her new baby which was obviously adopted or carried by surrogate. It’s just funny to me.

I doubt Aniston will ever adopt. I’ve always believed she’s too self-absorbed to parent. I’m on the fence about Handler; she seemed to have some sort of midlife crisis that prompted a complete personality change. We’ll see what happens.

Is it really that odd to you? People change their minds about having kids all the time and no one owes it to the child-free community to continue being a spokesmodel off they decide to have a child. Sometimes people think they’ll never have the stability they want to raise a child in. Others face health challenges, including MH, that resolve later in life.

One thing is for sure: you can be ambivalent for a long time, but it’s not something most women don’t have to make a final decision about at some point. Some women seem to make that decision very publicly in their 20s or 30s, but never get their tubes tied. I think that’s a sort of ambivalence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

People are allowed to change their mind. People go through experiences that can really change ones opinions. She also met somebody she probably thought she could have a family with. If her kid sees the interviews one day I think it would have the opposite effect. She could say she wasn’t ready at that time but when she had her kid, she knew that the kid was very wanted and would be cherished.

I just think it’s funny. She was one of a select few actresses who were consistently very vocal about not wanting kids. She went out of her way to decisively proclaim she would never have kids. She was one of my friend’s heroes precisely because of her very public stance. And now she’s announcing her new baby which was obviously adopted or carried by surrogate. It’s just funny to me.

I doubt Aniston will ever adopt. I’ve always believed she’s too self-absorbed to parent. I’m on the fence about Handler; she seemed to have some sort of midlife crisis that prompted a complete personality change. We’ll see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

Aniston was never ever publicly “anti parenthood” what are you talking about

Also why would a kid ever feel hurt if their parent had previously said they didn’t want kids? Who cares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

People are allowed to change their mind. People go through experiences that can really change ones opinions. She also met somebody she probably thought she could have a family with. If her kid sees the interviews one day I think it would have the opposite effect. She could say she wasn’t ready at that time but when she had her kid, she knew that the kid was very wanted and would be cherished.

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

Anonymous wrote:She used a surrogate.

And like a pp, I think it’s weird that she opted to have a kid after decades of swearing she never would and going into great detail as to why parenthood wasn’t something she would ever want. Her kid will see those interviews someday.

I guess Aniston and Chelsea Handler are the only ones staying put in their self-proclaimed anti-parenthood camp. Although now that Chelsea is in therapy, on meds, and “woke,” who knows what she might do?

Anonymous wrote:I am from Southern Maryland. I still can't get over that somebody from Waldorf married a movie star.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is wonderful news for her. However, given her fertility struggle and her age, she definitely used donor eggs. Sometimes, celebrities giving birth in their late 40s is so deceiving for people. IVF simply doesn’t work for women in their late 40s. Donor eggs are basically their only chance. Anyway, it’s nice that she was able to have a child.

totally agree donor egg. It’s no ones business how they got pregnant. However, these movie stars not divulging the truth creates so many misconceptions that it is possible to get pregnant in your late 40s naturally. It is not. IvF has close to a zero success rate by age 44. 43 is generally the last age a clinic will take you. After that they will only see you with donor eggs. Frozen eggs are an option, they removed the experimental status on those a couple of years ago. But natural? 100% no way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby’s name is Raddix.

Example why some people shouldn’t breed.

Cameron Diaz is washed up and it’s her opportunity to reinvent herself.

It's better than Apple or Blue Ivy or North.

Though only barely.

No. It's worse than all of those. And those were bad to begin with.

Agreed. Raddix Madden? Come on. That’s so, so awful.

North is horrendous because her name is North West. But there’s nothing redeeming about Raddix. Nothing.

Anonymous wrote:I am from Southern Maryland. I still can't get over that somebody from Waldorf married a movie star.