Kim Kardashian & Kanye West have hired a surrogate to carry their third kid

2017 MTV Movie & TV Awards Arrivals

It’s been long-rumored, and now there’s a confirmation: Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are hiring a surrogate to carry their third child. For the most part, celebrities only announce a surrogacy after the fact, when the baby is in the world. But not Kimye. I guess that’s sort of smart of Kim and Kanye, because there’s a lot of leaking in that family, and if they had tried to keep the surrogate on the DL, it probably would have blown up in their faces. So, best to do full-disclosure from the very beginning.

The West family is expanding! Kim Kardashian West and Kanye West have hired a surrogate, a source confirms to PEOPLE. Kardashian West has long made it clear on Keeping Up with the Kardashians that she wants another child – even though her doctors have warned her about the health risks of another pregnancy because she suffers from placenta accreta.

The couple, who wed in May 2014, are already parents to 4-year-old daughter North and 18-month-old son Saint.

“I’d just love nothing more than to expand my family and just know that I have this world at home that’s safe,” she said on the show. “And if for some reason I left this earth sooner than I really wanted to, then my kids would have a support system at home so that I know that they would be okay if I wasn’t here.”

Kardashian West underwent a procedure to help her become able of carrying another baby if she chooses to, but it doesn’t work.

“I can’t carry anymore kids … it’s the worst,” she told close pal Jonathan Cheban. “It’s not going to be happy for me.. I had a full break down … I give up.”

[From People]

TMZ reports that the deal has already happened with the surrogate, whom they met through an agency. Everything seems above-board – the surrogate, Kim and Kanye are all working through this agency, it seems, and they are putting $68,850 as “deposit” with the agency. The surrogate will be paid $45,000 in total ($4500 per month for ten months), and “if there are multiples, the surrogate gets $5k for each additional kid.” Oh, and “If the surrogate loses reproductive organs, she gets $4,000.” Which… what??? I have questions about that one. The surrogate cannot smoke, drink or do drugs and she can’t have sex with her partner in the three weeks after embryo implantation. She can’t go in hot tubs or saunas. She cannot apply hair dye. She cannot eat sushi. All of the regular pregnancy stuff, basically.

Photos courtesy of Kim’s social media, WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

171 Responses to “Kim Kardashian & Kanye West have hired a surrogate to carry their third kid”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Babs says:

    Awww those pics of Kanye and his kids are so cute.

  2. dodgy says:

    No shade from me. Kim Kardashian didn’t seem to enjoy being pregnant in terms of the demands on her body (she just… blew up) and losing weight seemed to have been hell. If she can afford it, why not?

    • Zaratustra says:

      Because surrogate motherhood is ethically questionable. Commercialisation of human relationships.

      Though I am glad the surrogate seems to get paid rather well.

      • detritus says:

        Zarastustra, I feel that. Especially in the case of disadvantaged women being paid a pittance. I think of the Thai women used for this and Australian wealthy elite.

        What about those who really want a child, but can’t because of complications? Or for parents who biologically cannot carry a child.
        As long as there are protections to ensure there is no abuse of the system, this doesn’t seem intinsically bad to me. Its no different than adoption in the biological sense, where one woman carrries the child to term, and another couple raises them.

        Madonna purchasing children seems way more sketchy to me than this. and I can’t hate on any woman using her body in whatever way she sees fit to make money.

      • Otaku fairy says:

        Careful, Zarathustra, that sounds an awful lot like anti-choice talking points on abortion.

      • Tanakasan says:

        I can’t reply to Otaku Fairy, but how is this statement possibly anti-choice???

      • FLORC says:

        Surrogate agencies are not under privilededge women using their organs to make money. Most of these agencies have great profiles and extensive reporting for the surrogate and family. The women who sign on for the task are up for it physically and psychologically. There’s also aftercare offered for those who need it. It’s not always covered by the family/clients. Maybe by the patient/surrogate or the facility.

        I’m an advocate for these institutions. The good ones. So many can abuse all involved parties. Cut corners. As long as it’s done right it’s a needed service. Giving the opportunity to those that wish for children, but cannot carry traditionally. More than you would think do this.
        Kim appeared to have 2 difficult pregnancies. No shade from me.

      • Sojaschnitzel says:

        I think it is ethically questionable to call surrogancy ethically questionable. I don’t like that woman at all but she even if she didnt have medical reasons, she would have any right to choose this path. If I ever were to have children, it would be via surrogancy for sure. And I don’t even have a medical justification.

      • Snowflake says:

        4500 a month is a lot of money. I would do it. Beats working fast food, making 8-9 an hour. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. Lot easier than a lot of low wagw jobs. I’ve thought about doing it before I think they want you to have had a kid before becoming a surrogate. I don’t want kids. There’s always to be a disparity between rich and poor. Low income people would prob be grateful for an easy job like that. Easy as compared to manual labor like housekeeping

      • Wilma says:

        Before I ended up with an auto-immune disease I always felt I might do this for someone. I know so many women who can’t get pregnant themselves due to things like cancer, too early menopausing and other infertility issues. It seems like a good thing to do if you yourself are in the right mindset for it.

      • rty says:

        > Beats working fast food, making 8-9 an hour.

        Except for the part where you end up with saggy breasts and covered in stretch marks up to your teeth…

      • Eleonor says:

        I have mixed feeling about this.
        Why don’t choose adoption instead ?

      • Geekychick says:

        Tbh, I cn’t bring my mind around surrogacy. I agree with Zaratustra, essentialy. Yes, for those who can’t children any other way it seems like an ideal option…
        But there are so many who just carelessly say:”oh if I ever have a child, I’d go surrogacy route, don’t want to ruin my body” or “I’m so happy, I got so drunk last night, thank god for my surrogate, am I right or am I right, winkwink”(honest to god, I’ve seen those on Jezebel!) It just leaves me feeling…queasy: like, motherhood and especially waiting for your baby isn’t about cheating the game, it’s about getting your priorities straight, about choosing the best for your child, not for you-always, from now on. It’s just not ok and I think significant number of people use it that way. Don’t forget Sherri Shepard case.
        And sorry, but to say 4500$ a month is great pay for risking your life(don’t forget birth mortality rates in usa!), potentially ruining your assets and giving away a child you carried for 10freaking motnhs…..I think it’s a terrible pay.
        I know people will get angry, but what is the difference between adopted child and getting your child by surrogate?

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        If everyone involved knows what they are getting into and the surrogate doesn’t do it because she desperately needs the money, I say go for it. It wouldn’t be for me but I have never really wanted kids in the first place.

        What I have a massive problem with is when the surrogate is exploited in any way. I.e. is from a developing country while the parents are not. That’s nothing but uterus shopping and it’s appalling. So yes, it can be highly questionable. I get wanting something more than anything but nobody has the right to a baby. There are limits. Sometimes shit happens and you don’t get what you want. That’s life.

      • argonaut says:

        @Geekychick you ask what the difference is between an adopted child and a child you get by surrogacy. It’s DNA and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to share that with your child.

      • FLORC says:

        Rty
        Having given birth does not mean your body is forever ruined. Geez. And while that might carry weight with you many surrogates choose this regardless of vanity. It’s not for you. Don’t do it.

        Geeky
        Commenters do not represent the majority. Or even any part. They, as far as we know, are 14 year old boys.
        And your argument can be applied to anyone who becomes pregnant. Why do it? It could kill you. Just don’t get pregnant. Also, the rates are not terrible when you factor in prenatal care and screenings. I find that argument to be baseless.

        Lastly… adoption vs surrogacy. It’s a choice and it’s no one’s place to say you should adopt vs have a biological child. That’s a personal. And it’s far too complicated to be the same difference.

        A woman and her husband that are 2 not well liked celebs chose surrogacy after 2 difficult pregnancies. If this was a same sex couple. A lesbian couple that could carry their own. This would be discussed the same way. It would be praised. The difference is kk and kw are not liked.

      • Ange says:

        I mentioned this on the Beyonce thread but this is again for Otaku:

        As a feminist I can take issue with women renting out their bodies because their opportunities are so limited they feel this is the only way to provide for their families. Feminism isn’t just so white affluent women can have babies. I agree it’s their *choice* to do so but it isn’t a choice free from context.

        In this instance I’m sure the woman isn’t in this situation personally but it’s a troubling aspect when you bring in people hiring surrogates from third world countries etc.

      • wannaBeWoke says:

        I suppose it’s the last thing a woman can sell- but a child is tied to the soul. I sound rather religion-y, but I simply question the NEED to sell. There must be a better way to distibute wealth. Sigh.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        It’s about control and people’s own personal views about what is and isn’t a ‘morally right’ decision for women to be allowed to make about their own bodies, not feminism. The same people who are not ethically opposed to non-wealthy people renting their bodies to shitty minimum-wage jobs for money (or high-paying but physically demanding jobs), renting out their bodies to careers as wrestlers or other rough sports for money, or getting money from blood donations suspiciously change their tune whenever the subject has to do with women, fertility/and or sex.
        Both the left and the right need to stop using ‘feminism’ or ‘concern for women’ as an excuse to limit women’s choices and reproductive freedom. (And I’m hardly just focused on the affluent women who want babies in this. It’s equally- if not more- about the right of women to choose to be surrogates and not have a reproductive right taken away from them just because of the ‘beliefs’ of others or be undermined for their decision). Just coming right out and saying “I don’t give a shit about women’s bodily autonomy when they use it in a way that goes against my ‘sacred’ personal beliefs about what certain things should and shouldn’t be for” is a lot more honest than trying to make those stances charitable and pro-women.

      • Ange says:

        So you’re all for women doing this but not open to expanding the economic culture where women don’t feel like they *have* to do this? In Thailand a woman fell pregnant with twins as a surrogate for a wealthy Australian couple and when they found out one had downs syndrome they ordered her to abort it. She couldn’t do it so the couple flew to Thailand, picked up the non-down syndrome baby and left her with the other one. She could barely afford to keep it. Turns out the father also has old child sex charges to his name.

        So tell me, where has having this choice helped that poor Thai woman? I’m sure she doesn’t feel particularly empowered right now. She made an economic decision and had her bodily autonomy dictated by the rich white family, so again: what is choice without context? By all means allow surrogacy but stop making poor women’s bodies a commodity. Do it for free or not at all – THAT is true choice.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        “Either do it for free, or don’t do it at all. That’s real choice. ” Well, at least now you’re being honest about your intent: ‘Real Choice’ to you is only choice that happens for motives YOU, personally, approve of. Not much different from republicans who try to screech about casual sex and homosexuality being wrong, invalid choices because they’re not for a pre-approved of reason like pro-creation, marriage, or love. Guess what? Every poor or middle class woman who chooses to get an abortion or hysterectomy to spare herself the expense of raising a child is a woman who’s not ‘doing it for free’: In the U.S. it costs almost a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child for 17 years. In other words, they’re profiting off their bodies and reproductive choices too, just at a slower rate. I’d love to see you or anyone else try to spin poor/middle-class women getting abortions/getting a hysterectomy/getting an IUD in order to have more money for themselves as an ‘invalid choice’ that “feminism” gives you the right to object to. “Either do it for free, or don’t do it at all”, right? Pretty soon their will be people insisting that their objections to poor/ middle class women’s decision to enter the workforce is somehow ‘feminist’ or pro-woman.

      • Ange says:

        I just want to know what you think of the scenario I mentioned above. Do you think your version of feminism helps that Thai woman? I’m not trying to tell them not to do it, I’m hoping for a society where women don’t HAVE to because it leads to situations like I just spoke about. How can you be ok with women’s choices being so limited they actually LOSE bodily autonomy and economic power to a rich white couple?

    • JustJen says:

      I thought the same thing. She always looked sooo miserable when pregnant. I can relate, so did I (which is why we were one and done).

      BUT- $4K if she loses reproductive organs???? Wha????

    • loveotterly says:

      I don’t think she’s physically capable of carrying another baby.

      • FLORC says:

        I suspect that’s possible. Or a condition was discovered her pregnancies moving forth would be high risk.

        Her pregnancies looked rough and the 2nd had real complications. Either shes avoiding the possibility pf a miscarriage, not wanting to be uncomfortable for a 3rd time, or has a high likelihood she couldn’t carry to term
        Whatever the reason. It’s her reason.

    • jwoolman says:

      Kim hated being pregnant and hardly noticed her first-born for the first year or so except when she spotted a camera. But now she claims she had a breakdown when surprise, surprise – they absolutely had to use a surrogate (or so she claims)? Why not just be honest and say she just didn’t want to go through another pregnancy, it was too hard on her body both during and after, but for some unfathomable reason wanted another accessory, I mean, kid?

      Maybe Kim has had an awakening since the robbery and really does appreciate her kids more now than she acted after Nori was born. But Kanye has a lot of problems to deal with and spends very little time with his wife and children as it is, so it seems rather unwise to bring yet another child into this odd marriage. I suppose Kim figures they can always hire more nannies so it isn’t any real extra work for her.

      I suppose her mother might be looking ahead to another The Three Siblings reality show in the near future. Bet they try it by the time Nori is a teenager, of course to jumpstart her career as a singer/model/rapper/genius. Occasionally guest starring The Three Cousins, depending on how photogenic they are by then.

  3. Amelie says:

    Hopefully they don’t leak the surrogate’s identity! We don’t need her name. Can you imagine the paparazzi following her everywhere. If the surrogacy works, she doesn’t need the whole world knowing who she is.

  4. Word says:

    $4500 a month seems rather cheap to carry Damien.

    • Clare says:

      I’m sorry but that is really out of order. Doesn’t matter what you think of the parents – doesn’t matter how utterly shit you think they arr – you are being unnecessarily hateful towards a child. Its mean. These kids don’t get to choose who their parents are – the last thing they need is people mocking them and equating them to the bloody devil.

      • TyrantDestroyed says:

        I have to agree with Clare on this. It was unnecessarily rude. The child is not even here and people is assuming is evil just because of the parents. That’s unfortunate.
        I am glad that the couple is open about the surrogacy option. Having alternative methods to complete your family such as assisted fertility, surrogacy or adoption doesn’t have to be a taboo in today’s world.

    • lizzie says:

      what “evil” thing have kim and kanye or their children done? seriously – they are vapid and self aggrandizing but hardly the devil. get a grip.

      • jwoolman says:

        I still remember how Kim treated Nori before she became cute enough, all the fake bonding photos and the kid with a “who the heck are you?” look on her face. Kim has some real relationship issues that affect how she treats her mother, her sisters and brother, her kids, her husband, and everybody else. And even if she is more home-focused now since the traumatic robbery, she still has those issues and in addition dealing with Kanye must be very difficult when he’s actually around for both her and the children (more so as they age).

        They don’t have the financial worries that so many other parents have and hopefully all the kids will have good nannies to help fill in the gaps, but still it’s sad. Can they handle the emotional needs of the two children they have already? They haven’t even hit the really hard ages yet. Are the kids going to end up like so many rich celebrity progeny, uneducated, emotionally stunted, addicted and bored?

        Plenty of people end up with more unplanned children than they can comfortably handle for many reasons and just deal with it (or not…) with far fewer resources. But Kim didn’t accidentally get a little surprise. She’s taking extreme measures to have a third child, which she can do because of her wealth. Usually people with all the fertility issues that she claimed (remember the crisis of the week, with contradictory conditions?) would be overjoyed to have the two kids they already have. She’s not a naturally nurturing person, either. That’s been obvious throughout their pseudoreality show. (Some people should have loads of kids because they’re so great at parenting, but Kim and Kanye aren’t really in that category.) It’s reasonable to question her motivation. Is this really Kanye’s idea? Is it a play for ratings? The second pregnancy seemed driven by Kanye who wanted a male heir (hence the gender selection disguised as fertility issues). What is driving the third one?

        The surrogacy itself is not the issue here. If someone wants to do it and Kim can compensate her properly for her time and risk, that’s fine. I’m surprised she didn’t do it for the second child. Although I think the contract needs more work in the part dealing with complications – some can cause long-term problems and this is not a country to trust when it comes to covering medical costs.

    • Word says:

      Was Damien a real person? Take your silly sancti act away from here. Oloshi

    • chrissy says:

      The Damien comment was obviously a joke and made me chuckle.

      And $4,500 per month DEFINITELY seems low for gestating someone else’s baby. I’m not well versed on the going rate but always assumed the total cost was in the 6-figures, not $45k.

      • Zaratustra says:

        Costs for surrogate pregnancies depend.
        It depends on where the surrogate mother lives. If it is in a country like India the price range seems to be in the lower five figures.

        There doesn’t really seem to be any kind of tarif how much a surrogate should get paid.

    • Meredith says:

      I appreciated your joke. People seem to have selective sanctimony sometimes.

      Bobby Finger at Jezebel made a good point that for people who make millions off of their app alone, $45,000 seems like a low ball. To me, $45,000 to be a surrogate definitely doesn’t seem worth it.

      • Zaratustra says:

        Exactly.
        And if you think for whom $ 45,000 is enough to be a surrogate mother you can see the implications: likely women from the lower pay ranks will volunteer. The high flying city lawyer won’t apply to be a surrogate mother. Likely she will pay a surrogate mother. And one day it will be like: If a pregnancy harms your career why don’t you get a surrogate? Kind of like: If you don’t have bread then why don’t you eat cake?

      • flybaby says:

        I don’t know if its legal to “pay”a surrogate to have a baby. I think you can just cover their experiences. But then I live in another country so I could totally have madethat up. No doubt the fees are set by the agency and don’t vary based on who’s baby it is.

      • Erinn says:

        flybaby – pretty sure you can’t do that sort of thing in Canada – not sure about the US. Can’t give any monetary or otherwise sort of funds towards the bio parents when adopting either.

      • Nicole Savannah, GA says:

        I think 45k is incredibly low.

    • Tanakasan says:

      HAHAHAHA! And I can’t believe you being told you are being “mean” to a theoretical child who may never actually exist.

    • Frigga says:

      XD that was a good one, to those of us with a sense of humor.

    • Anna says:

      For a second I freaked, because I was like man! I have a son named Damien, the last thing I want is being Armenian, and having a Kardashian kid named Damien as well. He and Kourtney’s kid Mason already look so much alike.

      ***For the record – Yes we are horror movie nerds and love the Omen, but he was named after Damien the twin saint of healing since he helped heal my endometriosis for the time being after 2 years of fertility, and partially after Damian Wayne Batman’s son. His middle name is wayne, and my husband is a comic book nerd.

    • Pandy says:

      ha ha ha – good one!!! I suspect she’s earning closer to a half mill to carry that spawn. It’s a minimum of $100,00 I thought I read yesterday for celebrity surrogates? Kim finally finished all of her lipo and was humiliated by her cellulite butt shots so no way she’d do another preggo round. And of course, she’d have to sleep with Kanye to get pregnant and they’re never together anymore are they?

  5. Libra girl says:

    Aww good for them. I can’t judge people who are trying to have a child. Hopefully it all runs smoothly and the girl and baby are healthy.

  6. Cali says:

    Oh please. They are not sharing it up front to prevent leaks. They are doing it for the EXTRA attention. Nine extra months of headlines and attention. She’s doing anything lately to get press and the interest seems like it’s been dwindling, no matter how hard she tries. And god forbid Beyonce steal the limelight with her twins. I’m sure Kimmie’s having triplets now. Snore.

    Your husband just had a mental breakdown, so what better time to bring another baby into the mix? SMH.

  7. thaisajs says:

    She has some pretty serious medical issues that would make it dangerous for her to carry another kid. I had a placenta issue, too, when I was pregnant although it was nothing as serious as what she had. It was scary as heck. If they’ve got the money to do this, more power to them.

    • AnnaKist says:

      She may or may not have medical issues – oplacenta accreta, as has been mentioned. We only have Kim’s word for it, and Kim tells lies.

    • Snowflake says:

      I don’t believe she has that condition. I also dont believe shes had 2 surgeries on her uterus. I think she is just saying that. Imo

    • rty says:

      She was also on TV in the past few days telling everyone how those disastrous candid bikini pics were photoshopped, so…

    • MaybeTomorrow says:

      I’m suspicious as well. All her “woe is me, I have so many pregnancy related medical issues” did not stop her from dressing in crazy outfits that did not look HELPFUL to a pregnancy to be comfortable, she ran all over the world, and we know they lie and exaggerate for the show. Sorry, I don’t trust her, Sure, there may be concerns that are real……but she’s cried wolf and lied so often, I don’t believe or trust easily what she says, She may just be hiring s surrogate out of convenience and great (ha) TV story line telling, I wouldn’t put that past her.

  8. me says:

    It will be a girl as Kim said she wants another girl. They don’t care about “leaks”. They told TMZ because this family loves attention. How much time do these two spend with the two kids they already have? Kim even said she was worried she wouldn’t love the surrogate baby as much as the ones she carried. I don’t know.

    • jwoolman says:

      Kim didn’t really bond well with Nori for almost two years. The child had trouble remembering who she was and was very unresponsive in the staged photos. Nori was very responsive when with people she actually knew, such as nannies and her aunts Khloe and Kourtney, both as an infant and as a toddler. In both pregnancies, Kim hardly mentioned the child inside her until a lot of people pointed it out, such as when she was allegedly chased by paps or talking about all the physical discomfort. She learned to say it was all worth it for the end result, but her natural approach was that it was all about her.

      So Kim does seem to have a bonding problem in general. She got more interested in Nori when the child could walk and talk, and of course when she turned out so photogenic. Don’t know if she’s doing better with Saint. She’s probably around him more since the robbery and at his age, just being present is important for bonding.

      Anyway, without being worn out by the pregnancy and birth and the effort to quickly get her body back to where it was. maybe Kim will actually find it easier to bond with baby #3. I don’t think pregnancy did it for her. She might as well have had a basketball inside her.

  9. They have beautiful children. I wish nothing but the best for the West family.

  10. QQ says:

    I ONLY have been telling you all this was gonna happen for about….. ummmm however old the last kid is… I literally have been saying this for a smooth ass year! Much like what I told you the Lamar season was gonna be, and this season… and I don’t even have a crystal Ball!

    She has laid the groundwork for this for a while, if it was someone else i’d be nonplussed in that .. Whatever Rich Lady, you want and can afford a baby? I .. Guess??? this being who it is, Full on Commodification of Motherhood coming to us this winter on E!

  11. Riri says:

    Losing reproductive organs can happen for example, during a c section complication where they would need to remove the uterus ( at least they explained that to me as a possible complication before my c section). 4 k doesn’t seem enough for that though…

  12. Lightpurple says:

    A very special episode of KUWTK, we meet the candidates for surrogate and watch Kim choose. Next episode- the implantation!

    Really bad move to bring a new baby into a rocky marriage. What if they split before the birth? What a mess all around.

  13. Tan says:

    Do we really need another manifestation of that genetic combination?

    In a world where resources are decreasing exponentially, entropy is increasing , I find it interesting that people actually plan to employ surrogates to have a third or fourth child .

    Soon we will be achieving the dystopian society where only the rich is capable of procreating and sustaining offsprings and from there even further deterioration.

  14. Honey Bear says:

    Isn’t it cute that you can just pay someone to carry your child these days? Modern medicine should not be used for reproductive convenience. That’s my ethical stance. If nature wanted you to have children, it should happen naturally.

    • Clare says:

      So you are agaisnt the use of IVF and similar treatments, if a woman can’t have children ‘naturally’?

      What about men who aren’t in a relationship with a woman, to carry their magical ‘natural’ child?

      My ethical stance? People should be able to have children in any way that works for them – as long as no one is being exploited and the child is raised with love and care. Lets not forget that the desire and ability to raise a child does not begin and end with the biological ability/desire to gestate one.

      • rty says:

        >So you are agaisnt the use of IVF and similar treatments, if a woman can’t have children ‘naturally’?

        >What about men who aren’t in a relationship with a woman, to carry their magical ‘natural’ child?

        You know, there’s plenty of kids out there who could be adopted. I know – costs, laws, red tape, all that. But from the nature’s point of view, it’s not really a problem.

      • Tan says:

        I prefer adoption a lot, but frankly a lot of people even to this day prefer their own genetic progenies. People want to pass their genes over and ivf and surrogacy makes that happen to a lot of couples. I am glad the choice exist. To be honesy, a large portion of the population, who do not have the money cannot afford the choice, or some pour their life savings in them. But end of the day, no one can force others to make a choice. Its upto everyone. Personally in this world of decreasing resources I would not go beyond having more than two children, and possibly one of them adopted. But that’s my choice.

      • jwoolman says:

        But how common is it to use a surrogate for a third child? I really don’t know. It’s so expensive, most people would hardly be able to afford one time (people do spend that much on adoption sometimes, so I guess if you really want it then it’s like borrowing for a house, you get a long-term loan). But maybe it’s common among the rich and especially rich women whose careers require them to look very not-pregnant.

        In Kim’s case, her husband’s issues might be an obstacle to regular adoption. That happened with a friend whose husband was increasingly unstable. She wanted kids and had planned to adopt. But it really wasn’t feasible with his problems that got worse with age. Which is an argument against surrogacy or just stopping contraception to get a third child, of course.

    • Cleo says:

      I agree 100% with Clare. And what do you mean by “naturally”? Are you also saying adoption is off-limits, since the child wouldn’t be biologically (“naturally”) related to the parents?

      • Alisha says:

        If they desperately want a child and have love to give, why not just adopt then? I understand how that can be difficult for regular folks but celebs seem to have different rules and these two can certainly afford it.

        In general I don’t care what people do with their lives, but surrogacy and IVF are not cheap, and some of the people who do them probably could adopt if they wanted. There are plenty of children out there already who need homes, and for people who could adopt but would rather force the issue via IVF or Surrogacy, it seems sad to me. There’s a kid out there who is missing out on a home because some people would prefer their own genetic material.

      • Babs says:

        I agree with Alisha. Maybe I’m biased because in my country surrogacy is forbidden. We consider there’s no such thing as a right to birth. But apart from that, people who can afford a surrogate service can adopt, moreso celebrities, and moreso celebrities who already have bio kids. There’s a lot of kids in foster care who could be adopted and are not.

      • Clare says:

        @Alisha – On a personal level I actually agree with you, too. But demonizing people for using medical advancement to have a child isn’t right, either. People want to have biological children for lots of reasons – labeling them ‘unnatural’, is unfair and potentially really hurtful.

    • lala says:

      HoneyBear – really? that was lacking a bit of compassion, yikes.

      • Alisha says:

        @clare – yes the wording on that statement was terrible. And as I stated above, I definitely understand why adoption won’t work for everyone. But people like Kim and Kanye and Ronaldo – it just smacks of arrogance to me. Which I have absolutely nothing to base that on other than my personal feelings about them. But in general, I wish more people that are in a position to adopt, would.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      So by your argument gay men or lesbian women should not be able to have children?

    • LizLemonGotMarried says:

      I am sitting here unable to have a second child. I lost my second son in a second trimester miscarriage last year. We have the financial means to give a child an amazing upbringing, and my son is begging for a sibling, and the adoption process just looms in front of me, taunting me because I KNOW this will be hell on earth. I was just sitting here thinking, I wonder if I should just pay for a surrogate-pull the money out of investments-and then I scroll down and see a post like yours, telling people like me that nature doesn’t want us to have children. That’s… pretty damn callous.

      • detritus says:

        Do what you need to grow your family, and don’t listen to the busy bodies. As long as you are treating the surrogate well, everyone wins.

        I’m sorry you had to read a lot of these comments. A baby through IVF or surrogacy or adoption is still a natural baby.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        Ignore the comment. You are absolutely right to want to expand your family by whatever means you need to. I’m wishing you good luck.

      • Frigga says:

        If it is in your means to have a surrogate, then that is your right. Don’t let other people’s holier than thou opinions get in the way of what you want. Not everyone wants to adopt, not everyone has to.

      • AnneC says:

        Comments sections on the internet are usually dumpster fires of crazy. This one is a lot better (except for Will/Kate hate which is bonkers off the charts) then most. However someone giving their random probably not very thought out opinion during their lunch break should not be ANY KIND OF REASON to make decisions in your personal life. Go for it. I’ve got 2 grown up boys, had 2 or 3 miscarriages. Use modern medicine and celebrate that we live in a time where women don’t die in childbirth constantly like before “modern” medicine.

      • LizLemonGotMarried says:

        Believe me, personal life decisions will not be made or broken here. It just touched a nerve-we’ve been struggling with these decisions the last few days because the adoption journey has felt so overwhelming lately, and I was wondering if perhaps surrogacy would be an easier way out, albeit just as costly. People feel so free to throw their comments about how if you can’t get pregnant naturally, nature doesn’t want you to have kids down on an internet page…like damn…

      • jwoolman says:

        It might be financially six of one, half dozen of another. Adoptions can be very expensive, depending on how you want to do it. And yes, the process is long and hard for adoption in many countries (definitely in the US and Canada) and people can be rejected for reasons that won’t matter if it’s your own DNA. This is what drives people to foreign adoptions, which are sometimes simpler although they have their own intrinsic problems.

      • justwastingtime says:

        Please don’t worry about what people tell you about surrogacy or adoption on the internet or in real life (including me of course)

        My family was initially very resistant when we told them we were adopting. I was told it would ruin my older child’s life, now most of them adore my younger one and would be indignant if I reminded them of their earlier views.

        Make a reasoned decision based on what risks you can tolerate. BTW all the people I know who have done surrogacy are very happy as are the people I know who have adopted.

        Just reach out to as many people you can who have gone the path you choose and and get their stories and advice. Sending good and healing thoughts your way.

    • anonymous says:

      I 100% agree with Alisha and Honey Bear.

      • anonymous says:

        Some people feel entilted to have everything in life. That’s the society we live in nowadays anyway. For me Adoption exists for a reason. Yes of course, I would love to have and be able to carry my children but If I can’t, I will definitely adopt. There is millions of orphans in the system waiting to have families. Kim and Kayne can afford a surogated that will be well taken care off but they are a minority. I am thinking about the thousands of women sometimes teenagers in third word countries being exploited and risking their life in “surogates factories” but let’s keep pretending nothing is happening there.

      • detritus says:

        I see.
        So you haven’t even been faced with that choice, yet you are ready to judge others who have been through it.
        Strong stance there.

      • Erinn says:

        Hope you never have heart complications. If you were meant to live – you would be able to heal your heart naturally. Hope you never have gotten on a plane – if you were meant to travel, nature would have allowed you to grow wings.

      • Liberty says:

        Erinn, your comments here are superb.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Karen Handel, is that really you?

    • daisy says:

      Really! it was well know that the doctors advised her no to carry another baby and suggested a surrogate. Depending where you live adoption can be near impossible.

    • Alexandria says:

      It (and anything) is exploitative when one or both parties exploit it. If they can afford love and time for a child, AND a surrogate is fairly compensated and treated with compassion, I have no issues with surrogacy. So what if there’s money involved? That’s the least a couple can offer throughout the pregnancy.

    • Tanakasan says:

      That’s really interesting. I was just thinking the other day how humans seem to be the only species who work around biological impediments that should inhibit procreation. Evolutionarily, are we weakening our genetic future? It’s like our human compassion is evolving to be more important than our primal impulses.

      • detritus says:

        my favorite quote on the naturalistic fallacy (beliving natural is best)

        I want to live just like my paleo ancestors did. Eating only raw local food, eschewing vaccinations and dying at the grand old age of ‘died in childbirth’

        Natural is a marketing term, and is an idiotic result of too much free time, ego and privilege.

        Most of the people judging someone for their choice probably had an epidural, blood transfusion and antibiotics. All ‘unnatural’. Maybe even had a c-section, which hell, if we go natural would not be allowed, and could mean both mother and baby die. It’s ok for them, but not for someone to choose a different method.

      • Erinn says:

        “humans seem to be the only species who work around biological impediments that should inhibit procreation”

        Strange isn’t it? Why aren’t goldfish just walking into a fertility clinic? It must be because they’re worried about their genetic futures rather than the fact that they don’t even have hands to open a door, let alone an advanced society that has little tiny goldfish hospitals.

      • Tanakasan says:

        Forgive me if my words were not clear. I was meaning to say that it it wonderful to be a human and not an animal. Compassion to me is one of the great traits of an advanced society, and part of natural evolution. I was trying to attempt discourse with the OP without resorting to sarcasm, which I find to be dishonest.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @detritus–The “naturalistic fallacy”—damn straight. I agree with every word you wrote about that.

      • Andrea says:

        @detritus – your comments have made my day. Everything you said.

    • Tourmaline says:

      For those who say things like “If Nature wanted you to have a baby, you would have one”:

      Hope you don’t have or ever need, say, eyeglasses. If “Nature” wanted you to see well, it would have given you better eyes.

      And I’m darn sure that there are PLENTY of parents out there who “Nature” saw fit to “give” babies to that are absolutely awful parents.

  15. Radley says:

    I agree that Kim’s life is her business so she’s not sharing in the interest of openness. It’s all calculated PR. In fact, I do think that a few of the next gen Kardashian clan were conceived with storyline in mind.

  16. Taiss says:

    After Khloe admitted to lying about her fertility issues, I don’t believe any medical issues the kardashians could have. Bunch liars. Nothing is sacred to them.

  17. tw says:

    She and Kourtney keep bringing children into unstable relationships.

  18. Marigold says:

    She does not currently suffer from placenta accreta, People. You can only have it if you are pregnant and have a placenta. As far as I know, she had it with North but I never heard anything about her having it with Saint. Her risk of having it again is higher, though, which is likely why she is choosing the surrogacy route (among other reasons, I’m sure). I had it with my last (undiagnosed) and I would never choose to be pregnant again, personally.

    • SoulSPA says:

      I wish the celebs didn’t say anything about such personal medical issues unless there is a higher cause so to speak. For raising awareness in an intelligent way. Nevertheless, they have access to the best medical care money can buy. Raising awareness alone would not bring systemic changes in the way patients are treated, nor in affordable quality medical care. Unfortunately.

  19. Tanakasan says:

    Wasn’t the second kid via surrogate? She didn’t blow up like she did with her first.

  20. Disco Dancer says:

    Kimye, why don’t you guys actually raise the two kids you already have? Be firm yet loving and present parents? Of course you want to have more kids: as you don’t have to look after them, you can get media attention, you have more kids to pimp out in the future, and more child support money from Kanye when
    You decide he is no longer worth anything to your blood sucking leech of a family.

  21. AMAZON says:

    “Oloshi”??? This Nigerian girl here is choking with laughter!!! @Word and @Scar

  22. Calla Lily says:

    Her new highlighting kits seem so overpriced to me at $48 each. Her kkwbeauty website just went live and the light and medium kits are already sold out. I just don’t see the appeal when you can get a much nicer Anastasia kit for about the same price as her cheap looking two sticks plus applicator. It’s a real stretch to call that a “kit.”

    • AnnaKist says:

      Calla Lily, they’re likely doing the same as with her little sister’s kits – making and offering them in very limited numbers. That way, they can crow about them being sold out in the first day/week. This strategy creates exclusivity and whips up extra interest to buy. It’s an old trick. Why anyone would throw their hard-earned cash (I highly doubt moneyed women would buy their cheaply made but overpriced beauty kits) at the KardiJenners is beyond me.

  23. HK9 says:

    My first thought was-they’re actually going to stay married long enough to produce a third human being?? Well, I guess I’ll have to eat my hat.

  24. Tess says:

    I imagine it takes some time for this sort of arrangement and weren’t they on the brink of divorce after Kanye’s breakdown? It wouldn’t be the worst thing for them to wait a bit more, put a bit more time between another baby and everything that’s happened in the past year just for emotional stability’s sake. Otherwise it just looks like they’re eager to copy Beyoncé and Jay-Z or like Kim just wants her 3rd at any cost (before she I guess dumps Kanye?)

  25. Ayra. says:

    They truly have no care for Kanye’s mental health, do they… anything for ratings, I guess.

    Also, I hope this isnt cause for them to get more attention, please don’t.

    • jwoolman says:

      I don’t know if Kim has changed in this matter, but Kanye’s friends seemed to choose a time for their intervention when Kim and the other Kardashians were out of town. Kim came right back, but it was widely believed that the K’s were avoiding getting him medical help and would have tried to block it. He had been losing it for quite a while. It’s possible they did this out of ignorance, though. Families can be in denial or just not sure what to do. But Kim herself has been pretty callous about her brother’s issues. Maybe she started seeing things better when she herself needed intensive therapy after the traumatic robbery in Paris. But she still was not pushing to get Kanye help as far as we know, unless she uncharacteristically kept such concerns private.

  26. Bobbysue says:

    Was Kim not experiencing problems with the rear end due to many wide and various enhancements which were ravaged by gravity? Or was Kanye the one experiencing the problems with the lack of aesthetics of her cottage cheesy posterior droopage?

  27. enora says:

    using someonelse’s body is slavery….

    • detritus says:

      If they are not paid for it or coerced.
      next.

    • Lee1 says:

      Absolutely not. When someone makes a free choice to use their body for any sort of work and they are fairly compensated for said work with certain personal and workers protections, that is not slavery. People are hired for the abilities of their physical bodies all the time. Are housekeepers slaves? How about coal miners? Or is it only when you personally disapprove of the way in which a person (almost always a woman I should add) is choosing to use her body for work?

      People really need to stop comparing things to slavery when they are not literally forms of slavery.

  28. Zara says:

    What is the big deal!? If they want another baby and cannot carry it themselves it’s amazing to have the option of surrogacy! They adore their children and can provide amply for them so it’s a no brainer, plus the surrogate is well paid, it’s a win win.
    I only wish there were surrogacy options for less wealthy people to access 😔

  29. Calla Lily says:

    It’s not the surrogacy that’s the issue – it’s why are they bringing a 3rd child into an already-strained marriage when the father is struggling with serious mental health issues? Can’t they focus on enjoying their current kids and give him time to focus on his mental health?

  30. shannon says:

    I don’t see the big deal. It’s their choice. But I’d want a little more than $4,000 compensation for a reproductive organ if it were me.

  31. Mylene says:

    i saw somes pictures with Kanye, Kim and North at a wedding yesterday, If u don’t know her you will not notice but the nannie (a young one we saw with north) was site just after Kim and she’s pregger ………
    Maybe they hire her ??? That make sense ?
    You can see the picture on the daily mail

  32. bamer says:

    Of all the lengths people go to, to have a child, surrogacy seems like a decent choice. What I question is, why go to such lengths at all? Why is it so important for a particular person to procreate? Esp. in this case…for a third time? If you already have two, and there are billions of us here already, the only logical explanation for wanting that is ego. Guess what? You are not that special! And even your kid, when it eventually arrives, will think this about you also!

  33. Idkatall says:

    You know what they say in my country… people who are not so bright make more children. 3 is too much, in my opinion.