Kim Kardashian & Kanye’s fourth child, a boy, was born via gestational carrier (update)

Kanye West, Kim Kardashian West at arriv...

On Met Gala night, there were several stories about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West’s gestational carrier going into labor. Kim tweeted a denial before she left for the Met Gala, and told people that of course she wouldn’t even go to the gala if her carrier was in labor. Kim was there in the hospital for Chicago’s birth by gestational carrier too, and as it turns out, those reports about Baby #4 were only a few days off. Last night, Kim and Kanye’s carrier went into labor in Chicago. Kim and Ye are there now.

Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are about to be the proud parents of a brand spankin’ new baby boy — their surrogate’s in labor!!! Our sources say mom and dad were at the hospital Thursday night with the surrogate. Don’t know for sure if they’ll be in the delivery room, but she was the last time around for the birth of Chicago.

As we reported … KW and KK hired a new surrogate to carry their fourth kid to term — not because they were dissatisfied with the last one … she was simply unavailable. The woman — who was in her early 20s — had her own child this past December … less than 12 months after popping out baby Chicago. As a result … the couple had to go with another surrogate. This new surrogate’s profile never became clear … but ya gotta imagine mom and dad went with someone who was equally capable.

Kim and Kanye used a leftover embryo they created to bring this newest baby to life. He’ll join three siblings — North, Saint and Chi — as the sixth member of the family.

[From TMZ]

I am happy for Kim and Kanye, I guess. No, I’m happy for them, especially Kim. She wanted four kids and I think she’ll probably stop now. Fingers crossed that baby boy Kardashian-West has a safe journey and it born healthy and happy. Any final guesses for the name? I will DIE if she goes for Archie Robert Kardashian-West, OMFG. She won’t though. She’ll probably go single-syllable, or an Armenian name which can be made into a cute nickname. I’m still keen on Petros West.

Meanwhile, Kris Jenner was taping Ellen yesterday and Kourtney surprised her with six grandkids and Kris didn’t even know that Kim’s surrogate went into labor:

UPDATE: Kim tweeted that Baby Boy Kardashian-West is here:

met gala 2019 NY

Photos courtesy of WENN and Avalon Red.

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

94 Responses to “Kim Kardashian & Kanye’s fourth child, a boy, was born via gestational carrier (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cidy says:

    Awww congrats to them. New babies are always good news.

  2. Seraphina says:

    The way that reads makes it sound so cold and clinical. Why can’t Kim carry the baby. I don’t know many details about Kim’s life so if someone could please explain. Thanks.

    A safe and healthy delivery and baby.

    • Monicack says:

      Kim’s reasons for her birth plan are her reasons.

    • Elisabeth says:

      from what I have read…she had extremely difficult pregnancies with North and Saint and decided to use a surrogate

    • CROWHOOD says:

      There are many reasons you can judge Kim Kardashian however she appeared to have very difficult pregnancies. There were, if I recall, some health issues throughout that made pregnancies 3 and 4 not a possibility for her. And they take great pains to keep their carriers names and identities out of the press, they are present for the births, and they keep it to themselves (as much as this family
      Does with anything).

    • Seraphina says:

      Thank you! I didn’t know her pregnancies had any issues. Was in the dark about this family.

      • Tris says:

        And I’m sure vanity (and plastic surgery complications) have nothing to do with it! 🙄

      • Alissa says:

        that seems unfair, Tris. she might be vain but from all accounts for pregnancies were very difficult with a lot of health issues. and quite frankly if she didn’t want to get pregnant again but had the ability to get it gestational carrier even if it was just because of her looks, that’s perfectly fine too.

      • Ye says:

        I’m pretty sure her doctor told her she absolutely cannot carry any more, she could bleed to death.

      • babsjohnson says:

        So what if she’s vain. Her body is her bread and butter plus she was humiliated to death when she did carry. She put on the work to have the body she has know (surgery is work and it’s not easy), no wonder she doesn’t want to ruin it all.

      • Monicack says:

        Whatever her reasons Kim has full agency over them. Stop virtue signalling another woman’s choices.

      • BANANIE says:

        @babsjohnson — this is not meant to be snark, but how is surgery any work? I guess there’s recovery time, but it’s nowhere near the same amount of effort as eating clean, much less exercising. It is a lazy pursuit for people who don’t want to do the work or have unrealistic expectations.

      • ByTheSea says:

        Meh, one can scoff at overdone plastic surgery and vapidity. She basically looks deformed these days. “Virtue signaling” is heading into over-use…

      • Marigold says:

        She had pre-e with her first and placenta accreta with her second. Accreta is where the placenta puts down roots in your uterus making any delivery dangerous because it can lead to hemorrhage (which is what happened to her with Saint) and even death-hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of maternal death the world over. Another pregnancy would be risky for a variety of reasons. I am no Kim fan but having had the exact same thing happen with my second, I am also choosing to never be pregnant again and absolutely respect her choice.

        ETA: people can and do deliver healthy babies with accreta but there is inherent risk and when you already have children at home, that risk can seem pretty high

    • Wilady says:

      People use them and have every right to, no matter the reason.

      • Carli says:

        Agreed. What a woman does with or doesn’t do with her body is her choice.

      • anya-o says:

        Do people really have every right to other women’s bodies?

      • Anastasia says:

        @anya-o: You make it sound as if the gestational carrier was forced at gunpoint into this. She wasn’t. She agreed to carry their baby (biologically completely theirs) for them. And I’m sure she’s being compensated nicely.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        That’s a lovely strawman, ana-yo.

      • A says:

        @otaku fairy, I’m not criticizing Kim at all, but to bring up the issues around surrogacy isn’t a straw man. Gestational carriers don’t have to be forced at gunpoint in order for us to discuss the real ways in which the industry is often predicated on exploiting poor women’s bodies.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        No, but implying that those who aren’t opposed to surrogacy are saying that it’s ok to do whatever to a woman’s body (as Anayo did) definitely is a strawman.

      • Ash says:

        I completely agree that I have no issue with using a gestational carrier or surrogate. If I had the means, I would do so myself. I had a horrendous pregnancy and my son and I nearly died during childbirth. I would never side eye another’s decision to want another child but not want to/cannot carry the baby.

    • boredblond says:

      The term gestational carrier sounds robotic, like a way to reduce the woman carrying a child to a walking incubator. Whether she has a DNA link or not, you develop another kind of link during pregnancy. Cold.

      • Elisabeth says:

        so many women who struggle with infertility benefit from surrogacy. Become mothers when before it would be adoption or nothing.

    • Zazu says:

      She had preeclampsia and placenta accreta.
      “Placenta accreta happens when the blood vessels and other parts of the placenta grow too deeply into a woman’s uterine wall, the Mayo Clinic says. The placenta usually detaches from a woman’s uterine wall after she gives birth. But with placenta accreta, a part (or all) of a woman’s placenta stays attached, Dr. Cackovic explains. This can cause a woman to have extreme blood loss after she gives birth and can even result in a hysterectomy to save the mother’s life” according to Self magazine.

    • Yes Doubtful says:

      Officially, the reason is health related. Unofficially, it’s because she wants to keep her figure. It’s what makes her money.

  3. Millennial says:

    Negative Nancy over here thinks she’s cosplaying Meghan with the updates about being in labor (which were to be for the benefit of the press to get ready for the announcement).

    Give me a break. Can we not make this a thing? Updates about celebrities going into labor. Let’s just not. Post a picture to Instagram when the baby arrives and you are ready and stop there.

    • Tris says:

      Meg is a hard act to follow! I’d keep a low profile too, rather than try and whip up as much excitement as the Little Prince!

    • Becks1 says:

      Do you remember, after Will and Kate got married, Kim had that 30 second marriage to – Chris Humphries? I cant remember. Anyway, and either she or she AND People Mag billed it as “America’s Royal Wedding!!!!” And it was just like….yeah, no.

      I’m sort of surprised this isn’t being announced as America’s Royal baby, lol.

      But, snarkiness aside, I hope the woman has a safe delivery and congratulations to the growing family.

    • jen says:

      I’m right with you on this!

  4. Mia4s says:

    Does anyone know the reason why the lingo seems to be switching from “surrogate” to “gestational carrier”? I mean…surrogacy is what is happening here (someone else is having the baby in your place). To be clear I think it’s a valid and wonderful choice, just curious about the semantics.

    • Kaiser says:

      Gestational carrier is the correct term because the baby is from Kim’s egg and Kanye’s sperm. With Chicago’s birth, Kim corrected everyone but said she knew that people would still say “surrogate” even though that’s not what it is technically.

      • elimaeby says:

        Thank you for clearing this up, Kaiser. I knew there was a difference, but I kept forgetting which was which. Because it was their embryo being implanted into someone else, they are technically using a gestational carrier, versus someone else being impregnated with Kanye’s sperm. Got it.

    • BANANIE says:

      In the original definition, surrogates are women who are artificially inseminated with the father’s sperm, so it is not the mother’s biological child.

  5. Elkie says:

    Good luck Kim (& gestational carrier)!

    Five small children is a lot to deal with.

    • ByTheSea says:

      Just four. But still a lot to deal with, especially with Kanye’s issues to boot.

    • Laura says:

      That was their decision, and they have nannies, night nurses, personal assistants, housekeepers, gardeners, etc. to give them lots of help.

  6. babsjohnson says:

    I like those MET gala pics. Kim really came a long way since her flowery couch days. I know her body is basically plastic stuffed into a corset here but she’s still very pretty.

  7. Lenn says:

    Kourtney on Ellen makes me cringe every time. She is so stiff and lacking in humor or wit. The Kardashian sisters are so extremely aware of their appearance that they can never just relax and go with it.

  8. Lulu says:

    Am I the only one freaked out by the term “gestational carrier”? I know that the industry uses it to describe a woman carrying a baby that didn’t come from her own egg – but I can’t help but see it as a deliberate way to try and exclude that woman from the narrative of the child as much as possible. It’s like ‘this woman will go through pregnancy, risk the host of medical complications that come with that, have the same influx of hormones that any usual mother would, will experience the child moving inside her, will birth that child (again experiencing the usual level of risk” – and then she’ll get swept out of the picture so that the couple who essentially paid for use of her body can make sure they have legal title to the child.

    I’m not shaming Kim for not carrying another child. It doesn’t matter if it’s a matter of health or vanity; pregnancy takes an immense toll on the body and can be far more difficult than conventional images of motherhood would have you believe. But that’s exactly why I think we need to be asking about a culture that calls living women “carriers” and really wants to hammer in that they have no biological connection to the child that they carry, as if that makes any different to the infant born squalling and seeking contact with the mother who birthed them.

    It may well be that this woman really wants to help another woman have a baby and is grateful for the opportunity. That doesn’t matter. If we believe that the economic leverage has nothing to do with the bulk of women signing up for this, we need to ask why it seems so profoundly unlikely that the woman carrying Kim’s child will be on the same social level as her – or why Kourtney or Khloe would be certainly not signing up to such services to birth a child for another couple.

    • MD says:

      Well said. Thank you.

    • Omelette says:

      Thank you for this comment. I enjoy the escapism here but I’m always kind of freaked out when I see most people commenting on stories like these with happy congratulations to the couple, as if the “carrier” or “surrogate” wasn’t even a person to consider in this equation. You could argue that it’s just another term, just another job, everything is fine because it’s all between consenting adults, but you’re absolutely right, ignoring the economics and power dynamics behind this sort of practice is at best naive, at worse cynical.

      I have every sympathy for couples who struggle to conceive, having a sister who went through extremely painful procedures because of infertility with no happy ending in sight so far, but that isn’t Kim Kardashian’s case, since she was able to carry two pregnancies to term successfully, more than many of us can hope for. I also understand the desire for a large family, but in that case there’s always adoption (which is much easier in the United States, where private adoption is an option, than in my own country, where everything is state-run and the average waiting time for a child is seven years). But imho babies made to order is a late capitalism nightmare glamorized by the elites, where price tags are put on women’s wombs according to race and nationality, and I don’t think it does anything to alleviate the pain of those who will remain childless because they can’t afford otherwise. There’s already intense economic pressure discouraging people from having kids; if you add to that an inability to naturally conceive, dangling the image of wealthy couples who were able to shell out a hundred thousand dollars to produce a baby on the cover of magazines seems to me like it’s only rubbing salt in the wound.

      • Wisca says:

        Thank you for saying this. Positing every choice, not matter the ethical considerations, is simplistic. If a woman is poor or under educated in our market economy, is risking her life (a real possibility KK REJECTS for herself) not even worth discussing or contemplating? Is carrying other women’s babies what you want for yourself or your daughters? For some women, I guess the answer is yes, given limited opportunities in this economy. But to pretend that there is no moral quandary in these situations is frightening.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        @Wisca: But would you want your daughter doing that isn’t always a good measuring stick, because feminism sometimes involves- and in some cases, even requires-protecting the right of other women to safely do things you wouldn’t necessarily immediately do yourself or encourage your daughter to do.

      • Soupie says:

        I knew a woman 18 years ago who was extremely well off due to her husband’s career. They were and are very strong Christians and wanted to help other women. She was a gestational carrier, with 4 children of her own. I believe she did it twice. The agency then asked her to carry a baby for a big Hollywood celebrity and his wife. She turned it down because she felt the father had anger issues and felt the marriage was unstable (it was and ended in divorce).

    • otaku fairy... says:

      Unless a woman says she’s a victim, she should not be made into one to suit other people’s narratives. That’s far more dehumanizing than her job title. It’s true that she probably is not on the same socioeconomic level of a Kardashian. Does that automatically mean strangers should discuss her as if she’s an abuse victim, or as if not being wealthy means there are certain things she can’t consent to as an adult? What exactly can we non-wealthy women consent to? Is any job we take slavery? Should our supervisors be in big trouble? Should our potential abortion providers be in trouble since non-wealthy women who seek abortions are sometimes partially motivated by socioeconomic factors, or would our wanting that abortion and having the right to make that decision about our bodies be more important?
      I also always find it very creepy and disturbing when some of the same people who dehumanize and stereotype young women who don’t save sex for marriage and love make this kind of argument.

      • Omelette says:

        A capitalist and patriarchal society like ours IS unfair to women and purposely makes them more economically vulnerable than men, and the sort of practise discussed here is just a symptom of this system. Saying that doesn’t dehumanize women or turn them into helpless victims incapable of agency; it just says that the odds are stacked against them and people with means shouldn’t take advantage of that just because they can.

        Also, what I said has absolutely nothing to do with abortion so I don’t really get why you brought it up.

      • Otaku, hopefully you are correct, and in this case this woman has her own agency and isn’t doing this for the money. However, we shouldn’t just look at these situations from our western centric viewpoint. I think it’s very important it look at the effects of surrogacy globally.

        Thailand has banned surrogacy due to exploitation of women, abuse, and abandonment of children. There was an Australian couple who abandoned their child because he was born with Down’s Syndrome. Thailand is far from the only country where in recent years surrogacy has been banned. In fact most countries in the world do not allow surrogacy at all. The world over surrogacy is a situation ripe for exploitation, and trafficking of women and children. IMO, this entire situation needs to be more legislated here in the US.

        This isn’t really a critic of K&K, personally, but there are far wider ramifications of this situation being glamorized by Kim and Kanye globally. To ignore that is incredibly irresponsible. Honestly, they could have kept this more private at the very least.

      • jen says:

        what? this is a gossip blog, people take these things way too seriously!

      • Otaku fairy... says:

        Hopefully like the last time they did this, there won’t be any abuse or exploitation gone. It’s true that in some cases, this does happen. But under patriarchy childbirth, marriage, and just about everything else a woman might decide to do or not do when it comes to the body and relationships has been used as a chance to exploit or abuse. The reason why I made the abortion comparison is because that’s a reproductive rights issue that is also often influenced by a woman’s financial situation. We have to be careful about going too far in protecting women from themselves. Some things should be looked at in a case by case basis.

      • A says:

        @otaku fairy, this is a really individualistic take on how we, as women, live in society. Regardless of the personal choices I make for myself, the fact remains that I am still a part of a larger system that continues to heavily disadvantage women. Criticizing this system is not the same as criticizing individual decisions people have to make to survive within the system. The way to fix that is by creating systems that don’t allow for such disadvantages to happen in the first place. And the way to fix these problems going forward (and there are plenty of problems, just within the whole surrogacy/gestational carrier issue itself) is by creating institutions that don’t trend towards exploiting people, even by accident.

        I’m sure Kim’s gestational carrier made the choice of her own volition. But the fact remains that a lot of the women who make this decision are of a specific socioeconomic status and background. This is a valid issue to raise. No one is denying that poor women can’t have agency. But there is a big difference between exerting individual agency over your life, which anyone can do, and looking at the broader, institutional factors beyond our control that shape our lives without us having a say in it. And it’s that latter issue that makes up a big part of the gestational carrier/surrogacy debate.

        I know the questions that you’re asking in your comment were meant to be rhetorical and sarcastic. But they are actually valid issues that people do in fact grapple with on a day to day basis, because they are the fundamental underpinnings of most of our conflicts as a society. Wealth, and the lack of it, is a significant factor in shaping our lives, and it’s often something that’s really not in our control. That question about abortion that you brought up is especially prescient, given that so many people of my generation are putting off parenthood due to a lack of financial stability. There are lots of women I know who made the choice to not have children because they don’t have the means, even though they wanted them, and they likely won’t be able to. You can argue that they made a personal choice for themselves, but how much of a choice is it really when so much of it is shaped by how our society at large is trending?

      • otaku fairy... says:

        Criticizing the systems that cause a woman to have to (or not be able to) do something shouldn’t automatically mean reducing all individuals making those decisions to victim/villain status, but things don’t always work out that way for women. That, in and of itself, becomes harmful- especially when applied to certain controversial issues where it can lead to more oppression. Luckily this was a very tame example of that and the women in question are only being reduced to ‘victim’ status, rather than villain status. With the abortion situation you mentioned, we can definitely acknowledge that there are outside pressures keeping the women you’re talking about from childbearing, while also not treating every abortion case like a woman is being harmed and also being mindful to how that can be used against women. It’s an important balance to maintain in order for women to be able to live with any rights at all in an unequal world.

    • kerwood says:

      Very well said.

      I saw a documentary about women in India who were ‘gestational carriers’ for wealthy women from Europe and the US. It was chilling. The ‘carriers’ were poor women, often mothers themselves, who saw this as a way of improving their situation. These women had so few options in life that being a rent-a-womb was a way out for them. It seemed to be yet another way for the rich to exploit the poor. I don’t know if that’s the case here.

      • Valois says:

        Most European countries have extremely grave anti-surrogacy laws (commercial surrogacy/gestional carrier at least) up to a point where the European parents would. It be able to legally claim these children born to a surrogate/carrier abroad as their children.

        Some countries are slightly more lenient like Sweden though

    • Sparkly says:

      I’m a bit late to the discussion, but at least here in the US, women are not approved for any reputable surrogacy agencies if they are on governmental assistance of any kind. So it’s not a case of extremely poor women being taken advantage of and bought as brood mares.

      I have actually always wanted to be a gestational surrogate but was never “allowed” to because I personally was on Medicaid, even though all medical and pregnancy related bills would have been paid by the couple (so not due to being a burden on Medicaid). They consider that an unfair power imbalance and that anyone on aid is at too great a risk of being exploited, which is actually quite insulting to me as someone who is fully adult, did all my research, had crazy easy births & would have loved to help someone, and who probably could have gotten OFF medicaid if I’d been allowed to make that same choice that higher class people are allowed to make.

  9. Cas says:

    Gestational carrier is such a dehumanising term for a woman who went through pregnancy and childbirth to bring a child into this world.

    • MD says:


    • Wisca says:

      I am so glad some women on this forum are taking this seriously. Yes, calling a woman a gestational carrier robs her of her humanity and makes giving birth sound so clinical that it obscures female labor (literally).

    • Grem says:

      It’s like in the Handmaid’s Tale lol

    • rosamund12 says:

      I was chatting with the father of some school friends of my kids. He and his husband have two children, both times with the same surrogate, each father with a turn contributing the sperm. I thought that was really cool, and I told him so. I said wow! So your kids are actually biologically related, and have the same mother! He replied “surrogate”? I cluelessly said, yeah! Mom! He replied once more “you mean SURROGATE?” At which point I got the message. I get it. This woman is not raising these children (although I do believe they have gone to Mexico to meet her), and it could be confusing to the kids to refer to her as the “mother”. But I have to admit, it rubbed me the wrong way to hear a man insist on this term. It comes across as very purposefully devaluing her role, and from an individual who can have no idea what it means to carry and birth a baby. Although I don’t know. For all I know, most surrogates prefer the term.

  10. Léna says:

    I don’t like the Kardashians but damn she
    and Kanye makess really pretty babies. Saint and Chicago are gorgeous (and I say that as someone that does not find every baby cute)

  11. Case says:

    Can’t wait to learn what they name it. Ninja? Earth? Lawyer? Lol.

    In all seriousness, they have really cute kids. Good for them for adding a fourth.

    • jen says:

      lol on the names!

    • FluffyPrincess says:

      Since she likes one syllable names, let’s take “Lawyer” and make it. . .Law. Law West!

      But really, I just wish them the best. She loves her children and they will be raised around a big, loving family, so no shade from me on that front.

  12. Anastasia says:

    For those who have a problem with the term gestational carrier, I’m just curious what you would prefer they be called?

  13. jen says:

    I wonder what trashy outfit Kim will wear to pick up the baby?

  14. hoopjumper says:

    These days, I side-eye big families (anything over three) when no one’s adopted unless I have reason to believe access to family planning is an issue. We know the planet is in trouble. We need to scale back. These kids are going to have massive carbon footprints. Stick with three kids at MOST, two or fewer far preferable. Was surprised when people yelled at me for saying the same about Will and Kate, but the truth is this is not a responsible decision.

    • me says:

      I agree. I was at the dollar store the other day and this woman had 5 kids with her. This woman was literally about to pull her hair out. She was screaming at them “don’t touch this, no you can’t have that !”. I don’t know why anyone would want the stress of five kids. They were all a year or so apart and she was their mother and not a babysitter/caretaker. Kim and her family already have a HUGE carbon footprint just based on the number of private jets they take. They don’t care about the environment at all. Kim and Kanye, I believe, keep having kids because it’s an ego boost to them. “Look how beautiful all our kids are !!!”.

      • Beer&Crumpets says:

        Reliable contraception can be cost prohibitive. Also, some women dont take to hormonal birth control very well, which crosses off most options. Basically what you have left is the copper T IUD which often causes much heavier periods and stronger cramping. Now you’re left with barrier methods, the efficacy of which is left to the individual using it, and ends up pretty dicey. And of course there are the ladies who have unfortunate reactions to spermicide.

        Dudes could get vasectomies, of course. That would help. I wonder why its usually left to women to try to make sure that every sex act with a man doesn’t result in pregnancy. It’s a mystery that may never be solved.

  15. mar says:

    I feel like at this point, Kim has and will do anything to keep us interested in her. I am really really really really really tired of the Kardashians, and especially Kim. I feel like I can not escape from them no matter where I go and it is getting disturbing. Please go away!

    • Carmen says:

      I never watch their TV show and I rarely if ever click on articles about them in the Internet. That way I don’t feel like they’re being shoved in my face. Try it sometime. It works.

    • stephanie says:

      omg I love them. they crack me up with their craziness

      i have a crazy matriarchal family full of women on my italian side and the K’s remind me of our family (but richer)

      I love their glam and i think the show is my guilty reality trash tv pleasure. their plastic surgery is a like a trainwreck, i can’t stop staring at kylie, kim and khloes FACES when I watch tv. so grotesque so wild!

      • Laura says:

        They are trash and shoulder a large part of the blame for the dumbing down of our society – along with the Trumps.

  16. Oliviajoy1995 says:

    My name guess is Dimitri. Don’t know why. Dimitri West seems kinda cool. I’m sure I’m way off though!

  17. Aubrey says:

    She won’t stop she needs to find a way to stay relevant when the show ends.

    • Charl says:

      Yet you comment on her so she must be doing something right

      • Aubrey says:

        I was responding “She wanted four kids and I think she’ll probably stop now.” Yes she is doing something right and congratulations to her and Kanye!

  18. Raina says:

    I think that’s great. If I had the $$, I would hire a gestational carrier in a heartbeat! There should be no stigma around it…some women have bodies that don’t respond well to pregnancy.

  19. Laura says:

    Yawn. I sincerely hope the baby and mother (i.e., the woman who was pregnant and gave birth) are healthy. Kim and Kanye and the rest of that trash family should go away. They can take the newest child with them. I don’t wish them ill. I just don’t care to see anymore headlines about them. Or Meghan, Harry, and thei child. Go away. Stop being so horribly desperate for attention.

    • CuriousCole says:

      This reads as horribly nasty, and about babies, no less. And what do you have against Meghan, Harry, and their newborn?? You do realize you are on a gossip site which constantly features both the couples you despise?

      • otaku fairy... says:

        @CuriousCole:+ 1. I don’t really get the logic behind willingly giving attention to royalty on a gossip site- especially at a time when they had a major life event making news internationally-just to complain about how victimized one feels by them getting attention. It seems a little ridiculous. Did people really think this birth wasn’t going to get attention? It has nothing to do with them being desperate.

    • Original Jens says:

      WOw – so according to you, WOMEN who use surrogates and gestational carriers and adopt aren’t mothers. Thanks for your horrible take. Good thing then men are still carrying the fetuses so they are still the father… oh wait.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        Good point. It’s hard for me to see how a woman choosing to be a surrogate/gestational carrier, and another couple accepting that arrangement is really all that morally different from a woman giving her baby up for adoption, and a rich couple raising that baby. The only difference is the reason why the child was conceived. Pregnancy carries risk regardless of a woman’s motives for getting and staying pregnant though. Both situations also carry risks for abuse and neglect as well, but we don’t automatically treat every single woman giving up her baby for adoption like she was abused and exploited by a couple with more money than her.

    • minx says:

      They’re free to have a baby any way they choose, and I hope everyone is healthy etc., but I’m also sick of the whole tired family.

    • Ash says:

      @ Laura maybe you wanna take a second look and re-read what platform you are on. Your comment is ridiculous to say the least, neither had a choice that their new babies would make headlines.
      Perhaps you are jealous or a bitter human being, nevertheless I hope you can find happiness in some form soon. It will probably greatly help to start with not letting celebrities happiness or exposure due to their life events affect you to a level that you seem personally victimized by.

  20. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    When did agency emerge as the go-to for describing other’s subjectivities lol? Agency and meta should truly have a seat allowing superior articulations with much greater depth thereby producing far better grounded and well-rounded conversations. It’s humorous that certain pockets want blanket descriptors and others must endure the tedious elastication of terminologies which stretch on forever like taffy. Sex anyone? 😀

    Who knew a KKKrew thread would prompt agency derivatives, strawmen, virtue signaling and a height of speculative thinking the likes I’ve never seen before! It’s truly worthy of a re-read.

  21. Chef Grace says:

    If I were young again by Goddess I would be a baby carrier for any woman who could not carry her own.