Too bad the paparazzi didn't follow my family around after the birth of my son. They could have had some great pictures: Here's one of two college-educated parents spending 15 minutes trying to collapse a stroller and get it into the trunk of a Saturn while simultaneously dealing with a wailing newborn. And here's a lovely one in the kitchen of our 850-square-foot chateaux where we have moved the stacks of dirty dishes out of the sink and onto the dining room table to make room to bathe a squirmy baby with spit-up oozing down his chin.

My stubble-faced husband and his still-looks-like-she's-pregnant wife wouldn't have sold 20 copies if put on a magazine cover. Our adorable son, however, would have been just as beautiful as any celebrity kid in a 19-page spread – provided you caught him when he was fed, burped, changed, rested and clean (which would give the cameraman a window-of-opportunity of perhaps 20 minutes).

When parents send friends and relatives pictures of their newborn, they pick out the best images – the one where the baby has a bit of a smile or his eyes are twinkling (or at least where his shirt is clean). Why wouldn't celebrities do the same when introducing their offspring to the world? Isn't a magazine cover just a large-scale birth announcement?

A big part of being a superstar is creating an image. Celebs want to be seen in the "right" clothes with the "right" people at the "right" events. And as fans, we love to follow their adventures and dream about a lifestyle most of us will never know. After having seen Jessica Alba light up the red carpet in a stunning dress and impeccable hair and make-up, do we really want to see her in sweatpants with bags under her eyes now that she's a mom? Heck no. We can see women who look like that every day at the local playground. Fans want to see the glowing new mom and her peaceful baby under a headline proclaiming "Being a mom is a miracle!" (though it doesn't hurt to have sidelines such as "Why I'll Be a Strict Mom" and "My Plan to Lose the Weight" in order to bond a bit with the commoners).

Some stars have been getting heat lately for accepting big bucks in exchange for the first pictures of their newborns. And, sure, it is ridiculous to give anyone a million or more dollars just for a few photos. But what in Hollywood isn't already on the outlandish side? (One thousand butterflies released as Suri Cruise blows out the candles at her second birthday party. Paris Hilton's dog wearing jewel-studded collars. The budget for "The Dark Knight." Need I say more?)

Money aside (I'll get back to that in a minute), it may actually be in the best interest of the parents and the baby to make an arrangement with a magazine. Consider two famous pregnancies that came to term around the same time:

At least for now, Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman are opting out of making any deals for pictures of daughter Sunday Rose. As a result, photographers are going to be scurrying to get whatever shot of her they can. How polite, honest and safety-conscious these cameramen will be during their pursuit of the prize remains to be seen. Maybe I just watched too much coverage of the Princess Diana tragedy, but the idea of a hungry press scares me – especially when a fragile little baby is the target.

On the opposite side of the spectrum are the Jolie-Pitt twins, whose beautiful images graced special issues of People and Hello magazines. While reporters are bound to still follow the family, any pictures other than these "official" ones come off as a day late and a dollar short. Furthermore, the babies got a calm, controlled environment for the shoot; Brad and Angie got to gussy themselves up beforehand to look good "naturally"; and fans got a glossy Hollywood fairy tale. And, of course, Brangelina got money ...

That's the part of the whole baby-pics business that seems to provoke the greatest reaction. Is there something wrong with profiting from other people's desire to see your kids?

I certainly would not blame any celebrity who chooses to keep his or her child out of the limelight with the reasoning that the baby should not be put on display just because of having famous parents. But I also can't see blaming celebrities for wanting to share this part of their lives with an eager audience. (Find me a new grandmother anywhere who doesn't whip out 10 pictures whenever someone even slightly mentions her grandchild.)

It would be nice, though, if more famous parents would follow the Pitt/Jolie lead and give the money to charity. What an awesome opportunity to provide fans with the pictures they crave while improving the lives of needy children (and here I was all thrilled just to be able to donate my son's cord blood). Just as the new trend of celebrity moms-to-be donating baby-shower items to the less fortunate makes for great public relations (What in the world would you buy for Nicole Ritchie anyway?), so too would making it standard Hollywood etiquette to give away your profits from Baby's first photos.

Just as fans buy the movie tickets that allow stars to earn a hefty paycheck, so do fans drive magazines into bidding wars for pictures of celebrity offspring. Not many employees complain that their boss is paying them too much; should we really expect stars to be any different?