Another famous couple used a surrogate, put it down to God's grace

[quote Whitefire]You could almost miss the surrogate part in this BBC article.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60102951[/quote]
It was a small mercy that in that article the reason Kendall 'used' a surrogate mother wasn't because she is 'infertile'. At 50 it would be a rare occurrence for the majority of women to not be 'infertile' largely because their fertility had dropped off a cliff in their 40s.

She's not infertile, she's 50, and it's quite sad really that I feel relief that the BBC didn't lie about it in that article.

But what is with this 'welcoming a child through surrogacy'? Do people 'welcome a child through adoption' or simply adopt? For me it sounds like you are welcoming someone at the airport or welcoming someone to your home for a formal dinner party like something out do the 80s.

You either had a baby or you didn't, Kendal didn't have a baby, she had someone else do that for her and this woman was paid. It doesn't go unnoticed that she isn't named, even as 'surrogate'. The baby was 'welcome through surrogacy' as if beamed up by an invisible force or conjured by magic. Ta daa!

You could almost miss the surrogate part in this BBC article.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60102951

Surrogacy is entirely and utterly wrong, no-one should be buying babies.

The only person who jumps out as actually centering the mother of the children was Tyra banks:

'As we thank the angel of a woman that carried our miracle baby boy for us, we pray for everyone who struggles to reach this joyous milestone. York Banks Asla, welcome to the world.'

you can say a lot of things about a lot of people, but fuck me, why is everyone so damn willing to do this, and why do none of them realise that they don't mention the woman? (even 'carried' grates a bit - she didn't 'carry' she nourished, and protected, it's not a seed in soil, a baby requires the mother's body's full participation)

I know a couple of surrogate mothers in the US and they are getting nowhere near $50k for themselves. Costs for the clients include the antenatal care and birth costs for the baby, and given the perverse health system in the US, this inflates costs of the surrogacy.

Don't forget whatever a surrogate mother is paid in the USA is subject to taxation @OhHolyJesus

Whereas a woman in the U.K. who passes off her payment as "expenses" will not be taxed. I believe there can be problems with the benefits agencies however, my understanding is they have a stricter view of what constitutes "expenses".

As expenses can include day to day living expenses such as rent/utilities/food, a surrogate mother in employment in the U.K. can claim nearly a year's living costs as "expenses" and bank the equivalent amount saved from her salary. But it's not payment. It's altruistic.

Oh and don't forget the post birth "gift" and holiday to recover.

USA commercial surrogacy, being contractual, as far as I know doesn't typically include gifts and holidays though maybe some commissioning parents are more generous than others.

Chat thread on this. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4460190-Nick-Jonas-and-Priyanka-Chopra-Surrogacy

at what age are children no longer for sale? 2years old, 5? 10?

What point do these people think buying a human becomes wrong? Do they think buying a human is always fine or are there circumstances where they would find it abhorrent? What about the story of the baby girl being sold by her family in Afghanistan was that okay? I mean, her family did the selling, so presumably it was fine.

And who gets to make important medical decisions for this baby? The parents who have never seen her or held her? The surrogate?

As the mum of a 26 weeker this makes me so sad. Who is doing skin to skin with this baby? Is it the birth mother? This is absolutely critical for a baby of this gestation. We started at a week old and from that point onwards DH and I would spend hours holding him. This is a really critical part of their recovery.
There were some NICU babies who had no one- no one ever came, no one ever held them. Sometimes the nurses did skin to skin for them.
My heart aches for this baby that is seemingly so wanted, but whose 'parents' are not there holding her daily.

US Surrogate mothers going through an agency typically earn around $30k, though she may be paid more for twins, triplets etc, and be paid a daily stipend for following a specified diet, breast pumping and for 'foetal reduction'.

Do you think she paid more as the commissioning parents are celebrities? I find that quite naive.

How much is a baby worth and at what age are children no longer for sale? 2years old, 5? 10?

I can see why she said by "God's Grace". Having a baby, by surrogate or naturally, is never a guarantee that you'll bring a live baby home.

If the surrogate is in the US and it is her fifth surrogacy, she is likely to have earned more than $500,000 from it. Given that she MAY otherwise have been poor with no chance of going to college or owning her own home, who are we to judge? Her body, her choice.

@CatherinaJTV I compared the woman's situation as a surrogate (having a baby for profit) with a dog being bred (for profit).

Dog breeding has limitations imposed by law to protect the dam and the puppy. Surrogacy is cruel by comparison and leads to horrible situations that do harm to poor women and newborn babies.

People make money though, so there's that.

There's a good thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3782983-surrogacy-resource-thread-please-post-your-links-here?msgid=92750245#92750245

Surrogacy only benefits immoral, wealthy people who want a baby at any cost. The harm to the child is never considered

Deliberately creating a baby whose first experience is the trauma of being removed from the only person they know. The child's brain and subsequent relationships will be forever harmed by the loss

I assming the wife could have had kids herself? but did not want to?

God this is so fucked up.

Chemical bonding takes place during pregnancy and birth. How are these commissioners going to provide the LOVE need to bring a human baby to adulthood.
Are they going to hire someone to do that? I kind of hope they do as doubt they have the alturism to be actual parents.

The gossip blinds are very unforgiving of these two, basically hinting that it's a bearding relationship.

The woman having her seventh surrogate baby.

I don't know how old her own children are but for much of their childhood their mother had been pregnant. That must impact their life not to mention the fear of being orphaned after their mother ended up in ICU.

‘I love giving birth. This is my seventh surrogate baby’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5a8dbd8-4ac5-11eb-81f9-1b786036a268?shareToken=3d81f6a7f87f3ca9c037aeaec807cf7cc_

The thought of that tiny baby in a hospital without any kind of parent around makes me so sad. They don't have the right to call themselves parents.

did you just seriously compare the woman to a dog? Dogs have protection in law. Registered dog breeders may not breed more than six litters from any one bitch and no more than one litter a year. I think Caesarean sections are limited to two so in breeds like bulldogs that have big heads and often need caesarean that would effectively limit breeding to two litters.
The kennel club have stricter rules and will not register more than four litters to a pedigree bitch.

Women who engage in surrogacy are free to do it as often as they like and some do it many times. There was one featured in the papers last year having her 7th surrogate baby (her 9th pregnancy overall as she has two of her own). On the 5th she had a life threatening haemorrhage and ICU but still went back for more. Her 7th was commenced just six months after surrogate baby number 6 was born.
Let's remember a dog gestates for nine weeks or thereabouts and puppies go to new homes around nine weeks so the whole thing is done and dusted in less than five months but the law requires a full year to enable the dog to recover and live a normal non pregnant dog life.
Repeat pregnancies in this way can never be good for a woman's health and even if the women want to do it I am disgusted that fertility clinics will enable it.

I wonder if they will still take the little girl once it fully dawns on them that she may have particular needs and developmental issues due to her very early birth.

Poor wee soul.

Sick of rich men and women renting poor women’s bodies.

There was an AMA thread from a midwife and she’d worked for a short period in one of the elite private hospitals in London where HNW individuals give birth. OP said occasionally they would give birth and then leave the baby at the hospital for the nanny to pick up later. I mean...what?

Anyway.

I feel desperately sorry for anyone with fertility issues but we seem to be moving from too posh to push to too important to impregnate.

Puppies also stay with their mothers for 8 weeks. It's called Lucy's Law (U.K.). A home birth of a surrogate born baby can see the newborn handed over in 6 hours.

It is possible that she had fertility issues but I find it strange to say this is cultural. Chopra originates from India, land of Bollywood. This genre of film often depicts surrogacy stories and celebrates the practice.

India banned commercial surrogacy in 2019 and this is already being challenged under a woman's 'right' to grow, birth and rent their wombs and sell babies.

Chopra may have been in and out of clinics for the purposes of harvesting her eggs so she is genetically related to the child she paid another woman to have.

In India is it culturally sensitive to be known as a woman who is infertile but then it is culturally acceptable to buy a baby? Would she be well-thought of by her family to have been able to have got a baby and fulfilled her duty as a Indian daughter when she hasn't given birth but used her money instead?

Regardless she is a very wealthy famous Indian woman, married to a very wealthy famous man, who has subcontracted out the service of pregnancy and labour, with all the risks that entails and this is being celebrated in this article.

I'm sure she will wrap up filming soon, or maybe her husband can complete whatever project he is working on, and someone can go fetch the baby at their earliest opportunity.

27 weeks and no one there to love you but the woman who was paid to have you, if that's even true.

did you just seriously compare the woman to a dog?

Did you just seriously miss the point by a million miles?