Celebs having babies via surrogates

[Lardlizard]

Just concerns me a bit that’s all, i do believe you can love a child you adopt and I’m sure in one goes into this lightly

It just makes me worry for the women that are the surrogates

It makes me feel sick, it's absolutely horrid.

If there is a genuine reason and the child will be loved then I don’t see an issue with it, I know of a rich person who genuinely did buy a baby (orphan, overseas) this child is deeply loved, has great opportunities.

It’s not their first choice, KK would have put her life in danger if she tried to have another baby herself.

I don't believe a word that comes out of KKs mouth.

Of all the surrogates I’d be worried about the ones doing it for celebrities the least. I do think there are some valid worries about some surrogates and the reasons behind their choices.

You don't see the issue with buying someone's body to rent to get a child, Mermaid? Or poor women selling their organs to use (or young women injecting themselves with tons of synthetic hormones whose long-term effects are unknown to sell their genetic material)? So by that you have no issue with people selling their organs or tissues? Because that's what this is.

Most of the time celebs were advised not to carry anymore children or they can't actually fall pregnant.

I was strongly advised not to attempt another pregnancy after my last one as I would be risking my life and that of my child so even though in an ideal world we would have liked one more child we decided to quit while we were ahead. Pregnancy and childbirth is a gamble and asking another woman to take on the risks you're unwilling to expose yourself in exchange for money is exploitative (paid surrogacy is not allowed in the UK but is elsewhere in the world).

I'm guessing the thread is in response to today's news story that Cameron Diaz probably used a surrogate in order to become a mother at age 47?

It’s bullshit. Renting a womb because you want to outsource the risk you’re too precious to take is revolting.

I agree. Makes me feel a bit sick, using people as incubators in this way. Whether they’re well paid or not pregnancy is still risky. Just seems so exploitative to me.

It seems that many people condone what is quite simply a pay as you go product child which in this world of entitlement is made to order for those rich enough to afford it. The newborn babies have no say on the matter. It is unashamedly an adult or parent centred view with the human rights of newborn babies ignored.
This is not even close to unpacking the very real issues for the babies let alone the immense complications for the surrogates.

I think that the surrogates motivation and opinion has to be taken into consideration before making a judgement.

Do surrogate women have medical aftercare taken care of? E.g. if she suffers from PND or a lifelong complication as a result of the labour. Do the family of the child help with medical costs as a result of the pregnancy (especially in countries where healthcare is not free)?

Er......who is KK?

It’s bullshit. Renting a womb because you want to outsource the risk you’re too precious to take is revolting.

I agree with lots of the comments on here about the financial exploitation of surrogates and egg donors and the emotional issues involved for the woman and the baby, but I don’t agree with this. Pregnancy and childbirth is physically a lot more dangerous for some women than for others if there are certain medical issues involved. Having a medical problem that makes you or your a lot more likely to suffer complications than someone with no medical issues is not ‘precious’.

Surrogacy doesn’t sit right with me at all- mainly because the baby is usually very quickly taken from its birth mother, very distressing For the baby given that’s the home they’ve known for 9 months.

However I hate the adoption argument- adopt if you want to adopt- not just because u want a child!

In America there is records of surrogate women who have to sign over their medical rights to the people who commissioned the surrogacy. They lose all control over their own medical treatment in many cases - it causes great moral problems for doctors - the commissioning parents put the health of the child before the birth mother. The commissioning parents can also force the birth parent to abort one or more children in multiple babies and have final say in all treatment.

I think paying for surrogates is a bit of a murky area.

However, if I was physically able (3 c sections, can't have any more), and a close friend or family member couldn't carry a child I would do it. Not for money though.

Children should never be for sale - and that is, in very stark terms, what commercial surrogacy is.

I also disagree massively with altruistic surrogacy - the only legal form here in the UK. I understand the strong feelings behind why people do this, particularly for family members, but it makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

It’s bullshit. Renting a womb because you want to outsource the risk you’re too precious to take is revolting.

This

@SanFranBear why?

If my sibling couldn't have children and I could, I would absolutely be their surrogate. Why on earth would that be an issue when it's a child I'd see regularly and be part of their lives?

It's fucking disgusting. As pps have said, surrogates are never wealthy women, it's just taking advantage of those less fortunate.

I'm also sickened by the excuse pregnancy/ birth would be dangerous or difficult for the baby buying 'parent'. That just makes them look more of a selfish twat.

In fact every attempt to justify it makes the buyers look even worse than they already are.

True altruistic surrogacy is when it's a sister, or very close friend/ relative, that having had their own already and with full understanding voluntarily offers to be a surrogate for genuine extra expenses. Not some random person that needs the inflated expenses.

Gay couples are hugely into surrogacy now. Buying eggs, buying women's bodies to grow the baby, gender selection, the works.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could think this is ok.

Because babies are being created with the specific intention of removing them from their mother. Where are the rights of the child in this arrangement?

That baby has grown within it's mother - it hears her voice, her heartbeat, it is all that baby has known. Babies are not some sort of blank slate that only begin to process the world when they are born - separation trauma is a real thing no matter how loving the new parents are.

To purposefully do that to a child , as I say, makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

I don’t see an issue with it, I know of a rich person who genuinely did buy a baby

Human beings and their body parts should never, ever be for sale.

Agreed clitterati. 'I have, and will never have any idea of pregnancy or childbirth but deem myself capable of deciding it's something acceptable to buy from a woman'

Ditto infertility. 'I want a baby more than anything so I'm going to find someone desperate enough to sell me one they've carried for 9 months'

As a healthy, solvent woman I can't decide to sell a kidney or bone marrow to fund more luxuries, but if I was a poor woman it would be ok to risk my health to rent my womb & sell my baby. Then again it's only women that have wombs so it's not the same.

@Clawdy kim kardashian

Surrogacy makes me deeply uncomfortable for all the reasons given above. I respect a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and that includes carrying a baby for someone else - but I find it very hard to believe that decision can ever be a healthy one, whether it's motivated by financial needs or otherwise. And I don't think it's right to unnecessarily take a newborn away from the human being that has been its home for 9 months.