Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra Surrogacy

[MintyGreenDream]

I'm usually open minded about these things but it appears that they've admitted that she doesn't have fertility issues but her schedule was too "hectic" to fit in conceiving a baby.Wtaf.
Sorry but this seems very wrong

Nick Jonas and Priyanka welcome baby girl 12 weeks early mol.im/a/10428475 via dailym.ai/android

Sorry for the dm article

• [Title edited by MNHQ to say Nick Jonas, not Joe Jonas]

@Beowulfthethird, how long has surrogacy been around? Well under 50 years, I'm guessing, with a big surge in business (because that's what it is, mostly) in recent years. If I'm right about this, the children born as a result of surrogacy are mostly still very young. Don't you think it might take a long time for the full effect of surrogacy to show up?

It's only in very recent years that I've seen reports of the long-lasting effects of adoption on adults. Some people are fortunate and it all works out well, but as reported on this thread even where the adoption was a success the child can have complex and difficult feelings about it in adult life, perhaps particularly after having children of their own.

We also know that children who find out later on that they have many siblings because their biological father was a sperm donor are not all happy with that either.

Children are people, not possessions.

@Greydove28

In some cultures infertility is misunderstood and frowned upon. Perhaps this might be a reason?

Most grandmothers are Priyankas's age in India. I don't think she is living within Indian cultural norms to give two hoots about all that. Her surrogacy was infertility related. Put bluntly, she certainly does not have a killer figure or does not earn money upon the basis of it so I am sure she would have done it for herself if that were possible. If somebody who pushes themselves into the spotlight went down the surrogacy route (applies to both parents here) then I would expect them to show more feeling and concern about a struggling premmie whom they have financially contracted to bring into the world

Yes, I wasn't thinking about whether the 'process', 'task', 'processing', or the impacts on the adults/parents was the same or similar between adoption or surrogacy.

My concern was on the children alone. I was wondering whether to a child, even when grown to adult, the questions on why their birth mother felt able to give them away or sell them to another person were that different.

I wasn't querying whether a traditional adoptive parent is any more or less deserving or loving than one who paid a women for her child. I was focused on the child, how they may, or may not, feel on learning the truth later in life. I don't know that it is 'SO different' as you suggest.

My first thought was, if she doesn't have time for a pregnancy then god help her with the baby, but then I thought she's probably got a team of nannies.

My second thought, they've bought a baby.

I've got nothing against surrogacy at all, but I don't think the rich should be able to rent wombs, it seems to be becoming a trend, lord only knows how these children will turn out.

I think the point about rich women don’t work as cleaners / on supermarket checkouts is interesting. Actually plenty of rich teenagers do, and no one blinks an eye. However rich teenagers don’t work as surrogates and it would be shocking if they did as it is physically and emotionally very risky. Interestingly some rich teenagers in the US act as egg ‘donors’ (highly paid) - this is also physically and emotionally demanding but less so than being a surrogate, much more lucrative per hour and private. All this to me suggests that being a surrogate is a really undesirable job and is therefore only done by women with few other options. I find it morally very dubious, though of course feel huge compassion for the ‘commissioning parents’ (vile term).

Dreamstate, no matter how desperate a person is to have a child it's not morally acceptable (or legal) to buy one.

I think that similarly it should be illegal to buy a woman, or to rent a womb. Or to buy a kidney for that matter.

In relation to adoption - I don't know anyone who has adopted who isn't acutely aware of the harm adoption does to children. Much as I love my children and thank my lucky stars every day that I was able to adopt them, I know that it would have been much, much better for them to have been born into families who were able to keep them.

Adoption is the "least worst" option for children who already born.

Comparing it to commercial surrogacy is like saying it's ok for an organisation to set up, recruit young women, encourage them to get pregnant and then buy their babies. I'm assuming that no-one would think that ok?

One of the ethical questions this throws up around infertility is that even in the US, where this is so lightly regulated, I believe they do expect one of the 'commissioning' parents to be one of the two biological parents. The other biological parent would usually be either the second commissioning parent or if that person has fertility issues they could turn to an egg donor/sperm donor.

How long before we hear the argument that this is unfair to people who can't provide any gametes between them at all?

After all, the technology is all there. Donor egg, donor sperm, surrogate mother. Cash changes hands, baby is handed over to whoever paid.

In that case, a baby has very obviously been bought. How different is that really from a case where a couple commission a baby who has a genetic link to one of them? There's no screening done whatsoever of the commissioning parents, which is a huge difference from adoption. The only requirement is having enough money to make it happen.

fluffymule

Something might have got lost in translation there. I was thinking entirely about the child's experience. How they feel and think about their position is sometimes called a task or process. How hard or easy it is and how effectively it can be done is what interests those who care about the real outcomes for children.

@TurquoiseBaubles

Dreamstate, no matter how desperate a person is to have a child it's not morally acceptable (or legal) to buy one.

I think that similarly it should be illegal to buy a woman, or to rent a womb. Or to buy a kidney for that matter.

So if a friend for example knowing they couldn't have children voluntarily offered to carry their child and they covered obvious expenses of doing so is that wrong? Is it wrong to make sure the person doing it isn't financially worse off.

You act like it some cold hearted transaction, I dont think it is.

Surrogacy is entirely illegal across most of Europe which recognises that there is no way for it not to be exploitative of the surrogate mother. It is fraught with ethical and moral difficulties. Having children who are genetically related to you is not a human right.

@Clymene

Surrogacy is entirely illegal across most of Europe which recognises that there is no way for it not to be exploitative of the surrogate mother. It is fraught with ethical and moral difficulties. Having children who are genetically related to you is not a human right.

I think some people might disagree with you there. For a lot of people, having your ‘own children’ is a human right and a purpose for many people. The same as any other intensely strong biological urge.

I don’t really know the answer to it.

Of course it’s not a human right. It’s a very strong human need but so is having sex - doesn’t mean we have the right to purchase sex from others. I acknowledge the deep sadness of infertility but it is not an excuse to put another woman’s body through the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention the ethics of removing a baby from its birth mother.

At this point celebrities are just child trafficking, and their gullible fans are giving them a pat on the back for it.

@BiscuitLover3678 if something is a human right then it applies to everyone. Does Ian Huntley have the right to a biological child do you think?

Ugh. Another way to use and abuse women. And she can’t even be called a mother - just a surrogate. A commodity. Why bother putting yourself through the ‘inconvenience’ of nine months of pregnancy when you can pay some poor unfortunate to carry a baby for you. And it’s not just celebrities. We’ve got people like ‘writer’ Sophie Beresiner legitimising paying for babies. So so wrong.

If true that's fucking terrible.

Dreamstate, we are not talking here (or in the vast majority of surrogacy cases) of women doing their sisters/friends a favour. We are talking about commercial surrogacy, where a rich person pays a poo person for the use of their body.

The risk to the surrogate is very high. IVF-related risk, risk of multiple pregnancy, added risk due to unrelated baby etc makes surrogate pregnancy more risky than normal pregnancy; add to that a woman doing it multiple times.

Does insurance stop at the end of the pregnancy? What happens to the woman who has just given birth, who may be very ill, who may not be able to carry another child, who may have irreversible damage because of this pregnancy? Who is going to look after her from now on?

The prospective parents have rented her womb. I doubt they give a shit about what happens to her now. Commercial surrogacy is a very cold-hearted transaction.

*poor, obviously!

Well noone even knows why she did it but carry on tearing her down.

If someone wants to rent their womb out its their body and their choice at the end of the day who are you to tell them not to do it?

@Dreamstate

Well noone even knows why she did it but carry on tearing her down.

If someone wants to rent their womb out its their body and their choice at the end of the day who are you to tell them not to do it?

That's not a very strong argument. If I went to a surgeon and said I didn't like my left leg, please amputate it, the surgeon would not comply. Are you going to say it's my body and my choice, so who is the surgeon to tell me not to do it? We don't let people do harmful things to themselves with no legal safeguards. Well, we do sometimes, by not making the safeguards strong enough, or not putting enough money and priority into enforcement of the law, or not reacting quickly to change, but mostly we do try to protect people from themselves in cases where they could do themselves serious harm.

In this case not only are there minimal safeguards in this country and even less in the US to protect women from doing something extremely risky to their own health because of the financial incentive, but we're not prioritising the baby's welfare and, as almost all surrogates already have children, we're putting the welfare of those children at risk too, if their mother dies or becomes ill as a result of her high risk surrogate pregnancy.

@Dreamstate

Well noone even knows why she did it but carry on tearing her down.

If someone wants to rent their womb out its their body and their choice at the end of the day who are you to tell them not to do it?

That's the same shit argument used to say that people make a free choice to sell a kidney

I'm absolutely not tearing her down . I would be very concerned about any woman who is in this situation. I wonder how long after birth her health insurance is valid - looking at some "suggested" surrogate contracts in the US the answer is not very long.

Do you also think it's ok for someone to sell a kidney, if it's their body, their choice? What about other transplanted organs - a bit of lung or liver? A hand?

@Dreamstate

Well noone even knows why she did it but carry on tearing her down.

If someone wants to rent their womb out its their body and their choice at the end of the day who are you to tell them not to do it?

So you are in full agreement with prostitution in all its forms? Unvetted organ donation? Suicide? You wouldn’t try to dissuade anyone from participating in those scenarios because ‘their body their choice’?

Congratulations for both of them on the birth of their baby girl. Hope the surrogacy and the baby will be OK.