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]

I got the impression that she didn’t have time to conceive not actually carry a pregnancy

With endo even trying every month it can easily be a couple of years trying to get pregnant naturally. With their work that would mean giving up work pretty much to devote to even trying to get pregnant

“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?”

We’re not just talking about renting out a disembodied womb though.

For the toll it takes on your body (notwithstanding the emotional effects), the money the actual surrogate makes is really quite small. The fees you see when you Google are almost never the fees paid to the woman. They are inclusive of agency fees, medical fees, legal fees, clinic fees. The surrogate probably gets half of the overall fee.

'A typical surrogate in the United States earns from $35,000 to $45,000 paid in a monthly salary. She also is paid another $5,000 to $10,000 USD in various benefits.'

It's hardly the stuff of millionaires. I wouldn't do it for three times that price with the toll it takes physically and emotionally, plus the risks of repeated pregnancies when you have your own children to think of. But people who are desperate for money will and that's why it's unethical – just because someone chooses to do it doesn't mean that it should be allowed. Most surrogates do not have celebrity clientele.

gaspode

There's a wealth of research into outcomes for adopted people. Surrogacy has been around and researched longer than you think. The first surrogate babies in Britain (behind America) are adults now. There's more work to do but enough done for it to be patently obvious that surrogacy and adoption affect children very differently.

Louise Brown, first IVF baby, was born in 1978. Surrogacy can't have got going on any great scale until a good few years after that. Wikipedia says gestational surrogacy, using IVF to create an embryo to implant into the surrogate woman, was first done in 1986. Prior to that any surrogacy would have used the surrogate woman's egg and the commissioning father's sperm.

Incidentally, that Wikipedia article mentions the scenario I outlined above, although without pointing out the ethical issues. It claims that there have been cases of 'traditional' surrogacy where the surrogate woman's egg was used but instead of sperm from the commissioning father donor sperm was used. In that case the commissioning parent(s) have no biological link to the child at all, and how anyone can consider it ethical for the surrogate woman to simply hand over a child conceived in this way to a person who has paid for her/him, is absolutely beyond me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy

Most grandmothers are Priyankas's age in India.
Not entirely. Most are probably married with children but not grandmothers at 39!
I understand the stigma around going through fertility treatments in some societies, but saying their busy schedule is prevented them from trying for a baby is probably a bigger stigma.

I actually don’t know anyone who had a baby this early, 27weeks is near the end of the second trimester.

Actors still have to beard in Hollywood sadly, some countries still simply won’t watch a film where the protagonist is gay. And Hollywood executives are way too greedy to tell those countries to get lost as they need their box office money.

08:23Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Well, that was a long time in terms of research opportunities but I'm afraid you don't seem to know very much about surrogacy. TS doesn't require IVF so dating it from that point is just odd.

I suggest you find a better source than Wikipedia. There are researchers who genuinely care about the outcomes for children and you can read about their findings if you research.

You're getting a bit sensationalist with the donor sperm claim. There must be a genetic link between one IP and the child at present. This is under review though as IVF babies are often without a genetic link to either parent (donor embryo) and we have babies being born with a genetic link to the IP and none to the surrogate who invariably doesn't want to be legally recognized as a parent because she has no biological link.

All quite complex but this isn't surrogacy's fault, it's just the grey areas that modern medical advancements can create. Children born outside surrogacy using donor embryos may well have genetic parents who were obliged to share their embryos to make the cost of IVF treatment affordable and who may not have gone on to have a successful pregnancy themselves. Is that ethical? It's certainly perfectly legal because the law recognises whoever carried the child as the mother. But I have questions about how a child would process that, were they to know (and anonymity isn't allowed so they eventually would be likely to know).

Well if people weren't renting other women's wombs to gestate a baby for them, it wouldn't be an issue would it?

It's an absolute nonsense that in surrogacy arrangements the mother is considered to not be the mother - as you point out, when donor gametes are used, the woman who gestates a baby is that baby's mother.

There is transference of cells between mothers and foetuses during gestation. Every woman who gives birth to a baby retains some of that baby's cells and that baby retains some of hers. So it is incorrect to say that there is no biological link.

@Beowulfthethird

08:23Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Well, that was a long time in terms of research opportunities but I'm afraid you don't seem to know very much about surrogacy. TS doesn't require IVF so dating it from that point is just odd.

OK, educate me. How widespread was surrogacy before IVF came along?

The mechanism back then would have been one of two ways, presumably:

1. Man has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant and hands the baby over to him at birth. He may or not bring the baby up with a partner.

1. As above, but there is no sex. He donates sperm and they find a way to get it to the egg, involving a clinic or doing it themselves.

Do you have evidence that this happened a lot? What are the legal protections for the baby in a set up like this?

IVF babies are often without a genetic link to either parent (donor embryo)

Really? I am not up to speed on the law on this area in the UK but I would have assumed there had to be a genetic connection. Embryo should surely be created with either the egg of the woman who is going to be pregnant or her partner's sperm or both, with the donor element limited to one of the two necessary gametes. If the embryo implanted has no genetic connection to the mother at all, how is she entitled to it except by dint of paying for it or getting lucky on the NHS?

No you really have no idea what you're talking about at all...

And you're not going to lower yourself to explain where I've gone wrong. Fine.

Clinics offer a service whereby someone who can pay agrees to share their eggs/embryos with someone who can't pay for a reduced rate. There's also an embryo donation scheme because not all are used by the couple. In the eyes of the law, legal parenthood goes to whoever bore the child and their legal husband. Genetic link irrelevant. This was brought in to protect IVF mums using donated eggs but has confusing implications for surrogacy, hence the review. I don't know exactly what the NHS pays for. Very little.

I think you should do your own reading!! It would be better!

Donor embryos are not 'often' created for IVF. Fewer than 1,000 cycles annually in the most recent HFEA data, resulting in just over 300 live births.

@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?

Do you apply this to people who sell their organs too? Or are you able to recognise the exploitation involved there?

cly

That's thousands of babies in this position.

@Beowulfthethird

cly

That's thousands of babies in this position.

Do you mean me? 2,556 to be exact. Since 1991. So I'd argue it's extremely rare. In any event, we're discussing surrogacy and it's interesting that surrogacy is not permitted if the commissioning parents are not related to the baby.

I think it demonstrates that there is a very real fear of baby trafficking in surrogacy and the rule is in the vague hope that people who are genetically related to children are less likely to harm them or reject them if they're born less than perfect

I'm not sure why you're so keen to make the point. Anything that affects thousands of people is significant.

The genetic link requirement is likely to go on the premise that it unfairly penalizes infertile couples who can provide a gamete.