Another celebrity uses a surrogate

[EachandEveryone]

Michelle Williams who I love. Already birthed three babies. Just why? https://people.com/michelle-williams-thanks-surrogate-for-miracle-baby-girl-after-welcoming-fourth-child-11793338

The bonding issues that must affect the baby are what concerns me. The baby is born considering its mother as the one who grew it. Similar to children who are adopted. I understand for those who can not have children but in Hollywood is it a way of keeping their looks a certain way?

@Cheese55 you are treating the baby as a commodity, whether money changes hands or not. That cannot be right

Rich women use surrogates, rich women don’t become surrogates. That also tells us something

Out of interest, how much is a surrogate paid ?

No, you shouldn't be able to 'birth a child for money'? It's a child.

Yes, legally in the UK not allowed to pay more than expenses.
But I bet there’s a few back handers or else why? The mother gives up her baby just because she wants to do a good deed. I don’t think so.
It absolutely is buying a baby and it disgusts me.

I had a gay friend who was looking into it at one point. I know what he and his husband did and they weren't rich.

Of course she wanted the money as well! Why is that wrong? People do Only Fans for money too. But it was her decision. There are other ways to make money. She could have got overtime at Walmart. I imagine she weighed up the benefits of the payout and decided it was something she wanted to do. Especially doing it for a celebrity - she would be very well looked after during the whole process both financially and health wise.

Completely agree.

In fact I’d go further and say regardless of your age or whether you have children or not, it’s still always a choice to use another women’s body as though she were nothing but a vessel. And an immoral choice, at that.

Money being involved adds another dimension to making the decision. The fact youre seemingly categorising surrogacy with OF says it all.

The rules around adoption have changed. It used to be all about the resultant adoptive parents, to make them parents, no thought about birth mother and certainly no thought about the child. That has now changed, first priority is the child, what is in their best interests.

Surrogacy is like going to back to the old days of adoption before rules, process and understanding changed. Magdalene laundries, where there was no thought about the birth mother and child, now horrify people. Is surrogacy much different to those practices. The emphasis is on people becoming parents. No thought about the risks of birth mother and no thought about impact on the child.

It does cross their mind, of course. That's one of the reasons they outsource the risk to a third party.

I don't actually believe this OR if they do its becasue they have something quite wrong with them

And what do you think the demographic of the women who agree to be paid for their time and risk in carrying and birthing a child is? Are they perhaps women who are in desperate need of money and too few choices? Because I haven’t seen lots of rich women doing it…

Totally irrelevant to the OP post, but why do people on Mumsnet say to birth a baby rather than give birth to a baby? I have never heard anyone say the former in real life, it’s always been give birth.

Adoption is sad? You think it would be better if children remained in care? 🤔

I do think women from abroad are exploited. I do think it's a bit weird to be a surrogate as it's not a job I could and there have been instances where male gay couples have treated the woman as a vessel. But if you're a celebrity, wouldn't your surrogate move in your world in some sense, as I don't think they would use a homeless woman they find on the street.

Surrogacy within families can go wrong. Some families lean on a a family member to be the surrogate, there was a thread about one a while back.
An altruistic, family surrogacy went horribly wrong, I think it might have been Belgium. Young childless DSIS encouraged to have a baby for older DSIS. There was a problem with the birth and younger DSIS left unable to have another baby, so ended up childless. The older sibling got the baby.

Totally her choice, made with detached emotions

Ah! The delusions of wealth! (or misogyny)

You think women in poverty are making unemotional decisions? Pull the other one!!

Poverty is emotional. It's hard, it's draining, it's exhausting and it feels overwhelming and endless. Women will make emotion-driven decisions to escape the poverty that smothers them and sucks them down.

The idea that humans make rational, unemotional, calculated decisions is one of the big lies of neoliberal capitalism. And it is a big fat lie.

I’m very divided on the issue of surrogacy.

On the one hand, I’m sure there are people who exploit it, and women who end up a lot worse off. Pregnancy is a complex medical condition and can end very, very badly. I can see how poor women can be exploited by rich women to carry a baby.

On the other hand, if both parties freely consent (I’m talking more your “normal” surrogacy - where it’s a family member etc.) and the surrogate enjoys pregnancy and is happy to take part, I do think that we have the freedom of choice over our bodies and so the decision to take part in that should be down to the woman.

God it’s tempting, isn’t it? No hypermesis, no stretch marks, no tears and stitches, no weird skin discolouration. If I had heaps of money and wasn’t bothered by ethics…

I hate seeing any stories of famous people buying children but is more disheartening when it's someone I liked and credited with having principles.

@LifeOfAShowGirl where are you considering the child?

I think this is a bit simplistic, I'm sure most woman would put up with this if they could.

In my mind (and I’m sure this will be unpopular) it’s the same as when a baby is adopted/fostered as a newborn.

I think this is true for sex workers too.