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 cost depends on what else is involved. Legally “gestational carrier” is used to distinguish from traditional surrogacy where there is no donor egg.

michelle Williams did carry her previous two pregnancies (there’s photos of her pregnant) so no the surrogate did not have 3 kids in 5 years.

(not a fan of this sort of celebrity privilege-buying, but wanted to clarify those points)

Surrogacy should be banned in all its forms, including so called 'altruistic'.

But for a rich woman who already gave birth to 3 babies to purchase another is particularly repugnant.

One word. Biology.

A former colleague of mine ended up as an actor's agent and represented a reasonably well-known (at the time) actress. She played a key character in a long-running US show and there wasn't space in her schedule to fit in a pregnancy unless the writers wrote her out for a stretch — with the possibility that she wouldn't be written back in. She didn't want to take the risk. The agency didn't want to risk her losing the role either because it was so lucrative for them. One of her male co-stars had two children during this show without losing a day's work. Everyone in the business aware of the inequality.

I just checked the actress out on IMDB and she seems to have had children. She's continued to work on and off since then, but it's been nothing like the quantity or quality of work you would have expected after that amazing start to her career.

The cost to those intent on the purchase and trafficking of humans and the exploitation of poor women is no where near what the pregnant women receives

Being 44 means it’s much less likely for your own eggs to be decent enough. But you can easily use donor eggs and become pregnant at 44 unless she’s had medical issues such as a hysterectomy or has been advised by a doctor to not attempt another pregnancy. But being 44 alone does not stop someone getting pregnant. A 44 year old using younger donor eggs has a similar chance of pregnancy as someone of the same eggs as the eggs she’s using.

I also don’t think that when you’ve already got children there’s “no choice”.

I haven’t managed to have ANY children despite years of trying (and I’m too old now) and I’m still choosing NOT to use a surrogate.

I just checked the actress out on IMDB and she seems to have had children. She's continued to work on and off since then, but it's been nothing like the quantity or quality of work you would have expected after that amazing start to her career.

That's not true.

Her first child was born in 2005 and she has worked steadily since then.

But that's not the point. Nobody 'needs' to have a baby, especially one who has already given birth to three. Michelle Williams purchased a baby as a lifestyle choice.

If you asked these celebrities "do you support slavery?" they would be horrified. Yet they feel brave enough to purchase a baby and talk about it in the media. Would they purchase a toddler? A teen? An adult?
It's utterly abhorrent.

@Falseknock are you saying adoptive parents don’t love their children? I am adopted, I do not agree with surrogacy. I would not want to know my resultant parents had basically treated both birth mother and myself as a commodity, no matter how much they loved me.

In certain American states, adoption is also little different to surrogacy.

Surrogacy is evil. It is human trafficking. The production of humans for sale. Gross.

Deciding to rent out someone else's uterus for your own wants and needs is wrong on every level but you also have to question the surrogate mothers status and just how genuine they really are.

Imo, there are only two reasons a woman would do this, the first is money and the other is a deep seated mental health issue. I really do not believe many are doing it for altruistic reasons.

It took me 7 years to conceive and never once during that time did I even contemplate asking another woman to grow and birth a child for me and DH. No adult 'needs' a baby. Having children is not a given right.

This is awful

@IcedPurple You've misread/ misunderstood me. I'm talking about the actress I'm talking about, not Michelle Williams.

Michelle Williams probably used a surrogate because she's 45 and she has back-to-back contracts till 2030.

Sorry yes, I did misunderstand you.

As for Michelle Williams, she chose to purchase a baby, which IMO is a morally objectionable thing to do. Her age and career are irrelevant to the ethics of the situation.

the surrogate cant be doing this for altruistic reasons if Williams already has 3 babies

if someone had no babies and was desperate, it’s easier to comprehend

Thank goodness ir's illegal here. Doesn't stop people doing it but it's less easy.

Stupid woman (of whom I've never heard), she already had children.

Adoption is typically done because it is in the child's best interests. Whilst it is usually better for a child to stay with their parents, sometimes this isn't the case, and then adoption is often done as the next best thing.

An adoption which consists of a rich person finding an ordinary family and buying their child is not a good thing, and surrogacy is basically a planned version of that.

Gestating a baby is not a 'job'!

And how many rich women have babies for poor women?

No, not saying that. I’m comparing adoption and surrogacy. People on here are saying how awful it is for a baby to be taken immediately from the woman who gave birth to it and that the baby and mother will have trauma from that happening. So yes, adoption is more sad, in that in that case the woman giving birth is the actual mother of the child, not a disinterested 3rd party just wanting cash.

I wonder if the two younger ones were IVF and the fourth was the last remaining embryo that Michelle could no longer carry. I think it should be up to the mother and father to decide what they want to do. As long as the child is loved, who acted as the incubator is irrelevant. As the child of a step family I don’t think about who contributed genetically to my make up rather who raised me.

Totally her choice, made with detached emotions.
You have absolutely no way of knowing whether that is true or not.

The gestational carrier is a particularly unpleasant part of surrogacy, in the past when it was the surrogates own egg some women found they couldn't bring themselves to hand the baby over so now more people use donor eggs so the surrogate has no legal rights to the baby. I'm one of the least maternal people I know but the coldness of that thinking is just nasty

Being an actress, she's likely underweight and starving herself every day, which also affects fertility

I see what you’re saying @WhiteNoiseBlur but what difference does it make to the child? It was removed from its mother. Whether that is because the mother wanted them but couldn’t keep them, or didn’t want them and only had them for money… neither is great for the child is it?

Not the same thing - in majority of surrogacy cases after birth, the baby is being given to their mother, not taken from her. As per this info from web -
In gestational surrogacy, which is the most common type, the surrogate does not use her own eggs. Instead, the intended parent's or a donor's eggs are used to create an embryo that is then implanted in the surrogate. Traditional surrogacy, where the surrogate's eggs are used, is far less common.