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

@shiverm I should have specified, as per the OP’s example I was speaking about commercial surrogacy. I was very pleased for a friend whose sister was a surrogate. It’s not a situation likely to lead to the rise in surrogate baby farms or to make young poor women its coerced victims.

I do know someone who approached a gay couple to be their surrogate and who spent a while promoting herself as a would be surrogate. In the end it didn’t happen. She wasn’t on her arse economically but she was a long way from healthy in her need for attention and I wasn’t overly surprised she would risk her own health for something a bit unusual. Perhaps it was pure altruism for the woman you know of but when birth so often does harm and pregnancy can cause crippling side effects it’s a very unusual offer when balanced against self interest your children’s needs.

@Perfectcake It wasn't an example my daughter was good friends with her at school. They were caring adoptive parents. They were kind to me and I was a pauper and got my daughter in through a bursary. Still struggled to afford it. My son's school however was tedious most people there was miserable. You do make a good point and balanced view about adoption and surrogacy and do agree that surrogate children can feel the same. In regards to the Kardashians I think both has a man ever survived them and leave well?

I wasn't adopted or a surrogate I looked at my mother like she was too posh to push and couldn't be bothered. There was emotional as well as psychological neglect growing up. Maybe that's why we are on here free therapy.

Of course neither is great for the child. But you don’t manufacture a situation that is shit for a child unless you are wickledly selfish and entitled. Babies take from mothers at birth for adoption are typically taken because they would be dangerously unsafe in mother’s care / we generally decide it is better for a baby not to die due to neglect, than to suffer trauma due to separation. That doesn’t make it ok to traumatise a newborn because you are too selfish to gestate or too entitled to accept you are unable to carry.

Buying human life and renting body parts is always totally wrong. No justification. Infertility, same-sex couples, bereavement; zero excuse.

@Falseknock sorry you had a neglectful mother - warmth in families is very attractive when you have suffered coldness. I hope your parenting experiences have been kinder. And yes to the talking - love the stuff!

Do you really think that's the same thing? Surrogacy and IVF?

Surrogacy is human trafficking. It's buying a baby.

This woman did it despite having three kids.

Having four kids is often regarded as a status symbol in the UK and US now cos only the very wealthy can afford it (or you are very poor and the kids are very disadvantaged). Middle class women rarely have four kids.

@Perfectcake ah I appreciate your nuanced response, and glad you agree there are positive stories within the extremes in surrogacy. I always feel it’s important to consider the situations where it is a positive thing. and to be fair, the woman who approached that couple story, I don’t know the woman. It all seems to be lovely, she only wanted to do it once, she already had some children, and her focus (as reported to me) was having enjoyed pregnancies and wanting to experience that again. But you’re absolutely right, in some circumstances, even altruism could be performed for unknowable purposes (but then, isn’t everything we do performed in one way or another?) But there should be wariness, psychological assessment, councelling involved before embarking on such a thing to properly protect the surrogate.

the second part of your comment I didn’t understand: “ it’s a very unusual offer when balanced against self interest your children’s needs.” Could you say that last bit in another way? I’m enjoying the discussion

her focus (as reported to me) was having enjoyed pregnancies and wanting to experience that again

Her want. No thought for the child.

A new baby needs one thing - their mother's body and presence. The fourth trimester is important.

Surrogacy is a form of people trafficking. Buying a baby is wrong.

Well I suppose I mean what lunatic would be wanting to risk months of ill health - sickness, pelvic issues or liver probs while needed by their own family. Then there are the birth and post birth complications and past performance does not always predict the future complications.
For a sister I get it because of your relationship and your absolute certainty of the outcomes for the baby/ new family. Without those twin certainties why would any sane mother risk it?

Because babies are now a commodity that can ‘bought’. Everything in life can now be bought. The sense of entitlement is extraordinary, I want it so I should have it!

@ThisAquaWriter people had that attitude about Magdalene laundries, now thank god people see the horror of those places. Those places had no consideration about the children. Yes their adoptive parents loved them, doesn't make them right though. Same with surrogacy, resultant parents may love them, but the way they became parents is not right, There is a reason surrogacy is illegal in some countries.

The way donor egg and donor sperm is used has also changed. When I was younger it was a thing that male students donated sperm for payment and of course it was anonymous. Now, it is recognised that this can be traumatising for the resultant child and so can no longer be anonymous in this country and restrictions on how many donations are used.

Interestingly, some people still choose to use anonymous donors from abroad. Just shows how much they actually love this child if they do this, denying their child the right to know their genetic links. Again, with surrogacy some people use surrogates from other countries to bypass legal restrictions in this country. Who are these people actually thinking about, certainly not the surrogate and certainly not the child.

”My body, my choice” has limitations. We don’t allow people to sell kidneys for money, consent to serious physical harm for sexual thrills etc because we weigh up the harm to society against the normal rules of autonomy. With surrogacy there is a real risk of exploitation leading to physical and mental harm (birth and pregnancy injuries, suffering from being parted from the child). Plus “my body, my choice” totally ignores the child and its needs. We don’t otherwise allow people to be sold (slavery and trafficking are illegal). A baby is not a bag of sugar, it has a bond with the mother that carried it. So my view is that surrogacy should be illegal.

I think only a lunatic would be asking their sister to risk months of ill health sickness, pelvic issues or liver probs too. I mean I wouldn't dream of asking a stranger to do that to themselves and IMO asking my sister, who I love would be even worse. But many people find it more palatable for some reason.

So if a woman uses donor eggs to have a wanted baby, is that not her 'own' baby?

By your logic, it must not be.

Disgusting and dystopian. In ALL circumstances.

Why does it matter?

Would it have been more acceptable if she'd adopted a child?

People expand their families in all sorts of ways.

If she'd paid a woman to take away her 3 week old would that have been acceptable to you?

It matters because buying babies is wrong.

Would it have been more acceptable as an adoption? Yes.

Adoption exists to give a child in an unavoidable, often tragic situation a stable family. That’s very different from manufacturing trauma for a baby just to satisfy an adult want.

Honestly, the number of posts glossing over the baby is very disturbing.

If you believe a baby exists just to meet adult desires, ask yourself why that feels acceptable.

No one is entitled to a baby.

But she didn't.

And nobody is forcing the surrogate.

But you said it doesn't matter how she 'acquired' the baby.

Hence my question as to how it would have been morally different if she'd purchased the child after birth instead of commissioning it in advance? Especially if nobody was 'forcing' anyone to give up the baby?

After all, people expand their families in all sorts of ways.

She is 44 so potentially unable to get pregnant again or for health reasons cannot get pregnant again.

Who knows.