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

She did not take a woman’s baby did she?

@savethatkitty Again, let’s talk about the adult in the room but completely ignore the baby 🙄

That's exactly what she did.

How? We don’t know if she use donor eggs or if the donor would ever view it as “her baby”.

So not sure why you are calling it the surrogate’s baby if nobody involved sees it that way.

I'll repeat the question I asked above.

If an infertile woman uses donor eggs to have a baby, would you consider that baby not to be 'hers' but to 'belong' to the woman who donated the eggs?

Logically, you must.

Surrogacy is an agreement between CONSENTING parties. If people have the means to expand their family however they choose, it's none of my business.

Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will. The baby is loved & wanted. Just because she didn't birth the baby herself...

https://surrogacyconcern.uk/

https://x.com/SurrogConcern on twitter

Should be illegal imo. It is the commodification of women's bodies and baby trafficking for the benefit of the wealthy.

I would view the child as “belonging” to whoever is viewed as, and sees themselves as the mother.

So I would see an adoptive mother as the mother of a child even though she did not carry the child
/ has no genetic connection to the child.

If neither Williams nor the surrogate see the baby as the donors baby then why refer to is as her “taking a woman’s child away”?

All babies exist to meet adult desires.

Adults have children because they desire a child.

So why did you mention donor eggs then?

Who do you think the baby believes it 'belongs' to? Or do only the adults involved count?

Do you also believe that a woman should be contractually obliged to give up the child she has given birth to, even if during the pregnancy she decides she would prefer to keep it?

This ^

I'm not following.... what am I missing

I mentioned donor eggs because you were talking about it being the woman’s “baby” and I did not see where the basis was for that?

It’s not legally, it does not appear to be emotionally so I figured you must think it’s
hers genetically.

I think the surrogate and the people
who engage the surrogate should have and agreement that covers the arrangement and that’s between them.

It was you who mentioned donor eggs, not me.

So you believe the woman who gestates and gives birth to a baby should not have any rights to that baby? That it's something which can and should be signed away in a legal document? It's not 'between them' if it carries the force of law.

You can capitalise CONSENTING all you like, but you’re skipping the only party who can’t consent: THE BABY.

For 9 months their whole world is one body, one voice, one heartbeat. Then they’re pulled from that primal connection and handed over like a product.

Dress it up as ‘choice’ or ‘love’ if you want but the reality is manufactured harm.

Adoption exists to try and reduce tragedy that’s already happened. Surrogacy manufactures tragedy then ties a bow on it and sells it as love.

This is about the voiceless human turned into a commodity, which you’ve conveniently glossed over. Lovely.

Respectfully disagree. Show me statistics where children born via surrogate grow up with trauma. Babies (and Humans) require basic needs - they don't care who meets those needs.

I really don’t see a problem with surrogacy, other than instances of forced surrogacy/where women turn to it as a last resort for money (much like prostitution). People use such black and white terms on MN about these things. Totally inappropriate, factually incorrect, potentially damaging.

Lovely

The reality is most babies come into the world because sex, biology, circumstance, and yes a lot of times, desire all converge. (But tragically sometimes because of coercion or abuse)

At their best though, parents also want to nurture another life. That distinction matters a lot.

If you’re creating a baby with the sole purpose of handing it over, you’ve turned a baby into something to be given, sold, or passed on. That feels very, very wrong.

if youve already had children naturally i think its selfish no need to use someone like that

Well it's the 'for money' but that causes the issue. One the one hand your talking about helping people but you're turning children into a commodity.

Do they not do it willingly? Or am I being naive? There’s payment involved, surely?

None of us knows how the baby sees it! A brand new human is likely to very much see the surrogate as its mother- the baby has no idea where its genetic material came from. Literally the only thing it knows when it is born is the woman who carried it.

We are so accustomed now to putting children and babies’ needs before those of adults- which is exactly how it should be. So why do so many have a blind spot when it comes to surrogacy?

It’s a divisive topic for certain. Like IVF was (I’d imagine not so much now, or maybe still - we are indeed interfering in something quite miraculous and sacred even). And donor material. Also sex selection. A hundred years ago people would shriek in horror imagining all these things. It would be scary. Now IVF is on the NHS (subject to postcode lottery of course), but newer things like surrogacy and sex selection are scary. We can be on the one end of the spectrum of opinions and say - accept your childlessness, accept that the reproductive years are past you. We can be on the other end of the spectrum and say - everything goes. I don’t mind Michelle’s choice personally. Sex selection is scary for me personally, but acceptable when it is done to prevent genetic illnesses passing down the male or female line. But maybe I’m too scared/bigoted, I ask myself. Keep an open mind, Aster. What also raises questions in me is when people have lots and lots of kids. But again I berate mysel sometimes for questioning it.

I really want to know how those who support surrogacy feel about the idea of taking puppies and kittens away from their mothers at birth. Is that something those would support? If yes, why? If not, why not? (And why is it different for human babies?)