To feel uncomfortable with celebrity surrogacy?

[Username91]

After reading about Amber Herd having a baby girl via surrogate it just got me thinking about the amount of famous people who have children this way. I have nothing against surrogacy, it just seems to me that a lot of rich women choose to have children this way and I’m not convinced they ALL have problems carrying children themselves. I find it a bit disturbing and wondered if I’m alone in thinking this?

Once again I’d like to point out I’m not surrogacy bashing here. I just don’t think it should be something that is used by women with money as they don’t like the idea of carrying their own babies, of course it’s very different for women who struggle to conceive/carry themselves.

YANBU I watched a celeb talk about it and it was quite obvious that it was more about choosing the sex of the child out of the embryos rather that they couldn’t carry themselves (obviously some can’t.
It feels uncomfortable that you can choose the sex. The embryos are also tested for illness so it’s almost like they’re trying to get the perfect child.

It's interesting how so many on here are against surrogacy. In real life, people think you're some kind of monster for being against it. Friends have looked at me in horror and simply couldn't understand my point of view, because, you know, cute babies, sad people being made happy thanks to others 'being kind', cute babies blah blah

YANBU. All surrogacy is problematic, imo, and the celebrity spin on it presenting it as an Insta-friendly lifestyle choice is pretty sickening.

@AngeloMysterioso

I follow a few “feel good” Instagram accounts and have noticed recently (particularly during pride month where the parents were gay men) a lot of them featuring surrogacy stories and showing the moment when, as far as I see it, the newborn baby (or babies, as it quite often seems to be twins) is taken away from its mother and handed over to complete strangers.

Because as far as the baby is concerned, the woman who carried and gave birth to it is it’s mother, whether or not the person actually intending to be it’s mother (or father) is the surrogate’s infertile sibling or Amber Heard. That person is a stranger to the baby.

Why is the parents need to be parents more important than the potential psychological impact that this separation immediately after birth can have on the children?

It’s not ok to take puppies away from their mothers immediately after birth. Why is ok to do it to babies?

When I see this it makes me physically ill and so utterly sad for that newborn baby. As I've said before, you wouldn't take a kitten or puppy away from its mother so why take a human baby? It is so so wrong.

@Travielkapelka

I know someone who was a surrogate. She had had her family, she was extremely comfortably off. She just felt that she was so lucky to have her kids she wanted to give someone else that chance. She had the baby, handed it to the parents and carried on with her life. I have no issue with this. I think she’s entirely selfless

But it's not all about her. It's about the baby. The baby and it's needs should always come first.

It's interesting how so many on here are against surrogacy. In real life, people think you're some kind of monster for being against it. Friends have looked at me in horror and simply couldn't understand my point of view, because, you know, cute babies, sad people being made happy thanks to others 'being kind', cute babies blah blah

But those same people (f they are women) usually say "oh how wonderful and kind. Of course I could never do it myself..."

And many of those people - male and female - have very limited knowledge if any of what it really involves.

I think for women who have been through pregnancy and childbirth it is more natural to understand the demands it makes on your body, the birth injuries and haemorrhages, the love of their baby, and not even consider that it is an acceptable idea, they are more likely to be in agreement with this from Beeeeep (sorry if I'm a few e's short).

Getting pregnant, gestating and birthing a baby to give away as 'a nice thing to do' is utterly mad. Nobody mentally ok would think of doing that. That must be meeting some need in them.

Because as far as the baby is concerned, the woman who carried and gave birth to it is it’s mother Parents of surrogate children don't believe that, there has to be a connection.
There is 1000's born yearly and those in denial don't consider the babies who arrive disabled they are abandoned stateless.
Or the selective abortion if your surrogate has multiple embryos.
There's 1000 of DC in Ukraine Orphanages too.

@CP26 thank you for posting the second article about how no difference could be seen in later years. I found that more straightforward to understand. It will be interesting to see what other studies say when they are published.

@EmeraldShamrock

Because as far as the baby is concerned, the woman who carried and gave birth to it is it’s mother Parents of surrogate children don't believe that, there has to be a connection. There is 1000's born yearly and those in denial don't consider the babies who arrive disabled they are abandoned stateless. Or the selective abortion if your surrogate has multiple embryos. There's 1000 of DC in Ukraine Orphanages too.

I honestly believe the mother who gives birth should hold, feed and generally care for the baby for a few weeks, handing over to the other parents gradually so the baby is comfortable with them too. Obviously that means her living with the couple and having the grief of parting with the child, an expensive business too. It's a nightmare really and a great pity surrogacy was ever thought of but here it is and not going away (though I believed it was illegal in this country).

@Travielkapelka

I know someone who was a surrogate. She had had her family, she was extremely comfortably off. She just felt that she was so lucky to have her kids she wanted to give someone else that chance. She had the baby, handed it to the parents and carried on with her life. I have no issue with this. I think she’s entirely selfless

Oh, how cute and adorable.

How did her children feel about the fact that mummy was pregnant but 'handed' the baby over and 'carried on with her life'? That must have been puzzling for them.

How did the baby feel about being seperated at birth from the only mother it had ever known?

What if she had become pregnant with a child with a congenital disorder and the 'parents' decided they didn't want it?

It's great that this person was so very happy and 'selfless' and that the 'surrogacy journey' went as glibly and smoothly as a Hallmark card slogan, but that dosnt change the fact that surrogacy is a moral and ethical minefield.

YANBU. Some of those "celebrities" are like 60 years old. No business of having babies in that age. And of course, it is nannies raising those babies, not "mothers".

@FannyCann
@ArabellaScott
Hear hear. Haven't been online for a while.

Extreme wealth in a country with huge inequality in society develops a market place for surrogacy. Think the US, Ukraine and Colombia.

We should be asking ourselves why is surrogacy banned in countries with better social care systems such as Sweden or the Netherlands? Perhaps they recognise the risks posed to women of poorer backgrounds.

When is it ok to ask a poorer woman to risk her reproductive health to give you a baby?

[quote WeRoarSometimes]@FannyCann
@ArabellaScott
Hear hear. Haven't been online for a while.

Extreme wealth in a country with huge inequality in society develops a market place for surrogacy. Think the US, Ukraine and Colombia.

We should be asking ourselves why is surrogacy banned in countries with better social care systems such as Sweden or the Netherlands? Perhaps they recognise the risks posed to women of poorer backgrounds.

When is it ok to ask a poorer woman to risk her reproductive health to give you a baby?[/quote]
@WeRoarSometimes

Fully agree.

I'm still enraged by the Lucy Liu quote upthread that she was too busy working to have her own baby..: only someone rich would think that's acceptable. She obviously didn't think she was too busy to care for a child!?

@WeRoarSometimes Welcome back. Roaring all the louder after a break!

@IHaveBrilloHair

I'm completely anti surrogacy

Me, too.

I just feel there are so mani kids waiting to be adopted. And to take a baby away from the person who carried them is wrong, it's all they've known, the voice, the smell etc. That's how I feel anyway.

When is it ok to ask a poorer woman to risk her reproductive health to give you a baby?

Who is going around posing this question to a woman?

I just feel there are so mani kids waiting to be adopted. And to take a baby away from the person who carried them is wrong, it's all they've known, the voice, the smell etc. That's how I feel anyway.

Whilst I disagree entirely with surrogacy and egg donation, children up for adoption are not consolation prizes for infertile people. There are more kids waiting to be adopted than there are suitable homes as many children up for adoption in the UK have only been removed after significant problems and are far from babyhood.

Seeing a lot of "rich women are never surrogates for poor women"

Honestly, I don't support surrogacy really, but this argument makes no sense

You also don't see rich women cleaning poor women's houses, or serving them at tills. Not equivalent to 'slavery' or 'exploitation'. All it means is a rich woman would need more money to consider surrogacy - which a poor woman couldn't offer

Rich people don't always use poor surrogate mothers. They may well be similar social status. I'm obviously against outsourcing to people who genuinely are destitute and feel compelled. But come on, simple thinking here.

It's horrific how normalised it's becoming. In Ireland most people seem to be paying surrogates in Ukraine, an extremely poor country. I find it especially sickening as we're still supposedly hand-wringing over how we treated our own unmarried mothers and babies in recent history.

Secsee, cleaning someone's house is not the same as gestating a child for them. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you.

@irishfeminist

Secsee, cleaning someone's house is not the same as gestating a child for them. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you.

No, it's an example of why rich people aren't carrying a baby for a poor woman, who is also a stranger. Not difficult to understand

A rich woman would want more than £2k, for example, if that was the budget for a poorer couple. Unless they are very well acquainted, why would she offer?

You also don't see rich women cleaning poor women's houses, or serving them at tills.

Nobody claims that women clean houses or serve at tills for altrustic reasons, because they just love it soo much. That's what people claim about surrogates.

@secsee

Seeing a lot of "rich women are never surrogates for poor women"

Honestly, I don't support surrogacy really, but this argument makes no sense

You also don't see rich women cleaning poor women's houses, or serving them at tills. Not equivalent to 'slavery' or 'exploitation'. All it means is a rich woman would need more money to consider surrogacy - which a poor woman couldn't offer

Rich people don't always use poor surrogate mothers. They may well be similar social status. I'm obviously against outsourcing to people who genuinely are destitute and feel compelled. But come on, simple thinking here.

But serving on a till doesn't put you at risk of serious illness, permanent disability or death. All of which can and do happen to women in this country as a result of pregnancy and childbirth.

A better analogy would be paying a poorer woman to remove asbestos in your house with no protective equipment. That would be exploitative, because of the known risks.

YANBU

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of surrogacy in any circumstances BUT having said that, have a DSIS who cannot have her own children and there have been times when I've thought, I could have a baby for her, my own family is finished etc etc.

It would never have been an option as DSIS would not have accepted the offer (she and her DH are devout Christians) but I'd be lying if I hadn't considered offering.

Celebrity surrogacy I am opposed to on every single level going, simply because I am deeply cynical about celebrities in general (and American/Hollywoodised celebrities in particular) and would absolutely assume they simply do not wish to carry their own pregnancy. I am massively unfair in this assumption, perhaps, but I don't believe any of them actually have any infertility issues at all. They simply want to select the sex of the baby and maintain their perfect bodies. They don't care which poor woman they exploit to get their perfect child. (Can you imagine how someone like Naomi Campbell most likely treated her surrogate? The mind boggles). These vacuous individuals want total control and picture-perfect babies to boast about on Instagram. Said babies will almost certainly be raised by a brace of nannies. And I would bet everything I own that if any celeb surrogate baby had a whiff of a disability, they would be up for adoption in a nanosecond.

Sorry if that sounds cynical and unfair. But I loathe celebrity culture with a passion and celeb surrogacy just feels like a dysfunctional extension of that. It's wrong on pretty much every level going.

I am against surrogacy but many of the arguments on this thread don't make sense.

• Why don't they adopt - Adoption is about finding a child a home, not for parents to find a child.

• You wouldn't take a kitten/puppy away from its mother - That's only because you would be taking it away to a house with only humans, if you were taking it to a willing surrogate cat/dog mother that would be fine.

• Why do they even want a child, it's selfish - Exactly the same for every person who has a child by whatever means.

• The child will have attachment disorder - No study has ever shown this. Comparisons to adopted children are meaningless as they have basically always been adopted past the newborn stage, after years of neglectful parenting.

Before I get flamed note that I am against surrogacy, but I think we should stuck to factual arguments.