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.

@TreeSmuggler

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.

Adoption is about putting the child's needs first. Surrogacy is about the adults wants and needs.

When certain practices become common place amongst celebrities, we often assume they are doing something because they can afford to pay for something, many of us cannot.
However, we should put the economics arguement to one side.
Surrogacy is an exploitative practice. People travel to countries to pay surrogate mothers because the feel the laws in the destination country are 'flexible'. This usually means that commercial surrogacy is permitted and surrogate mums have few rights in legislation.
It is exploitation, but has been branded as something 'kind', 'amazing' to do for child free adults, who want a child and create one for the sole purpose of separating child from its birth mother.

@TreeSmuggler

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.

Why don't they adopt - totally agree with this. The question should be why don't they accept that they can't have a child, it's sad but it's life

The kitten/puppy argument - would it be ok to do this though? If you went to a breeder and said please sell me this newborn puppy I have a bitch at home who will foster it would they sell you the puppy? I doubt it.

The selfish argument - of course everyone who has a birth child deliberately does so from selfish motivations but the point being that this is such an excessively selfish and harmful thing to do in pursuit of a bio child - it's above and beyond the selfish urge to reproduce, as it causes harm to the baby and the (birth) mother.

I have never seen it said that babies will have attachment disorders. This would be an ignorant and misleading claim. However, it DOES disrupt the attachment relationship and disregards the importance of prenatal attachment on the mother/baby dyad. Just because most babies will recover from that disruption doesn't mean it's ok to do.

@Jobseeker19 yesterday 11:59

Let's be real, they do not want to have their body changed by a pregnancy so they are getting a poorer woman to have their child.

They get the baby and to keep their slim bodies which doesn't have stretch marks, incontinence and all the other stuff we risk when we get pregnant and give birth.

What it does it create a class system where women who have given birth are seen as lesser and undesirable.

The normalisation of surrogacy is already leading to a situation where wealthy "higher class" women can and do choose not to go through pregnancy and birth. Meanwhile a lower class of women are becoming the "breeder" class, providing gestational services to the wealthy. Not just women but also men - some gay but now we have single men who don't want the bother of a relationship with a woman demanding the right to "fertility equality" and buying babies for themselves. There is precious little safeguarding for the babies in the way potential adopters are screened and already there have been some shocking cases in USA of the babies being abused and even killed.

This is terrible for babies obviously.

It is also terrible for women and society.
Hands up who wants to be a breeder? No? Then why should other women be consigned to the stays of a battery chicken?

It also means that for Hollywood types (and it will obviously filter down to all high performing women in a range of careers) that soon it will become unacceptable for them to take time out to have a baby. They will not be able to choose to get pregnant the normal way and have their own baby. Companies will pressure women not to take time out - there is minimal maternity rights in the USA anyway and firms are now offering fertility expenses as part of the benefits package for men as well as women which can be used to pay for surrogacy. So women will be expected to take that route rather than getting the same amount to spend on MATERNITY for themselves.

Remember in the Brave New World how disgusted Linda is by pregnancy and childbirth as she had been conditioned to believe it was unnatural? We are fast approaching that point in some circles.

BTW if you have never read Brave New World now is a good time to get stuck in.

*status of battery chicken

Most people are OK with much worse things happening to women's bodies to create a never ending stream of vile porn. It's apparently cool to be cool about that, so I don't get too worked up about surrogacy if it's done in an ethical manner by mentally sound people.

@Comedycook

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

Some people just think baby being born equals good thing and can't see any further than that. You see it on here - people ask "should I have a baby in X circumstances" and some people always say yes go for it no matter how bad the circumstances are.

City firm gives staff £45k ‘fertility perk’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b9b2c570-cd25-11eb-9bfa-a3bc386e6928?shareToken=cb3e1c67c608d99d065e34428f59af088_

In the U.K. £45k will fully cover surrogacy costs. It costs about double that in the USA but it wouldn't surprise me if some employees are able to make it work for them by having a secondment to the U.K. for a year or two and availing themselves if the cheaper costs over here.

Companies will pressure women not to take time out - there is minimal maternity rights in the USA anyway and firms are now offering fertility expenses as part of the benefits package for men as well as women which can be used to pay for surrogacy. So women will be expected to take that route rather than getting the same amount to spend on MATERNITY for themselves.

I think some companies will pay for egg freezing to encourage employees to get pregnant later rather than sooner.

@MihaelaCW So how do you suggest this sort of case should be managed? A woman with clear mental health problems and yet eager baby buyers kept on using her and in the later pregnancies when she was no longer able to choose the DIY self inseminate option a fertility clinic treated her and impregnated her despite clear health and mental health contraindications?

"When she had her first baby for a couple, she lied to her bosses about the pregnancy. She invented a boyfriend and then claimed the baby had died, causing her colleagues to send her sympathy cards.
And a year after she became a surrogate mother for the third time, she was diagnosed with depression.

At one point in 2004, she felt so miserable that she attempted suicide by taking an overdose."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166750/amp/Jill-Hawkins-Surrogate-mother-given-birth-TEN-children-mothers-says-time-stop.html

I think offering to pay for egg freezing is deeply cynical or at any rate extremely ill informed Counsellor
The success rate is very low and women have an unrealistic sense of security after choosing this option. As they age there is a higher chance of the frozen eggs working with a younger surrogate mother than the owner of the eggs.
There is also the issue that the process of going through ovarian stimulation and egg freezing may impact their health.

I agree Fanny.

Here is an interesting podcast interview with a woman about her egg freezing experience.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000461279868

If you like listening to podcasts (I find these are just the right length for my journey to work) Venus Rising has lots of really interesting interviews.

Most people are OK with much worse things happening to women's bodies to create a never ending stream of vile porn. It's apparently cool to be cool about that

No they certainly are not okay about it on MN, there is nothing cool around porn women being trafficked for sex/rape/exploitation.
I don't know why you think that?

so I don't get too worked up about surrogacy if it's done in an ethical manner by mentally sound people.

Good for you, somewhat like BLM, vulnerable exploitable women's lives matter it isn't a case of "well worse things happens"

@MihaelaCW

Most people are OK with much worse things happening to women's bodies to create a never ending stream of vile porn. It's apparently cool to be cool about that, so I don't get too worked up about surrogacy if it's done in an ethical manner by mentally sound people.

Where on earth have you got this view from? Most people are ok with women being exploited to make porn? Really? By “most people” do you really mean male consumers of violent porn?

Babies to order, from rent-a-wombs, and commodification of women’s bodies to serve the needs of other more wealthy individuals is deplorable, and should not be allowed.

@FannyCann

I think offering to pay for egg freezing is deeply cynical or at any rate extremely ill informed Counsellor The success rate is very low and women have an unrealistic sense of security after choosing this option. As they age there is a higher chance of the frozen eggs working with a younger surrogate mother than the owner of the eggs. There is also the issue that the process of going through ovarian stimulation and egg freezing may impact their health.

I was watching something on breakfast news about this a few years ago. It was being promotedd as a positive thing (women taking control of their careers, that kind of thing) but it struck me as deeply cynical and quite the opposite of supporting women in the workplace. I think its down there with companies that have 'perks' that are really just an incentive to create a workaholic culture.

Surrogacy shouldn't be allowed full stop.

I haven't read the whole thread but have been reading a lot about surrogacy since I learnt about proposed law reform in the U.K. from MN.

Celebrity culture is definitely popularising surrogacy, with the success stories and posed photographs of newborns against white backdrops like Heard, or baby feet with manicured nails like Naomi Campbell recently. The birth mother barely gets a mention, sometimes it's about protecting her identity but sometimes I think it's to sweep away the blood, stitches, scars and wobble tummies to sanitise all the horrid, ugly realities of pregnancy and labour that doesn't for with celebrity culture.

The focus is always on the desires of the commissioning parent or parents, it's never about the child at the centre and the woman who gives birth shuffles off home with cash in the bank to her own kids and family, or alone, with her pills to stop the milk coming in and the sanitary pads big enough to feel like an adult nappy, to recover and more often than not I think, do it all over again as soon as her body allows.

It’s utterly grim. I have seen a sister carry a baby for her infertile sibling - no issues with that genuine altruistic surrogacy. Beyond this type of situation it appalls me. The baby isn’t centred, the birth mother expendable and the commodification of women continues at the detriment to their value.

Singlebutmarried great trolling!

I am anti surrogacy but can't really add anything to the argument as so many good points have already been made. Aside from all the ethical issues, on a practical level I think that people tend to forget how risky pregnancy can be, (and it seems to be more risky when the baby is not genetically related to the birth mother) and how birth injuries are pretty much ignored by the medical profession. Tears, incontinence, post birth sex issues etc are seen as 'expected' and something that women just have to live with. I know these sort of things are seen as private but i really think that some people, especially gay men for example, won't have a clue of the risks involved. Perhaps if this sort of stuff was highlighted more in the media people would be less inclined to see surrogacy as an easy solution for infertility.

@OhHolyJesus
You've hit the nail on the head.

Surrogacy is a Service for the wealthy and those with access to fertility experts, fertility clinics, solicitors and generally power.

Most surrogate mums have already had children i.e successful pregnancies.
They are more likely to be in lower paid work, restricted by their academic achievement, skills, family background or childcare needs.
And the huge amounts available - tens of thousands of pounds will be money they may not be able to imagine achieving.

Earlier in this thread, there was comparison to cleaning and retail work, which are dominated by female participation. In those roles, women can choose to leave their employer. They are not risking their lives by that undertaking. Their bodies are not burdened with the huge health risks being undertaken for surrogacy.
And nor are they left with irreversible consequences and responsibilities, as they would be in surrogacy should commissioning parents change their mind about the baby.

This is why some of us are frightened about what surrogacy means for the future of women. In the UK, particularly the push for allowing commercial surrogacy is scary.

A lot of judgement on this thread. I'd be interested to know how many of those of you totally against surrogacy have struggled with infertility or have had multiple losses and surrogacy is one of the very few options available for you to have a child of your own? What about LGBT+ couples who can't carry a biological child? Or single people?

And please don't say "just adopt" - it's not that simple.

I had fertility issues and never did have a child but we would never have considered using a surrogate.