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.

I’m against all surrogacy including so called altruistic surrogacy which still doesn’t take the effects on the baby into account. I would love to see the numbers of rich women being surrogates for poorer women, it really is just rent a womb. Revolting.

Hmm I don’t know tbh. I think I’m divided, although the exploitation is really disturbing and I’d never really thought about it from that way, so thanks for sharing! Incredibly informative.

I thought about this with the Kardashians. We know Kim used a surrogate for baby 3 and 4 because of problems with placenta acreta and pre eclampsia, so medically it makes sense for her not to carry more children. But most people would have stopped at 2, but then few have her resources.

But then there is Khloe is is considering it as she she’d be a high risk pregnancy. Obviously we don’t know her medical history but ‘just’ being high risk (not diminishing the worry, but you are high risk over 35, or in my case from baby being on the smaller side) in and as of itself- doesn’t sit quite right with me

@thelegohooverer

I was on the fence about surrogacy but reading about it and listening to stories of people who’ve been surrogates has been eye opening.

I don’t think the effects on the children are considered. We’ve learned a lot about the damaging effects of adoption. And our views as a society reflect this (eg it’s not acceptable to kidnap dc of minority ethnic groups or sell the dc of of unmarried women) yet we embrace surrogacy. Celebrity endorsement helps drive that acceptance.

I was listening to an interview with a woman who had been a surrogate four times, and was very positive about her choices, but it was a heart breaking listen. She wasn’t criticising the companies she worked with but her story was very unsettling. At one point she availed of psychiatric support and then went on to have more babies to ease the burden of guilt and failure she carried. I suspect that an independent psychiatrist, who wasn’t being paid by a surrogacy company, might have explored those feelings further.

When you saying damaging effects of adoption what do you mean? ( not an attack, I’m interested)

I think these celebrities see it as the easy way and it’s vanity.

They don’t want to get stretched and puffy and give birth.

I don’t believe KK had those conditions at all , total vanity to have further babies through surrogate , she was quoted as saying she disliked being pregnant.

In my opinion these mega rich celebs see babies as commodities

Also Ronaldo bought babies too , used a surrogate , the mother is not involved at all , I always felt that was to provide grandchildren for his mother , totally weird and bizarre but hey , if you’re a mega millionaire then what’s stopping these people.

Just doesn’t sit right with me at all

@Theluggage15

I’m against all surrogacy including so called altruistic surrogacy which still doesn’t take the effects on the baby into account. I would love to see the numbers of rich women being surrogates for poorer women, it really is just rent a womb. Revolting.

Agree completely

I am absolutely opposed to all surrogacy, celebrity or not.

YANBU. I think that in a lot cases, with celebrities, vanity and a desire to avoid inconvenience are at play. It doesn't bode well for how they will be as parents TBH.

Also, no one has the right to have a child. It's not an essential part of life. Until rich western women are having babies for poor women in developing countries it will never be fair.

I don't agree with any surrogacy unless it's being done for love, I.e your sister carries your baby for you because you physically can't.

The idea that rich women, particularly in America, are doing this mainly because they've let time run away from them let's be honest, by putting their careers first, makes me very uncomfortable.

There are some things in life that I don't think should be bought, including having a baby.

Outsourcing pregnancy to another woman is a profoundly misogynist act.

@Clymene

Outsourcing pregnancy to another woman is a profoundly misogynist act.

Women as livestock.

Totally agree.

I’m reading a lot of:

Woman should have body autonomy and choose what they do with their own bodies

So if they choose to be a surrogate that’s ok

No they only get to to with their bodies what I feel is morally right.

No choice is made in a vacuum though is it? Do you see wealthy women acting as surrogates because I don’t.

Why do you have nothing against surrogacy? You really should

Before the invention of safe formula milk wealthy families would routinely employ a wet nurse for their babies. Outsourcing has a long history among the idle rich.

@TinkleTongs

I think these celebrities see it as the easy way and it’s vanity.

They don’t want to get stretched and puffy and give birth.

I don’t believe KK had those conditions at all , total vanity to have further babies through surrogate , she was quoted as saying she disliked being pregnant.

In my opinion these mega rich celebs see babies as commodities

Also Ronaldo bought babies too , used a surrogate , the mother is not involved at all , I always felt that was to provide grandchildren for his mother , totally weird and bizarre but hey , if you’re a mega millionaire then what’s stopping these people.

Just doesn’t sit right with me at all

The Ronaldo thing is particularly strange. MJ did similar didn’t he?

Probably going to articulate this poorly but it’s the driver to have a child that is ‘biologically yours’ above all else, including ethics both medical and more general that makes me feel uneasy.

That being said, I think there is nuance when individuals do it for a loved one, sister, dear friend etc

I don’t believe both Kim and Khloe Kardashian have medical issues and ‘need’ to use a surrogate. Kim already had 2 children, she didn’t need to have 2 more and Khloe has 1 so again, doesn’t need to have another. They haven’t disclosed exactly what the issues are but I think most women (if this were true) would just be happy with their existing children rather than paying a poor woman to carry their next child.

Amber Heard story is a bit weird. Mid 30s, maybe has medical issues but again seems more like she doesn’t want stretch marks so has paid another woman to do that for her… In her position I’d be more inclined to adopt if I were truly desperate to have a child but maybe that’s just me.

I don’t agree with surrogacy on the whole either. I think it’s different if it’s a close relative who offers to carry the baby for someone who cannot do it, that is pure altruism with zero financial benefit. Renting a poor woman’s womb seems unethical.

Ronaldo situation is outright bizarre. He did eventually marry and have a child with his wife but decided to have three children as a single man through a surrogate first? Weird.

I think it can exploit women, especially in poorer countries or those with less regulation

I can understand why people who cannot have a child at all would want to do this having explored all other options but does make me uncomfortable seeing rich celebs do it

Surrogacy is the exploitation of women.

Women’s bodies are NOT FOR SALE.

You only have to read about the poor women who have their passports confiscated. The women housed in dormitories. The Japanese man who had 19 different children via surrogates….. it goes in and on and on.

And no….there are no wealthy educated women being surrogates.

In the global North the narrative is altruistic. In the global south the narrative is that it’s honest work and a good way out of poverty.

They frame it whichever way makes it most palatable… meanwhile the people who make the real money are the brokers.

Not the women or the children.

Those who say they would do it for love if a sister or friend was infertile, would you be okay in the reverse situation asking them to take the risk for you? Or okay with them refusing to do it for you?

I disagree with it on every level.

That picture of Amber Heard looking all glam with the baby sums up celebrities and how wrong it is. Perfect picture but not so perfect really.

YANBU, but I don’t agree with surrogacy at all.

It trafficks babies away from their mothers, exploits the poverty of women in favour of richer women and men or male couples, and commodifies babies and motherhood.

It’s an inherently misogynistic practice, as the birth mother is left recovering, bleeding, often damaged while the parents whisk the baby away, no effects on them.

There have been several stories of American and Chinese babies born to Ukrainian and other national mothers abandoned because they’re disabled.

It is unethical in the extreme, and it’s a sign of how sadly our society has become so permissive and unhealthy that so many people think this is a progressive thing to do. It isn’t.

There’s a lobby here pushing for the liberalisation of surrogacy laws. An all male panel of law commissioners produced an appalling biased consultation last year which didn’t take the needs of mothers and babies in to account at all- all viewed from the male perspective.

To say nothing of the poor babies left unbonded with when COVID meant they were left in hospitals and orphanages for weeks.

Just because you’re rich you shouldn’t get to buy a baby. It should be illegal.