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.

@Recessed

I remember after I had DD2 the wonderful midwife placed her on my tummy and told me to watch what would happen. She little by little "crawled" her way up to my chest and latched on to feed. I was amazed at the time. I asked how she knew and the midwife said scent was a huge part of it as she's so familiar with my scent. Ever since that I've never seen surrogacy the same. No one ever talks about how it's not in best interests of the commodity - the child - but luckily more people are recognizing how it's exploitative of women.

Well exactly and imo surrogacy only works to undermine motherhood and women are reduced to nothing more than an incubator. It's sick.

I agree Comedycook seeing the photo of Mark from Westlife and his husband taking their newborn baby home from hospital and away from her mother literally made my heart ache for that baby - and I'm one of the most unsentimental people going! After having my own DC it just seemed so so wrong and massively selfish.

Smell is so powerful
You know what your baby smells like and sniffing the top of their head causes a release of bonding hormones. I still smell my son's head when he lets me and he's nearly a teenager. Under the sweat and lynx deodorant I can still smell his baby smell. The physicality of the mother-child bond is intense.
Adoptive parents can and do form attachment relationships as strong as birth parents but to deliberately sever the bond between baby and mother for selfish reasons is heinous.

Hence why the law had to change recently because of the feelings of the children of donations.

Yes that's why on the infertility/ivf groups I'm part of they are all going abroad for donor eggs as it still anonymous there

Just because we don't need a mother or father for a child doesn't mean that a child doesn't need a mother or father.

You only have to watch the documentaries about the triplets separated at birth or the sperm donor lad who went to meet his biological father and half siblings or even long lost family - people will always yearn to know about the other half - or in the case of double donors - where all of their genetic make up comes from

But many people will always prioritise wanting to experience pregnancy themselves rather than considering that a future child wants to be biologically related to both its parents (in a non adoption situation of course)

@Pinuporc it's a really awful situation.

There's no way of knowing how many babies have been affected in this way, I imagine it's something that surrogacy agencies prefer to keep secret and most surrogate mothers are subject to a NDA.
My guess is that there will be many more. Also in places like Ukraine - how many of those babies stuck there last year are still awaiting collection? It wouldn't surprise me if some commissioning parents decide they don't want a year old baby and just renege on the whole deal and the baby ends up in an orphanage.

I don’t see a problem with surrogacy in the U.K., it’s altruistic. So long as a woman isn’t forced to be a surrogate surely it’s down to them to do it if they want to? I knew of a surrogate who do it because they loved being pregnant, and wanted to help a friend/family. And she was a feminist!

So it wasn’t altruistic at all then? She loved being pregnant, never mind how the baby is affected.

I detest everything about surrogacy especially when used by celebrities.
It never puts the babies needs first.

@Aprilx

I haven’t heard of many celebrity women having children by surrogate. So I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was one of a limited number of choices she had.

Kim Kardashian, Aida Williams, Alex baldwins wife are a few

@TinaYouFatLard

All surrogacy is a hideous business. Nobody should be able to rent a woman’s body or buy a baby.

Do you ever hear of a rich, famous woman carrying a baby for a poorer woman? It’s exploitative and revolting.

Completely agree!

YANBU - but IMO because I’m uncomfortable with the idea of buying and selling humans (which is essentially what surrogacy is).
Furthermore I think it’s selfish. If people are that rich they can adopt - why do they need a baby from their OWN genes? Smacks of egoism and that they don’t want to love a child, they just want a copy of themselves.

Surrogacy of any kind is immoral, especially when we know so much about the importance of the ‘fourth trimester’ to a baby’s emotional and physical development.

Also to add - it’s putting another human life at risk for NO REASON other than to satisfy someone else’s selfish desire.
Of course one could argue that the surrogate chose it (like ones pp mentioned who luuurve being pregnant) but people who choose to put someone else at risk like that are disgusting. Idk if they should be having children

@Recessed

I agree Comedycook seeing the photo of Mark from Westlife and his husband taking their newborn baby home from hospital and away from her mother literally made my heart ache for that baby - and I'm one of the most unsentimental people going! After having my own DC it just seemed so so wrong and massively selfish.

That poor baby that has been with his/her mum for 9 months to just be taken away like that makes me so sad. You would not take a kitten away from its mum for the first 8 weeks so why is it ok to take a human away from its mum. It is so utterly selfish and narcissistic. It is all about the parents wants and needs.

I'd never really thought about celebrities paying other women to have babies for them until I learned about Camille Grammer on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

It's a disgusting thing to do, rent a woman's uterus, her body, to get yourself a child. I'm absolutely against surrogacy. It sickens me to think some of these high profile women will have used surrogates purely to keep their own 'flawless' bodies.

@Aprilx

I haven’t heard of many celebrity women having children by surrogate. So I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was one of a limited number of choices she had.

Neither have I except one a few years ago and she had her second child through a surrogate because she had a horrendous time, nearly dying, producing her first. The child came from her egg and her husband's sperm so biologically hers and her husband's baby.

@CastawayQueen

YANBU - but IMO because I’m uncomfortable with the idea of buying and selling humans (which is essentially what surrogacy is). Furthermore I think it’s selfish. If people are that rich they can adopt - why do they need a baby from their OWN genes? Smacks of egoism and that they don’t want to love a child, they just want a copy of themselves.

Yesss! It’s the child that is ‘biologically theirs’ above all else, including ethics, that weirds me out. Especially when it’s for women who have already had several children eg. Kim K, Hilaria Baldwin or women that want to opt out of pregnancy for some bS reason e.g. khloe k and Lucy lui

I don’t agree with any type of surrogacy. Renting out women’s bodies is hardly a step forward for woman. Even altruistic surrogacy is riddled with ethical issues. I can’t imagine Amber Heard being a good mother either.

The child came from her egg and her husband's sperm so biologically hers and her husband's baby

Well, genetically, you might argue although there is the influence of the pregnant woman on gene expression to complicate that fact but biologically?

Biologically another woman's body built that IKEA flatpack handful of cells and nourished and nurtured each and every cell of that baby for 9 whole months thereafter.

Neither have I except one a few years ago and she had her second child through a surrogate because she had a horrendous time, nearly dying, producing her first. The child came from her egg and her husband's sperm so biologically hers and her husband's baby.

It's very sad when this happens but the answer is to stop at one child not put another woman through the same risk to provide you with more babies

I disagree with surrogacy completely.
I especially disagree with amber heard being allowed to have a child! Hardly good parent material!

I feel uncomfortable telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies and that includes surrogacy. We can agree that women are not incubators but if a woman makes the informed choice to be one for someone else who am I to tell her she can’t or to tell someone they have to have a baby using their own body or they’re not a mother or should have a baby.

@Antiqueanniesmagiclanternshow

I disagree with surrogacy completely. I especially disagree with amber heard being allowed to have a child! Hardly good parent material!

True - this is the woman who shit in Johnny depps bed and has anger issues ie : court evidence of her chucking stuff about

What is she going to do when real mother hood kicks in and baby not sleeping and she’s up all night …

Oh that’s right , hand the baby to the nanny and swan off for “ self care “

It's legalised and sanctioned organ and baby selling.

@phoenixrosehere

I feel uncomfortable telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies and that includes surrogacy. We can agree that women are not incubators but if a woman makes the informed choice to be one for someone else who am I to tell her she can’t or to tell someone they have to have a baby using their own body or they’re not a mother or should have a baby.

Do you think people should be able to donate organs for pay? If not, what's the difference?