Another Kardashian ksurrogacy

[Namingchangeschangingnames]

I guess aibu that all this celebrity surrogacy is problematic?

So khloe’s rep has just confirmed that she’s having another baby with Tristan v surrogate. Aside from the fact, it’s a pretty dumb decision to knowingly and purposefully bring another child into that incredibly toxic relationship where he has such little respect for her, they’ve used a surrogate.

it just feels like with celebrities these days, they want the child but not the ‘difficulties’ of pregnancy or the ‘damage’ it can do to the body. Especially with the kardashians, khloe’s reasoning for a surrogate is that she could be a ‘high risk pregnancy’ with no further clarification of what that means, not that she owes me an explanation but it’s coming across like ‘pay someone to do the grunt work for me’. I mean both my pregnancies were ‘high risk’ ones because I had growth scans, high risk/ low risk are just to designate the level of care you get.

its not just the Kardashian’s, priyanka chopra did it due to scheduling and there was another can’t recall who, but who basically said she didn’t want to take time out of her career right now for pregnancy, yet can have a baby?

I'm well aware of the differences, its fairly common where I am from, it doesn’t mean birth parents should have the ability to constantly change their mind or to treat the child as a commodity that can be dumped when convenient

How absolutely dare you accuse those parents and parent in similar situations of dumping or treating their child as a commodity. These parents tend to do it because they have no choice, it's that or see their children starve or go without medicines. Parents can and do bust their children. Just because you think you have similar in whatever country you're from doesn't mean that you know the culture or circumstance of another.

No, Madonna is his actual parent, not his birth parent

Nope, she's an exploiter. Those children have parents in Malawi.

Visit* not bust

Are they really a man?

I don’t know how i feel about surrogacy- I’m still trying to figure it out in my head but one of the things i do struggle with is the terminology who is the “real” parents.

With adoption we talk about the children being the adoptive parents real children, but also their birth parents. However that same terminology seems to be frowned upon for surrogacy? Lots of people on this thread are saying the baby is being ripped away from it’s mother and given to strangers, but what about when children are taken away from birth parents and adopted by people who are to all intents and purposed strangers to the child? I can’t get my head around how people discuss these two things as if they are completely separate? Are the “real” parents are the biological parents or the parents who raise the child or the one who carries the child even though there’s no genetic connection? It’s too messy in my view. (Yes, i know there is all sorts of issues caused by children being taken from birth parents and that this is addressed therapeutically with adopted children) I’d really like to understand people’s views on this?

Lots of people on this thread are saying the baby is being ripped away from it’s mother and given to strangers, but what about when children are taken away from birth parents and adopted by people who are to all intents and purposed strangers to the child? I can’t get my head around how people discuss these two things as if they are completely separate?

Adoption is about finding parents for a baby.

Surrogacy is about finding a baby for parents.

Adoption is about making the best of a bad situation, where a child's biological parents, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to care for them. Obviously the child may have attachment issues, but this is unavoidable in the situation, and finding loving parents is the best solution to the problem of an 'unwanted' child.

Surrogacy, however, is about creating a child with the express intention of separating it from its mother at birth. That this might cause trauma for the baby is not considered, because the baby's needs are not paramount. The wants of the adult are the priority.

So I'd say the two scenarios are different in fundamental ways.

Priyanka and her 'scheduling' infuriated me. As for Khloe, she couldn't just have been happy with one child? I'd rather that then have yet another tie to that rat bag ex of hers.

I agree they are very different scenarios but i definitely feel there is a disconnect about the language used to describe the “real” set of parents of the children in both scenarios.

It’s difficult to put into words, but one oF the scenarios i wonder about with regards to this is when children are adopted at birth. I believe that is a common practice in the USA and with the hints that abortion is being banned to “increase the domestic supply of infants” I’m not sure how i feel about the cross over between that and surrogacy- where does the difference lie and how do we use the language appropriately to describe the parental relationship?

It’s difficult to put into words, but one oF the scenarios i wonder about with regards to this is when children are adopted at birth. I believe that is a common practice in the USA and with the hints that abortion is being banned to “increase the domestic supply of infants” I’m not sure how i feel about the cross over between that and surrogacy- where does the difference lie and how do we use the language appropriately to describe the parental relationship?

Some forms of adoption in the US are little different from surrogacy.

A woman who accidentally becomes pregnant decides not to have an abortion but to continue with her pregnancy, with the intention of selling the baby at birth. So I don't see any great difference in ethical terms.

@BruceWaynettaSlob you caught me, because the only women who don't think surrogacy is akin to a war crime and find the appalling language used on here about surrogate parents are men.

there, you've earned that,

I didn't say whether I believed you were a man or not.

Why so aggressive and defensive?

That's because many on this topic don't have a rational argument, so often get tangled up.

Adoptive parents are real parents

The parents of a child born via surrogate are real parents. Especially in this case where the baby is from an embryo Khloe and Tristan made years ago via IVF.

The surrogate is a gestational carrier (unless using her own egg, in which case she would be biological or birth mother) and in adoption the birth family are well birth families.

The upgraded Mumsnet takes too much time to go back and name check but ... the birth mothers of Madonna's adopted children were all dead. So don't accuse me of lying.

I must tell my husband about the counselling because he hasn't had any for the trauma he had pulling bodies out of an IRA bombing, as a police officer he wasn't allowed to be part of a union, don't know about risk assessments but he did have training.

No one has a right to climb a mountain and have other people risk their lives to rescue them.

No one is forced to be a surrogate, they do it for the money as far as I know just like my husband joined the police force so he had a wage and could pay the mortgage, buy food that sort of stuff.

If you join a rescue service to rescue someone else is it that different to being a surrogate and having a baby for someone? Both are doing it for the money plus hopefully they want to do something to help others.

As I said I think there is alot to consider with surrogacy but a woman deciding what risk she is prepared to take for a payment isn't the reason I'd ban it. The other issue is are you prepared to give money to the penniless woman who is doing this, perhaps so she can feed her children or do you think they don't come into it?

This thread of adoptees talking about their experiences is really thought provoking and worth reading: www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4546976-adoption-trauma

The difference between surrogacy and adoption is that there isn’t any better alternative to adoption. Adoption happens only in the best interests of the child, who would otherwise continue living in a really bad situation.

There is also lots of acknowledgment of the trauma of adoption (or there should be) and there is specific support for the child and their adoptive parents because of that.

Surrogacy happens because adults want it to. They arrange, and often pay, to have the baby brought into the world. When any baby is born, whatever it’s genetic parentage, all it knows is its mother. All that any baby wants is to stay close to their mother. We all know this. The baby’s experience of separation and their profound distress is really upsetting to think about, even as an adult with no connection to the situation.

Adoption trauma is unique to adopted children.

Broken attachments being the biggest issue, which isn't a problem with surrogacy

Very interesting but my response was about a baby recognising it's mothers smell when it is born and it can't because you need to breathe to be able to smell something. This is from the post I was replying to It's actually proven that babies can recognise her taste, smell, voice, language and movement patterns.

The screen shot you posted doesn't mention smell. Just as well as it clearly isn't true and would mean we had to question the other things it quotes like the mother's voice and language which as the baby can hear in the womb is entirely believable.

The earliest I could find was that a baby will learn to recognise its mother's smell was within a week so not relevant if the baby is given straight to someone else.

I hope that is helpful and you understand my point now.

No one has a right to climb a mountain and have other people risk their lives to rescue them.

It's really not the same thing at all.

Put American women to the side for a moment, do you think Ukrainian women who earn about 7000 are exploited? Considering they live in a relatively poor country with very small wages?
I can completely understand why they put their body through the emotional roller coaster of pregnancy, sleepless nights, swollen body, the pain of giving birth, the hormonal drop afterwards.

If they weren't in a shit situation they wouldn't do it.

It isn't right to take advantage of those less fortunate through geography.

I feel its akin to using prostitutes in poor countries.

Adoption is totally different - it's amazing to save an existing life.

There are 1000's of DC in Ukrainian orphanages.

There were women in Brave New World who chose to give birth to their babies. They lived in The Savage Reservation. Not everyone was gestated in a test tube.

Please share with us the evidence that broken attachments in surrogacy is ‘not a problem’ for the babies and then adults who have gone through it?

If you join a rescue service to rescue someone else is it that different to being a surrogate and having a baby for someone?

Yes, for reasons which have been explained to you above, by me and by other posters. If you're not bothered to read them, I'm not going to repeat myself.

The other issue is are you prepared to give money to the penniless woman who is doing this, perhaps so she can feed her children or do you think they don't come into it?

Well, that's a really terrible argument!

Lots of people do lots of things because they are desperate. That doesn't make them OK. Presumably you'd be OK with people selling organs so they can 'feed their children'?

And if you want to bring other children into the argument, how do you think they would feel to see that mummy is expecting a baby? But that that baby isn't going to be their little brother or sister, but instead will be sold to strangers, and perhaps whisked away to the other side of the world? Surely that would be quite unsettling for a child who doesn't understand that some people think the sale and purchase of newborns is a legitimate commercial enterprise?