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?

What shit situation is Khloe's surrogate in?

Or Kim's, who has done 2 of her pregnancies and at least one other celeb mum, each paying $200-$300k, so what shit situation would someone with so much money be in and was therefore forced into surrogacy.

If anything pro surrogates are 'wealthy' women, bursting that typical comment here of 'when wealthy women do it I'll believe it's a choice'

The 200k figure came from me throwing it out of the sky as an assumption of what they’d pay as after all the kardashians are obscenely wealthy but no, I had a google Kim K paid her surrogate 45k, spread across 10 month a in payments of 4500. I found that shocking. Sorry but a wealthy woman wouldn’t go through a pregnancy for someone else for 45k dollars as taxable income… heck I wouldn’t and I’m average in my earnings.

Well you tell me first if it is OK for the mountain climber to risk other people's lives, or it was OK for my husband to become disabled doing his job. He was being paid to take risks to protect other people and has lived in constant pain for 30 years, other police officers have died. You aren't engaging just saying it's not the same but why isn't it? You can say the person or couple who want a baby are being selfish to put someone else through pregnancy and childbirth but isn't the mountain climber selfish as well? If they are both selfish, which seems a reasonable assumption, then why is one OK and the other not? And if both are selfish should we ban both, or let market forces decide or ban one and if we ban one why that one.

For me the issue is the baby and I have searched but I can't really find very much about adults who were born by surrogacy. The nearest I got was an Israeli study which was mainly looking at IVF rather than surrogacy but some of the adults were born from surrogacy. It seemed broadly positive but without much detail.

I definitely think there should be safeguards, legal safeguards so unreasonable contracts can't be enforced but I'm just not sure about saying a woman can't decide to be a surrogate. I do remember articles about Kim Cotton who was the UK's first surrogate mother (possibly not but that was what she was referred to as.) The last thing I remember about her was she was still positive about what she had done, but was much happier with her second experience as she never met the first babies parents and wasn't able to hand the baby over or keep in touch afterwards. I think that baby would probably be close to 40 now and I wonder what the baby and Kim both think of it now.

Some people are very strongly for and some equally strongly against but I think many of us are somewhere in the middle with reservations but not strong convictions.

Or Kim's, who has done 2 of her pregnancies and at least one other celeb mum, each paying $200-$300k

@alphapie Where do you get this information that Kim and other celebs are paying their surrogate mothers that sort of money? Those sorts of arrangements always involve a NDA so I'm not sure who is spilling the beans in the payments.
I have never seen anything to suggest surrogate mothers, even for the wealthiest, are paid anything near that amount.

Please post a link.

In any case, even if a tiny few serving the elite (not that I consider the kardashians in anyway elite but I suppose they have money) are paid that sort of money, the fact is most aren't. See my link to the article advising how to get costs down and barter with your SM for a lower price.

@ancientgran
Most mountain rescue people and lifeboat crew are volunteers doing it for no money.
Quite unlike your policeman husband for whom it is his job. Same as my job required me to keep working and look after people sick with Covid all through the pandemic, exposing myself to the risk of infection.
None of which is comparable to surrogate mothers.

Stats are great aren't they, you can use them to argue lots of perspectives. Thing is there's quite a sliding scale of risk isn't there. I like to think the decorator who painted my kitchen was at significantly less risk of death than those working on the Lusail Stadium.
Quite frankly I'd rather paint it myself than risk them keeping over on the work surface.

Times change. The welfare needs of the police force are by no means perfect but counselling is available now.
Your husband wasn't allowed to be part of a union but officers are represented by the Police Federation and police staff are able to join Unison.
And I can assure that there are many, many risk assessments.
Regardless it's a poor comparison between that and surrogacy.

Agree. It’s treating babies as commodities, and trafficking them away from their birth mothers. It should be illegal.

*alphapie Makes a lot of statements without any evidence.

A real Alpha.

alphapie
there is no attachment to be broken you doughnut.
Attachments to primary care givers start at 4 weeks and take 4-6 months to fully form.
Basic attachment theory, Google it.

Errr… OK then. Just out of interest because I haven’t heard anyone claim this before (..and why the need to call people silly names Alphapie?) I did google.
It’s just not credible that a baby’s emotional attachments to their mother don’t start until 4 weeks old. I think pretty much anyone who has had a baby would say that this isn’t the case. And the NHS seems to agree.

NHS says
Getting to know your baby
You and your baby start building a relationship even before they’re born, and after birth this speeds up. This is how your baby makes a secure attachment.

NHS also says
Understanding attachment
’Attachment is the deep and enduring connection established between a child and caregiver in the womb and in the first years of life. It profoundly influences every aspect of a person’s mind, body, emotions and relationships both as a child and a parent.’

So it would be interesting to see the evidence that you have, that broken attachments in surrogacy is ‘not a problem’ for the babies, who become the adults, who have gone through it.

@Alphapie literally never has any stats or evidence to back up their claims, I assume he leaves them under his bridge.
The strange name calling is new though.

It’s essentially selling babies. Babies are not a commodity to be bought and sold. I know people who went over to Thailand to do this years ago. It was a shit show for all involved. The surrogate had health problems that no one gave a damn about and one of the babies ( she was carrying twins) died in childbirth. No one was the winner here. Huge imbalance of power and wealth.

@ancientgran

You totally and utterly made my point for me about lazy posters. You didn't even click on the link where it CLEARLY SAY that babies CAN recognise their mothers smell from the amniotic fluid. Not the random woman/man it's passed to, the actual mother that carried it. Again, I'll include a screen shot for you to save you poor lil fingers having to click on a link and y your eyes from doing too much reading or actual research.

(that babies CAN recognise their mothers smell from the amniotic fluid. Not the random woman/man it's passed to, the actual mother that carried it.*

I think this is really obvious without evidence, thanks for supplying the link.

Babies hear your tone, feel you comforting them in the womb with gentle strokes, smell your insides, hear your heartbeat, while cosy in amniotic fluid surrounded by their human.

Baby can easily bond in the womb as well they can be traumatised in the womb depending upon the pregnancy.

Take beautiful babies who haven't been treated well during the pregnancy, they arrive traumatised because they feel things before being born.

Thankfully adopters are available to help these baby have a secure loving family.

There is an excellent post upthread from a social worker that has experienced removals at birth.

Although surrogacy is not something I would do - I wouldn't do it for convenience I believe that if I can't get pregnant the natural way I'm not meant to have kids - I don't have a problem with it in the wider world. I also wouldn't have IVF or anything along those lines, but I don't have a problem with it in the wider world. It boils down to me not wanting to put my own body through that in terms of IVF and me not wanting someone else to carry my baby in term of surrogacy. I would, however adopt.

I believe in body autonomy that is Khloe being allowed to make a decision and weigh up carrying the baby herself/using a surrogate and the surrogate being allowed to make a decision surrounding doing that. I believe that surrogates should be given all the facts and therapy ahead of making the decision (at the cost of the person who they could potentially become a surrogate for - no strings) before even saying yes and that continued care should be provided during/after the pregnancy if they decide to go ahead.

I believe that surrogates should be given all the facts and therapy ahead of making the decision (at the cost of the person who they could potentially become a surrogate for - no strings) before even saying yes and that continued care should be provided during/after the pregnancy if they decide to go ahead

These are.nice ideas, but since these definitely don’t happen, then is it right that surrogacy is still left up to individual choice? Should these things you mention be made legal requirements, or should surrogacy carry on without them?

This.

She’s finally got her dream body and isn’t about to wreck it.
She’d be better off using a sperm bank than that poor excuse for a baby daddy again.

@Slothtoes Agree. Puppies and kittens (properly bred) have to stay with their birth mums for at least 8 weeks.
But not human babies of surrogates.
Barbaric.
Surrogacy is human trafficking, end of.

Puppies and kittens are kept with mum for that time for socialisation and skills building.

Maybe look into things before commenting on them in future, maybe that can be next years resolution for most on AIBU

You are really rude, did your mother never teach you manners. The attachment didn't open fully and the bit I saw did not mention smell, don't know why it just showed part of it and you couldn't navigate it. Anyway I think it is rubbish, you smell things when you breathe in through your nose.

Madden says, Within a few days, your baby knows your smell," Not instantly at birth then. Dr Madden seems to contradict herself doesn't she.