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?

Surrogacy is just plain wrong.

That's not true she openly admitted she was delaying having a baby with her previous ex due to all his issues.

I agree and feel very uncomfortable with how normalised it's becoming. Even if Kim K did have serious issues with her previous pregnancies. She then had two children why did she need to have another two.

I must have worded my post poorly then because that’s not what I meant.

you’ve got me, I don’t know khloe, all I know is that she said drs said she’d be high risk if she got pregnant again, and as someone who has had 2 high risk pregnancies that reasoning seems flimsy, not as flimsy as scheduling conflicts to conceive or not enough time to be pregnant

im unaware of any studies on the long term impact on the child from being delivered by a surrogate so what makes me uncomfortable is how women are being paid for something that actually could endanger their life, or leave them with lifelong complications in one way or another, then you compound that with how khloe was disgusted that her ‘carrier’ could chose a termination in the event of multiples, just shows that in these specific scenarios that the surrogate is just an incubator some of the demands and rules that the surrogates of celebs must follow have been made public and they are awfully restrictive too

I think IVF is also commonly done for those who don't want to waste time trying. Especially those who wait until their 40s. Think how many celebrities have had non identical twins...J-Lo, Mariah Carey, Angelina Jolie, Beyoncé, Amal Colony, Celine Dion.

No, a choice, by definition, has to include more than one option

Surrogates are overwhelmingly women who have no other options to make money for their families

so they aren’t making a choice
they are being coerced into it by a horrific situation where they do it or face poverty, debt, lack of medical care etc

its not a choice by any real definition

Yup, where there's money there is exploitation, simple as that. It won't be long before professional surrogacy/fertility clinics are out scouring towns, city's and universities for healthy / attractive / intelligent / talented / artistic / athletic young women and pushing them to sign up to be a surrogate with the hook of "being financial secure for years / life" with just one pregnancy (I'd be surprised if this wasn't already happening tbh).

I can already picture the sales pitch "worried about your student loans crippling your financial future? Sign up to Babies R Us and clear those pesky loans in only 9 months*"

*subject to t&c's.

It's actually bewildering that commercial surrogacy is even a thing considering it is illegal to sell human organs. I'm sure there's plenty of people who I'm sure would "willingly choose" to part with a kidney or lung for 200-500k, but can't because that practice has rightly been made illegal.

Agree I highly doubt they would do it if the price wasn't right just because they 'love doing it'. They don't have to be poor just poorer. I saw a horrid story recently where a mother of 3 died when giving birth as a surrogate.

@Namingchangeschangingnames my question is what about surrogacy is an issue for you?

If your issue is the child's welfare then you wouldn't be pro US adoption system, it's one of the worst in the western world for adoptee outcomes. It's quite well documented, at least in the UK adoption is a lot more regulated, with support post adoption for families and a big focus on knowing their history/life story. Heck some US adoption agencies are investigated for actual child trafficking from the Mexican border. Anyone who is anti surrogacy but pro US adoption system (from birth) is not pro child.

If your issue is the health of the surrogate, why not have issue with firefighters, or police officers, or heck even pilots, who are all at higher risk of harm or death on the job than a pro surrogate in the US (as they will be healthy, and have superior medical cover, esp compared to the NHS)

No but we absolutely should tell men that. It’s fucking rife isn’t it, especially in my community (Middle Eastern) men wanting lots of children as proof of their virility but not being particularly involved in the nitty gritty when they are born. You just have to join a mum Fb page to find plenty of pages about mothers desperate for help and fathers being too busy.

@Thebestwaytoscareatory ah the good old it's illegal to sell organs argument.

Organ donation is much, much riskier than surrogacy. To the point I don't even understand how any intelligent human could even try to use one to bring down the other.

I’ve said several times, it’s exploitative and specifically in khloes case it’s downright toxic, to be outraged that the carrier could terminate if it was too high risk ie multiples, genuinely believing she shouldn’t have a say is outrageous

UK surrogacy is less of an issue for me like UK adoption. Im not pro US from birth adoption either. But the amount of celebrities that have these children via surrogates not from infertility but not wanting to carry the child is worrying

I'm sorry, but that person can adopt. I could never knowingly plan to take a newborn baby away from the only mother it knows. We know how important the bond is between a newborn and its birth mother for child development, and with Roe vs Wade we also are more aware than ever of the risks of pregnancy on the mother's body. I'm so sorry but it's just so selfish. Even puppies are allowed to stay with their mothers for 8 weeks. If you really loved your future child, there is absolutely no way that you would deliberately remove them from their birth mother.

This woman has talked quite a lot about being surrogate born. The thing is she knows she was bought and it's not a nice feeling.

Imagine finding out your parents had scooped you out of Ukraine at the start of the war and left your (birth) mother to take her chances. Or flown out from the Nepal earthquake leaving your impoverished mother to survive anyway she could.
I would hate to think of having such heartless parents. I'd want to know my mother's story.

@Namingchangeschangingnames if you aren't pro Us adoption from birth why offer it as a better alternative for Khloe to have done instead of going for a surrogate?

Surrogates have a choice, unless you know if the agency the Kardashians are using taking women off the streets and forcing them to sign contracts, they have a choice, they know the risks, they know their 'job' and have agreed with it for a handsome amount of money.

Maybe turn your attention to the women who care so little about their body autonomy that they'd give it up for $200k.

The US surrogacy system esp for wealthy couples using pro surrogates is the least of peoples concerns, or at least it should be. They'll get far better care than we get over here when popping one out.

I agree in countries where surrogacy isn't regulated, isn't checked and there are large degrees of exploitation it's not ok. But that is a separate issue to the Kardashian example, or any celeb example really.

Babies evacuated from Nepal

time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/

@bouquetofpeonies adoption isn't the magic solution for childless couples.

I really wish the ignorant on here wouldn't keep on suggesting adoption in cases like this.

Also you know in many countries adopted children are taken straight off their actual mother right (instead of gestational carrier)

Babies do not attach to their primary care giver for weeks, and those attachments aren't fully formed until 4-6 months. In the UK foster to adopt (so taking baby straight from birth) has shown significantly better outcomes for the children due to that first attachment not being broken.

Adoption might not be the magic solution for childless couples. But surrogacy is a far worse option for the infant. As a PP said, adoption is making the best of a bad situation. I am sure foster to adopt is the best option for adoption. But using a surrogate with the purpose of breaking the biological bond between mother and child is, in my opinion, selfish and needless. By the time it is born, the child has spent 9 months bonding with its mother. This bond cannot be broken just like that.

It’s a choice yeah but not a free choice. Where vast amounts of money, actually any chunk of money is offered, there is a need driving that choice. It is exploitative, especially when dealing with people with such huge influence like the Kardashian’s, how kris implied that they’d get someone who’s agreed to not terminate without khloes say so… I mean come on, that’s not someone making a free choice that’s someone being railroaded

alphapie

You do know that the USA has the worst maternal mortality statistics in the western world and you can multiply that by a factor of at least three for black women.

tcf.org/content/commentary/worsening-u-s-maternal-health-crisis-three-graphs/?session=1

I certainly wouldn't expect to get better care in the USA than in the U.K. Especially post Roe v Wade should something go wrong with the pregnancy such as a septic miscarriage or ectopic which, in states with strict abortion laws, won't be treated until there is no detectable fetal heart beat even though the pregnancy is non viable and the mother's life depends on prompt treatment.

Also I am eagerly awaiting your statistics showing all the fatal outcomes of kidney donation. Every operation has risks and I don't doubt some kidney donation operations have an unfavourable outcome but I can't say I have seen evidence of this being excessively dangerous.

@Namingchangeschangingnames hardly being railroaded, many couples are fine with surrogate choice over termination, they could have just held out for another offer.

Do you think someone leaving school with low level qualifications, joining the emergency services on £19k a year but has a far higher risk of harm than a surrogate is exploited? And those jobs should be banned.

I'm genuinely just trying to get to the root of your issue here, as you just keep issuing slightly contradictory statements.

There are countless jobs that offer low pay, with low salaries to those with low prospects and have high risks associated with them that people, like you, never comment on. But surrogacy that's the issue

Yep, that's care as a whole in the US.

Their higher end medical offerings are far superior to the NHS in every way shape and form.

You say out NHS is superior so surrogacy is ok. So why not allow organs to be sold via NHS? You can't say it's far more dangerous, then, because pregnancy is also high risk like donating organs.

Both require medical intervention... I don't get your objection to the comparison

There were lots of threads and criticism over Ronaldo buying kids on here when it happened actually.
Dince Michael Jackson was 20 fucking years ago I assume it didn’t just cross people mind on a thread that was created today.

Surrogacy involves living children's lives. Any number of complications can occur to the mother or child.

Working in a warehouse or McDonald's doesn't help often permanently affect your body or involve the same ethical dilemmas as surrogacy.

To the posters pushing back on my saying that surrogacy is not a job (it isn’t- not by any recognisable measure) you’re just making my point for me, about how extremely exploitative it is.

Why should we use your ethical race to the bottom to justify normalising the exploitation of poor women, who are taking on massive risks to be surrogates for rich people?