Chrissy Teigen surrogacy

[HermioneKipper]

Just announced a 4th baby via a surrogate.

Its just so breathtakingly entitled to buy a woman’s body - especially when you already have 3 children?!

No regard for the safety of the surrogate’s body or thought for the baby who would be ripped from their mother at birth.

These people sicken me

I’m not against surrogacy in the correct circumstances, but all these celebs that have birthed there own kids then feel the need to use a surrogate is fucking atrocious and greedy.

Her son wasn't stillborn, she had a termination. There is an ocean between the two and she could have made that very clear with her documentation of the event.

I had a late stillbirth myself and the thought of having a professional photographer there to "capture" that event makes me feel sick still.

I would feel that way if you EVER saw a rich woman doing this for a poorer woman. Interesting how many Kardashian sisters have procured babies through surrogacy and not one sister has acted as the surrogate. The massive power imbalance between rich and poor women means that apparent consent is never that clear cut.

One thing that really makes me 🤮 is the obligatory photo of the new mum done up carefully to look tired and wan but still glowing like she has just delivered the baby herself - it’s fucking creepy. The pictures of Khloe Kardashian IN THE HOSPITAL BED ffs, and now Chrissy is (I’m sure purposefully) looking very underdone - wearing sweats and not at all made up in her pics - anything to avoid drawing attention to the fact she has just been handed the baby from the birthing mother. Wouldn’t be a good look to be bright eyed and dressed with a full face of make up, might remind people of the truth.

It’s utterly grim and we will be judged harshly down the line for allowing this abhorrent practice to be legal.

This...

I'll feel better about surrogacy when rich white women from the developed world see it as a career choice

This sums it up for me, along with the fact that those who are pro-surrogacy seem to think it's fine to have lower standards separating mother's from their newborns than we have for removing puppies from their mums.

You must be new here 🍿

@RegainingTheWill2023

Two very important points you point that are worth repeating:

Individual women consenting doesn't mean it's ethical

Safeguarding actions / laws do not depend on individual circumstances

Absolutely. As long as surrogacy is allowed to happen there will be exploitation, danger, regret, trauma...
How many "willing" surrogates are truly willing?
As has been said before, you don't see rich/privileged women choosing it as a job option.

To be clear, I disagree with surrogacy in all of its forms, but I think that it's especially bad when a) the parents/mother are doing it because they KNOW the risks and don't want to bear them themselves and b) when they are not facing childlessness as a consequence of not using a surrogate.

Ethics doesn't have to be a black and white line drawn. I work in an area with a strong degree of ethical choices involved, and it's normal to include these nuances.

The hospital or midwife would promote skin to skin contact to help bonding after birth.

I don't understand how a surrogate would think this is OK too when the purchasing parent is already pregnant.... it's beyond weird.

She must have seriously needed that money

First of all the poor woman lost her son Jack so mentally was terrified of getting pregnant again

Chrissy Teigan gave birth to a baby earlier this year, so your argument doesn’t stand up.

When independently wealthy women are doing it for no financial reward then I'll believe this.

Except she did get pregnant again and have another baby herself after losing her baby?

And she’s got THREE healthy children. Why did she need to have another this way.

Ive had 3 miscarriages - all horrible and really upsetting. But that didn’t give me the right to buy another woman’s body and risk her health did it?

Also you cannot compare adoption with surrogacy. Everyone knows that adoption is a final resort if the parents are unable to take care of their child. Surrogacy sets out to take the baby away from its mother

Most surrogacy threads on MN have a lot of posters saying "infertility is terrible, if you haven't personally lived an involuntarily childfree life then you can't judge another woman's choice to use a surrogate".

This case points out that surrogacy isn't just about women in that situation: it's also about people who want their fourth, or sixth child. In the case of poor Kristina Ozturk she wanted one hundred children but has had to settle for only twenty two because her husband was banged up for drugs offences and couldn't afford any more. It's about women who make their living from being slim and beautiful and don't want to risk that, it's about couples who can't rearrange their schedules to organise conception, it's about women who just want to outsource pregnancy because it sucks. Are we still not allowed to judge because we've never been a super rich actor's wife who wants a sixth child but is running out of time to have it herself?

Would they have done it if money wasn’t involved, for altruistic reasons alone? Many women undertake surrogacy out of financial desperation.

I'm pretty sure I read the surrogate had to have operations and medical procedures for the pregnancy to be viable. In which case, I think buying a woman's body as a wealthy person is so ethically wrong. Even more so with two kids already but she did also then get pregnant during their search with her third child that she delivered herself. I did wonder if this was intentional if she was also planning to breastfeed.

I don't normally have much thought on surrogacy, especially if people can't have children of their own but these circumstances are just not OK. Wanting 4 children because you played with 4 dolls as a child, no one has the right to a certain amount of biological kids.

Adoption is child focused and surrogacy is about what adults want. Not the truth in every case. And as has been mentioned previously, what about the couple who want to adopt? Surely that's about what the adults want?

I'm pro surrogacy! Would happily do it for family members if they asked with no payment. Those spouting women's rights and women's choice, what about the women who are happily choosing to do this?

I'll never know the pain of being childless without choice, and I think there's way too do surrogacy aiming to protect everyone.

But she's got two living children, wants a pack of four, lost one tragically so still needs two more. Contemplated tandem surrogacy to make the full set. Decided she'd have another try herself so single surrogacy.

Having being able to carry her last daughter herself, using a surrogate just seems like laziness and money can buy Mama what she wants NOW!!

What if she'd found out she was carrying twins so had her set of four? Or indeed the surrogate?

Women can't win ,ever...

Have a baby through egg donation =. the baby is not genetically related, its weird, its not normal blah blah blah

Have a baby through surrogacy =. the baby is yours genetically, but the baby will suffer from the ''primal wound'', ripped from the real mother who nurtured the baby for 9 months, its explotation of poor women, blah blah blah...

For fucks sake ...Can't these women do what they want with their bodies and their fertilized eggs?

Most surrogacy threads on MN have a lot of posters saying "infertility is terrible, if you haven't personally lived an involuntarily childfree life then you can't judge another woman's choice to use a surrogate".
Agree with this.
The vast majority of surrogacy arrangements are based on the premise that it's some sort of human right to have a baby, therefore it should be possible to buy and sell them to order.

Before having my own children I was ok with family altruistic surrogacy arrangements, but now I'm really not sure I can get on board with that either.

I don't think we can say this woman was seriously needing the money surrogacy in the US is seen as a career choice they are very well paid and .vetted by lawyers. I'm not saying its ethical because I don't think it is but I don't think sad faces are needed for "poor" women.

• as in I agree with the poster's observation about Mumsnet threads on this topic.

Sometimes an edit button is needed.

No. Because other people are involved.

@Confusion101 but in this country if the couple is not deemed suitable they can’t adopt, and the agencies put the child’s needs before the adoptive parents needs and wants

I'll support surrogacy the day wealthy women like Chrissy teagan start carrying babies for poor women.

Until then it's just the rich exploiting the poor.