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

@Wonderfulstuff

" agree - I didn't even know that people were so hateful and despising of surrogacy until these threads started popping up."

Could you point me at the hate and the despising? Because what I see is concerns about exploitation and the potential physical and psychological damage to the surrogate.

The buying and selling of a human being is utterly repugnant and morally reprehensible.

Can't believe some are trying to dress it up as a feminist 'choice' or acceptable-if-the-couple-can't-conceive-naturally.

As an adoptive mum, I find the comparison of adoption with surrogacy to be deeply offensive. The two couldn't be more different. Adopters are given plenty of information pertaining to parenting a child born to another mum and we never forget it, believe me. And the attachment issues that go with it.
There is no comparison- surrogacy is buying a child! I genuinely do not understand why people can't see this. Anyone buying a toddler would be condemned- what's the difference??

Sorry, didn't mean to quote!!

So so true.

Yes, I've had the same thought.

"her choice and she my want to do this for the money..."
This is the problem and immediately shows the 'freewill' argument to be bullshit. Where are the wealthy white surrogates, where is the TV shows covering their altruistic or free choice reasons to be farmed. "Real Surrogates of Chelsea/Beverly hills" anyone? It couldn't be any more fucking seedy and entitled. Fuck surrogacy and fuck Chrissy Teigan.

Sorry but this just isn’t true. People who adopt want a child the same way someone who carries one biologically wants a child. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it in the first place.

The availability and process of adoption is child-focussed. That's the point. Social services aren't finding a child for a couple/person, they are finding parents for a child.

The new parent(s) might be focussing on their own needs when they decide to adopt ('I want a child' vs 'I want to give a child a home'), but the authorities and regulatory framework, are focussed on the child.

Those parents are not getting a child if they are not found suitable to give that particular child what they require, because the child and its needs matter more than the parents.

Yeah but you'd be fine with one kidney 👍
There a risk involved but that's the same as pregnancy & they'd have really good health care just like surrogacy.

Rich folks actually do NEED that kidney or part of a liver to survive, people don't NEED a baby for your body to function.

So why aren't we allowed to 'be kind' and sell our organs?

Do you not care about the baby then?

The third baby is called Esti.

Why would you call a child that with the last three letters STI?

The fact that this baby was born only 5 months after the third makes me think it was being used as a back up in case of problems.

This is really nasty guilting a pregnant woman I’ve her having HG

I have 7 dc and had HG with all was hospitalised with each on and off and really ‘out of action’ for days / weeks at a time. My dc are all fine - absolutely fine. When I was home even if i was in bed I could still sit with them and read to them etc and their dad took over. Plus they had school ! They still had plenty of time with me and it didn’t negatively affect them at all.

some dc are in nursery 8-6 5 days a week from under a year old - spending less time with their parents than my children who only went to pre school at 3 then primary school and factoring in any time I had HG - would you shake those parents too ? Bet you wouldn’t .

*shame

Please don’t feel you need to justify yourself @Lwrenagain

her choice and she my want to do this for the money..."
This is the problem and immediately shows the 'freewill' argument to be bullshit. Where are the wealthy white surrogates, where is the TV shows covering their altruistic or free choice reasons to be farmed. "
This is ultimately where the "be kind - you do you - but if a woman chooses it then who are we to object" pretend feminism gets us.
It means that actions that oppress women, particularly women who are marginalised and/or have fewer resources and opportunities, are celebrated as empowerment.

Liberal feminism is often DARVO on a large scale where the response to women questioning systemic and institutional oppression are met with but you're the real oppressors, look at you, you don't even want women to make choices (head tilt).

Once you see it, it's there on a lot of topics relating to women being socialised and oppressed on their basis of their biology.

I express no view on the ethics of commercial surrogacy except to say that it is hard to see any distinction between the justifications for it and those that can be put forward to promote the legitimisation of paid for organ donation eg. kidneys . So far as I'm aware there is no country which doesn't regard paid for organ donation as illegal. They only difference I can see between allowing someone to pay for use of a body and placenta and organ donation is that organ donation might be from men as well as women.

I can assure you this isn’t at all like being forced into prostitution because you need the money (prostitution pays better)and in the U.K. it is basically expenses only. There is no big money to be had.

I know someone who did it for a relative because for her pregnancies were a breeze. She always felt brilliant throughout pregnancies, loved being pregnant. But for her sister she struggled.
I think done properly with the right psychological testing then I don’t see what is wrong with going down this route.

IVF isn’t a safe long term option for some women. And done properly this is far better for everyone concerned.

When people say that the baby is ripped from the “mother” How do you feel about those girls/women who because they have had a bad start in life, been in care and abusive relationships even though they have never had a child before and are on their own SS’s deem them to be a risk to their baby when they are still pregnant and order that the baby is taken into care immediately after birth

@Kennykenkencat that is where the child comes first, as although not good taking them away from their mother it is felt that is the lesser of two evils as such. And support will hopefully be given to all parties. It is not a commercial transaction

I know of one acquaintance in the “real world” who has used a surrogate. She has various medical conditions that would make it genuinely dangerous for her to carry a baby (but not less capable of caring or raising the baby once it’s born). That is out of multitudes of friends and acquaintances who have not gone down this path despite gruelling rounds of IVF, miscarriage, infertility etc.

Like it or not, surrogacy is a rich persons game most of the time. And this is seen very clearly now in the celebs that seem to routinely trot out a new baby born via surrogate every 5 minutes.

Surrogacy is a selfless act and one that in the right circumstances for the right reasons I wholeheartedly agree with providing everyone is doing it willingly and understands the implications.

I had absolutely debilitating SPD and pelvic issues in pregnancy. It left me housebound for months before the births and in endless pain. After two kids I have sworn off having any more as I just cannot go through it again. If I was a rich celebrity maybe I’d be sitting here thinking of getting another woman to carry my baby for me so I didn’t have to go through pregnancy again. But would that be morally right? I just don’t think so (in my opinion).

Exactly.

Baby adoption (under 2) isn't as rare as people think. Babies can (and are) taken into care at birth. Relinquished babies are more rare, but it still happens more often than you'd think.

Long lost families is an entertaintment show (a dreadful one at that imo - a dreadful premise for 'entertainment').
Certainly in my local authority, the overwhelming majority of adopted people DON'T have any desire to trace birth family. Of the minority who do, an unsatisfactory outcome is far more common than long lost families would have you believe.

Thanks got to go and have a discussion about induction Monday soo hopefully it goes my way! I explained to my midwife when she asked about movements that it’s nigh on impossible to monitor with never ending attacks making it a dangerous situation she agreed so hopefully have baby in the next couple of weeks!

I think surrogacy is fine as long as all parties are fully aware of potential problems.
In this case I see it as a selfish vanity project. The woman is lucky enough to have three children. Talk about money buying you exactly what you want.

This isn't the case in all states. In some states you can start the parental recognition (where the woman's partner says he's not the father and the biological father accepts parentage) before the birth and start the adoption proceedings for the intended mother at the same time. The birth certificate will then feature the name of intended parents rather than the surrogates name.
This is why submitting those documents is considered fraud in some countries as they believe the birth mother should be listed on the birth certificate and in those cases, the adoption process can only start after a specific time frame.