Kerry Katona and surrogacy. Thoughts?

[ChocChipOwl]

I'm just watching Kerry on tv ad I eat my lunch. She has 5 children and, because her partner doesn't have any kids, they're going to go down the surrogacy route as her last pregnancy and birth was difficult

She said - and I quote - 'yeah we are going to get a surrogate because that's safer.'

Safer for who, I wonder?

Anyway, it got me thinking. I always used to be ambivalent about surrogacy but now I'm opposed to it, although I do recognise that on some occasions it may have a place.

But does it have a place for a 42 year old woman who already had 5 children and is so blasé about it all?

KK is broke. And desparate for the publicity.

Another baby, especially one though surrogacy, will generate her income.

She's addicted to the Hello lifestyle. Another life drama will come along after surrogate baby is born don't worry.

And she’s probably paying for it via revenue from her Only Fans account.

As grim as it gets.

Yes anyone can care for a newborn but taking a child away from the person they have lived in for 9 months is a massively traumatic experience and causes immeasurably damage - children who are taken away/given up by their mother at birth and then adopted are known to have this trauma and are given help to mitigate the effects of it but these children born to surrogates don't have any such help because they are being treated by the adults involved as a commodity and treated as if the parents desires are more important than the child's needs.

It's very old fashioned to think that a child has no awareness until after birth and that they have no relationship with the person who carried them.

I can see how surrogacy has a place - and have even once offered to be a surrogate (in very different circumstances and luckily it wasn't needed in the end) but the damage to the child needs to be acknowledged and they need to be given help with it in the best of circumstances..... and I don't think a child given over to a celeb who isn't going to do the trauma work with the child is anywhere near the best of circumstances!

We know now from adult adoptees how being adopted at birth has affected them.
We know now from adults who were born from donor conception how that has affected them.
We know how human trafficking affects people.

Why does all of that knowledge and experience go out of the window when the word surrogacy is used?

Generally speaking I think it's an incredible thing that couples unable to conceive together have this option, if the surrogate is of sound mind and sure they want to do it, great. I do think it should be more regulated though.

Notice you thought about everyone apart from the child.

And that the only thing that counts is that the surrogate is of sound mind 🤨
So the exploitation of poor women in various countries across the world is ok as long as they are of sound mind?

Who is exploiting whom in that situation? It really isn’t clear to me. Triplet pregnancy is incredibly dangerous.

I believe that in cases of hopeless infertility and as a last resort for a would-be mother who’s truly incomplete without a biological child, that altruistic surrogacy using a mothers eggs is acceptable providing the surrogate is known to the family and well informed . It should be illegal to ask , coerce or pay for the ‘service ‘. I’m thinking sisters or sister in laws or cousins helping each other .

shes neither infertile , childless or had an offer from a relative so she’s failed all three of my moral /ethical tests .

its not a human right . No one should have to suffer or be put in danger to fulfil another persons desires. There’s too much potential for exploitation.

I think a lot of people assume surrogacy is carrying a baby to term for someone who can’t. But it’s much more than that. It’s closer to an IV experience, with synthetic hormones and much riskier to the mother than a natural pregnancy.

In the US there are companies, recruiting naive college students (selling blood and plasma is already an acceptable way to finance college), using products that aren’t fda approved (we’ll just get you to cross the border to Canada for this procedure). There is no data on the long term effects on subsequent fertility or health.

That’s the nice altruistic, self selected western democratic version.

We’ve acknowledged the immense harm of adoption, but now as a society we’re embracing surrogacy because ahhh cute baby photos. Ffs.

And if you suggest that there should be careful monitoring of people who commission babies you’re slammed as a bigot.

We’re all complicit in this. You can’t wring your hands at the mother and baby homes, or the abuse in industrial schools and then turn around and support this.

Christ, between her and Katie Price, no-one else in the UK needs to procreate for about another decade.

It's baby trafficking. Poor kids. They should not be created just to be whipped away from their mother at birth. And yes, ripe for exploitation of women too.

We really have no idea of the long term effects for children who are taken away from their mothers at birth in these circumstances. Usually its a last resort, but this is the intention from the start.

Have there been any studies into surrogacy and the children born from it? It’s an industry that’s ripe for exploitation.

Probably controversial on this board but I think if a woman wants to use her body in that way for money and she is aware of all the risks then she should be able to do that. I don't like the idea of telling women that they aren't allowed to have children, for themselves or for others, there's a lot of policing of women's bodies and reproductive organs already.

I accept that there is research to suggest separating birth mother and baby at birth is traumatic.

As far as KK goes, yes I think that is distasteful. She already has 5 and her attitude towards the surrogate is insensitive.

I'll never forget an article I read (I think in the Times?) about Indian baby farms

I read a similar one but in a glossy magazine with an interview from the manager of the baby farm so it was all portrayed in a positive light, saying how well the mothers were looked after and how they could support their families by buying a house or starting a business with the money.

BUT despite all that it came across as really wrong. These were poor women living in poverty, with children of their own that they had to leave for 9 months. Their lives were completely controlled down to what they ate for that time. There was no mention of what happened if something went wrong.

Even worse they considered the babies as their own, even when donor eggs were used. They justified giving up their babies, who they loved, as ok as they would have a better life in the west.
I think the Indian government has put a stop to it since.

Probably controversial on this board but I think if a woman wants to use her body in that way for money and she is aware of all the risks then she should be able to do that

What if that women is living in poverty ? Is it really a choice ? People aren't allowed to sell organs.

Should mothers really be allowed to sell their children ?

I need to quote this because as an adopted person there is absolutely no support for me

maybe children and babies who are adopted now get some support but historically there is none.

Probably controversial on this board but I think if a woman wants to use her body in that way for money and she is aware of all the risks then she should be able to do that
I used to think that and was ambivalent about surrogacy overall as I used to think it was a more family and close friends thing.
Then I saw the bigger picture and observed that, like so many other things liberal feminists claim is a free choice/empowerment issue, it's disproportionately poorer, more vulnerable women making these 'choices'.

When wealthy women with lots of options make up a substantial number of women being surrogates then there's a discussion about choice, but not until then in my opinion.

Having a baby with the sole intention of giving it up.

It's so wrong.

Surrogacy a side for a bit.

really nasty post, KK is a real person not just a collection of pixels on a screen. She may not be your cup of tea but to be so spiteful about a real life woman is awful. On surrogacy it’s a practice strictly for over privileged rich women (mostly).

Our hearts bleed, eh?

Tough shit PK - if it's important enough for you then make time, make sacrifices and shoulder all the risks yourself.

So fucking selfish.

I'm on the fence about surrogacy but I'm not on the fence about KK. She makes her living being in the limelight and I have no doubt that this is a money making scheme. She has to keep coming up with new ideas. It's pathetic.

I'm so glad to have found others who agree with me. Early attachment and bonding is so important to forming those great neurons in the brain that help to develop babies brains. To take a new born from its source of comfort food and in essence life is cruel.
Adoption is necessary, surrogacy is not.

My thoughts are the same regardless of who wants to use a surrogate, eggs or, sperm from somebody else.

We stopped adoption practices of the past, slowly admittedly, because we grew to recognise the potential wounds created for the child. We recognised where somebody comes from, who they were made by and in, matters to the resulting human being. So much so that the pain of those who cannot conceive for any reason, cannot trump the pain of a person who will grow up in a context that priorities the wants of adults over the needs of children.

Why we are going through all this again with a “new tech” slant is beyond me. In many ways it is worse. This time we are creating children ON PURPOSE to fill an adult void. Like they should be grateful to be born, no matter the issues it may leave them with.

And this is somehow called progress.

Adoption today is the least bad outcome for children born into intolerable situations, with parents who absolutely cannot, or will not raise them. So we ignore how we got to that child focused place. Use technology to monetise the process, with an egg/sperm here, a uterus there and think the baby should just suck up any issues they have as they grow and think about how happy they made the people who raised them ?

If they ever get to the people who made them to raise them. War, unanticipated legal changes and unforeseen disabilities permitting.

All surrogacy should be banned. Commissioning a baby and renting a woman’s womb is wrong. These children are created with the intention of taking them away from the only mother they’ve known.

As for it being safer, what a stupid comment, but then she’s as as thick as they come, so ignorant comments like this from her are not unexpected.

In Katona’s case, she needs to concentrate on the children she already has. They’ve been exposed to lots of damaging situations already, she needs to not put them through anymore. Who on earth would be prepared to hand over a child they have carried to her? Only a woman that has been exploited.poor woman, poor child.